Will the Homosexual Agenda become an important issue in 2012?

[Meeker]

There have been scientifically documented cases of birds (seagulls and penguins specifically) exhibiting homosexual behavior. Is there a homosexual penguin agenda? Do seagulls choose to be gay?

There have been documented cases of cannibalism in the animal kingdom, is that okay too?

From an evolutionary standpoint - which was the point you brought up - it's perfectly okay.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Most traditions aren't that old. The turbocharged forms of literalist Christianity that have become so influential in parts of America are remarkably new, for example.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

There have been scientifically documented cases of birds (seagulls and penguins specifically) exhibiting homosexual behavior. Is there a homosexual penguin agenda? Do seagulls choose to be gay?

In terms of whether someone chooses to be gay (assuming you're trying to make a point out of that), I don't think that that should really influence the debate on whether gay marriage is right and/or should be legal. From my point of view that's like saying someone with a tendency to steal or someone who's insane killing someone has the right to do so because they didn't choose to be insane. Not that I'm comparing gays to murderers or thieves here.

There. I said it. Forum, feel free to attack me.

[milhouse24]

The Homosexual Agenda is indeed unpopular as shown by recent votes in liberal California and Maine. So yes, Republicans can get traction out of this issue if they want to.

Unfortunately, Republicans seem too cowed by the Agenda to exploit this.

If this issue is not that important, why is it always given prominent attention way out of proportion to it's alleged unimportance by both the right and the left?

And by the Agenda I mean not only the specific movement for legalizing homosexual marriage but the entire movement to mandate societal tolerance and approval for homosexuality, of which marriage is just one stepping stone.

Anyone who thinks this is just about whether or not the miniscule proportion of people who currently consider themselves as gay can marry is kidding themselves. This is about the never-ending liberal/leftist desire to destroy the basic foundations of Western Civilization, and on that basis I do regard it as important as the other issues. 

Gay Marriage is a major issues with the Liberal Media and Hollywood, because surprise, there are a lot of Gay people in Hollywood as actors, in theater, and in journalism and academia.  So in urban elitist intellectual circles, gay people are far more prevalent than in small town USA. 

I also think a lot of people don't want to appear racist, prejudiced or mean, and want adults to be happy and in loving relationships.  However, as someone who believes in Science and Evolution, I cannot logically comprehend the purpose of gay marriage as a component of "survival of the human species" and continuing the evolution of humankind.  While I believe that true love can exist, I also believe in procreation more.  Basically if "2 gay men and 2 gay women were stuck on a deserted island and the survival of the human species depended on them mating, would they go through with it?"  So Science tells me that a gay person cannot exist in evolutionary theory. 

But I also don't believe Gay marriage will destroy society.  After all, the Earth is over-populated as Al Gore said, and there will always be men and women copulating.  There is however the issue of STD's which I think is a serious issue in the Gay community and increasing the prevalence of STD's if the Gay population increases.  But I just saw a movie about Lyme disease, and that seems to be spreading far quicker.

[Associate Justice PiT]

There have been scientifically documented cases of birds (seagulls and penguins specifically) exhibiting homosexual behavior. Is there a homosexual penguin agenda? Do seagulls choose to be gay?

In terms of whether someone chooses to be gay (assuming you're trying to make a point out of that), I don't think that that should really influence the debate on whether gay marriage is right and/or should be legal. From my point of view that's like saying someone with a tendency to steal or someone who's insane killing someone has the right to do so because they didn't choose to be insane. Not that I'm comparing gays to murderers or thieves here.

There. I said it. Forum, feel free to attack me.

     You do have a point, though that line was conceived as a counter-argument to the equally invalid conservative argument that homosexuality is a choice. Even if homosexuality were a choice, that says nothing about whether or not gay marriage should be legal, so it is a non sequitor & possibly a case of naturalistic fallacy for both the argument & the counter-argument.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

There have been scientifically documented cases of birds (seagulls and penguins specifically) exhibiting homosexual behavior. Is there a homosexual penguin agenda? Do seagulls choose to be gay?

In terms of whether someone chooses to be gay (assuming you're trying to make a point out of that), I don't think that that should really influence the debate on whether gay marriage is right and/or should be legal. From my point of view that's like saying someone with a tendency to steal or someone who's insane killing someone has the right to do so because they didn't choose to be insane. Not that I'm comparing gays to murderers or thieves here.

There. I said it. Forum, feel free to attack me.

     You do have a point, though that line was conceived as a counter-argument to the equally invalid conservative argument that homosexuality is a choice. Even if homosexuality were a choice, that says nothing about whether or not gay marriage should be legal, so it is a non sequitor & possibly a case of naturalistic fallacy for both the argument & the counter-argument.

That was the point I was trying to make.

[Mechaman]

It depends on who ends up being nominated as the GOP candidate.

If some crazy fundie gets it, oh yeah you can bet your ass they will campaign on it.
If some libertarian leaning candidate gets nominated they might spend two minutes or so talking about how we need to get the government out of defining relationships.
If Sexgod gets nominated expect "blah blah blah State's Rights blah blah blah" response.  In this fashion Sexgod both appeases the anti-gay activist branch while also helping to win undecides who worry he might be too hard on the gays.

Those are my three cents.

[Associate Justice PiT]

There have been scientifically documented cases of birds (seagulls and penguins specifically) exhibiting homosexual behavior. Is there a homosexual penguin agenda? Do seagulls choose to be gay?

In terms of whether someone chooses to be gay (assuming you're trying to make a point out of that), I don't think that that should really influence the debate on whether gay marriage is right and/or should be legal. From my point of view that's like saying someone with a tendency to steal or someone who's insane killing someone has the right to do so because they didn't choose to be insane. Not that I'm comparing gays to murderers or thieves here.

There. I said it. Forum, feel free to attack me.

     You do have a point, though that line was conceived as a counter-argument to the equally invalid conservative argument that homosexuality is a choice. Even if homosexuality were a choice, that says nothing about whether or not gay marriage should be legal, so it is a non sequitor & possibly a case of naturalistic fallacy for both the argument & the counter-argument.

That was the point I was trying to make.

     Indeed. I suppose my point was that the opponents of gay marriage are just as guilty of pushing this ultimately irrelevant angle as the proponents are.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

It depends on who ends up being nominated as the GOP candidate.

If some crazy fundie gets it, oh yeah you can bet your ass they will campaign on it.
If some libertarian leaning candidate gets nominated they might spend two minutes or so talking about how we need to get the government out of defining relationships.
If Sexgod gets nominated expect "blah blah blah State's Rights blah blah blah" response.  In this fashion Sexgod both appeases the anti-gay activist branch while also helping to win undecides who worry he might be too hard on the gays.

Those are my three cents.

Sexgod was originally Mark Warner, but he's a Democrat. So Sexgod would be Mitch Daniels except he's not running. Who's Sexgod this time around?

[HST1948]

The Homosexual Agenda is indeed unpopular as shown by recent votes in liberal California and Maine. So yes, Republicans can get traction out of this issue if they want to.

Unfortunately, Republicans seem too cowed by the Agenda to exploit this.

If this issue is not that important, why is it always given prominent attention way out of proportion to it's alleged unimportance by both the right and the left?

And by the Agenda I mean not only the specific movement for legalizing homosexual marriage but the entire movement to mandate societal tolerance and approval for homosexuality, of which marriage is just one stepping stone.

Anyone who thinks this is just about whether or not the miniscule proportion of people who currently consider themselves as gay can marry is kidding themselves. This is about the never-ending liberal/leftist desire to destroy the basic foundations of Western Civilization, and on that basis I do regard it as important as the other issues. 

Gay Marriage is a major issues with the Liberal Media and Hollywood, because surprise, there are a lot of Gay people in Hollywood as actors, in theater, and in journalism and academia.  So in urban elitist intellectual circles, gay people are far more prevalent than in small town USA. 

I also think a lot of people don't want to appear racist, prejudiced or mean, and want adults to be happy and in loving relationships.  However, as someone who believes in Science and Evolution, I cannot logically comprehend the purpose of gay marriage as a component of "survival of the human species" and continuing the evolution of humankind.  While I believe that true love can exist, I also believe in procreation more.  Basically if "2 gay men and 2 gay women were stuck on a deserted island and the survival of the human species depended on them mating, would they go through with it?"  So Science tells me that a gay person cannot exist in evolutionary theory. 

But I also don't believe Gay marriage will destroy society.  After all, the Earth is over-populated as Al Gore said, and there will always be men and women copulating.  There is however the issue of STD's which I think is a serious issue in the Gay community and increasing the prevalence of STD's if the Gay population increases.  But I just saw a movie about Lyme disease, and that seems to be spreading far quicker.

I agree with some of what you said but I disagree with you two bolded points.

A) Even if same sex marriage is not allowed people will still be gay and will not procreate. The two issues of procreation and marriage in this case are completely independent.

B) I don't understand your point about STD's.  How would allowing two adults to commit to a monogamous relationship increase the prevalence of the spread of these STD's?

[The Mikado]

I love this ridiculous "everyone needs to breed!  EVERYONE!"  thing that gets brought up as an argument against gay marriage.  I mean, there have been people that don't want children in every era. 

Hey, if you really feel that way, you should be passionate supporters of gay adoption and getting orphans into stable two-parent households.

[milhouse24]

The Homosexual Agenda is indeed unpopular as shown by recent votes in liberal California and Maine. So yes, Republicans can get traction out of this issue if they want to.

Unfortunately, Republicans seem too cowed by the Agenda to exploit this.

If this issue is not that important, why is it always given prominent attention way out of proportion to it's alleged unimportance by both the right and the left?

And by the Agenda I mean not only the specific movement for legalizing homosexual marriage but the entire movement to mandate societal tolerance and approval for homosexuality, of which marriage is just one stepping stone.

Anyone who thinks this is just about whether or not the miniscule proportion of people who currently consider themselves as gay can marry is kidding themselves. This is about the never-ending liberal/leftist desire to destroy the basic foundations of Western Civilization, and on that basis I do regard it as important as the other issues. 

Gay Marriage is a major issues with the Liberal Media and Hollywood, because surprise, there are a lot of Gay people in Hollywood as actors, in theater, and in journalism and academia.  So in urban elitist intellectual circles, gay people are far more prevalent than in small town USA. 

I also think a lot of people don't want to appear racist, prejudiced or mean, and want adults to be happy and in loving relationships.  However, as someone who believes in Science and Evolution, I cannot logically comprehend the purpose of gay marriage as a component of "survival of the human species" and continuing the evolution of humankind.  While I believe that true love can exist, I also believe in procreation more.  Basically if "2 gay men and 2 gay women were stuck on a deserted island and the survival of the human species depended on them mating, would they go through with it?"  So Science tells me that a gay person cannot exist in evolutionary theory. 

But I also don't believe Gay marriage will destroy society.  After all, the Earth is over-populated as Al Gore said, and there will always be men and women copulating.  There is however the issue of STD's which I think is a serious issue in the Gay community and increasing the prevalence of STD's if the Gay population increases.  But I just saw a movie about Lyme disease, and that seems to be spreading far quicker.

I agree with some of what you said but I disagree with you two bolded points.

A) Even if same sex marriage is not allowed people will still be gay and will not procreate. The two issues of procreation and marriage in this case are completely independent.

B) I don't understand your point about STD's.  How would allowing two adults to commit to a monogamous relationship increase the prevalence of the spread of these STD's?

A) If schools are supposed to promote Evolutionary theory, and that each individual human will do whatever is in his interests to ensure survival of himself, his family lineage, his town, and his species; then PROMOTING gay marriage as a realistic lifetime partnership counters that theory about why humans exist.  However, maybe Humans are touched by God, and the laws of Evolution don't apply to humans since we were created by God and not connected to the animals on this planet.  A Government has an survival interest in promoting procreation because more children mean more taxes paid, more children to farm, more children to support senior citizens, and basically survival of the human species.  A Government does not need to encourage or support something that does not contribute to its function.  

Marriage is a religious ceremony, specifically to publicize and certify the carnal relations between the man and the woman, usually resulting in vaginal penetration and pregnancy.  And yes, there are many straight couples today who wait until marriage to lose their virginity and have intercourse.

Marriage as and economic and legal function, power of attorney, health care benefits, retirement benefits, inheritance, can all be taken care of with a "legally binding contract drawn up by an attorney" or decided in civil court.  These are not functions that a government needs to be involved in and they are up to the private companies that are involved.  The government however does have an interest when it comes to "child support by the biological parents" and "divorce settlements between spouses"

B) I personally don't believe that Gay Marriage will stop promiscuity in the Gay Community and the spread of STDs.  Currently, there is a high rate of Gay promiscuity and STD's in the gay community; and guess what, gay people have free will to live together monogamously and they seem to choose not too.  The Government is not going to cause promiscuous gays to become monogamous.

C) Birth Control and Condoms are the primary cause of the breakdown of marriage.  Condoms have increased sexual activity with multiple partners, without condoms there would be more STDs and diseases, hence, gays would get STD's quick and faster.  In addition, modern medicine and the lowering cost of health care has allowed HIV patients to live longer.  Birth Control has allowed women to take on multiple partners and work outside the home, without the burden of raising children.  Society needs to focus more on single mothers, welfare queens, and deadbeat dads.  Think about the children first.

[milhouse24]

I love this ridiculous "everyone needs to breed!  EVERYONE!"  thing that gets brought up as an argument against gay marriage.  I mean, there have been people that don't want children in every era. 

Hey, if you really feel that way, you should be passionate supporters of gay adoption and getting orphans into stable two-parent households.

I don't think scientifically that gay adoption is even necessary.  A straight couple usually adopts if the woman or man cannot have children.  But there is nothing physically preventing a gay male or gay female from becoming pregnant, unless they are not mentally capable of intercourse with the opposite gender for the purposes of procreation.  Also, it is possible for single individuals to adopt or serve as foster parents, or even adopt relatives. 

[Mr. Morden]

But there is nothing physically preventing a gay male or gay female from becoming pregnant, unless they are not mentally capable of intercourse with the opposite gender for the purposes of procreation.

[HST1948]

The Homosexual Agenda is indeed unpopular as shown by recent votes in liberal California and Maine. So yes, Republicans can get traction out of this issue if they want to.

Unfortunately, Republicans seem too cowed by the Agenda to exploit this.

If this issue is not that important, why is it always given prominent attention way out of proportion to it's alleged unimportance by both the right and the left?

And by the Agenda I mean not only the specific movement for legalizing homosexual marriage but the entire movement to mandate societal tolerance and approval for homosexuality, of which marriage is just one stepping stone.

Anyone who thinks this is just about whether or not the miniscule proportion of people who currently consider themselves as gay can marry is kidding themselves. This is about the never-ending liberal/leftist desire to destroy the basic foundations of Western Civilization, and on that basis I do regard it as important as the other issues. 

Gay Marriage is a major issues with the Liberal Media and Hollywood, because surprise, there are a lot of Gay people in Hollywood as actors, in theater, and in journalism and academia.  So in urban elitist intellectual circles, gay people are far more prevalent than in small town USA. 

I also think a lot of people don't want to appear racist, prejudiced or mean, and want adults to be happy and in loving relationships.  However, as someone who believes in Science and Evolution, I cannot logically comprehend the purpose of gay marriage as a component of "survival of the human species" and continuing the evolution of humankind.  While I believe that true love can exist, I also believe in procreation more.  Basically if "2 gay men and 2 gay women were stuck on a deserted island and the survival of the human species depended on them mating, would they go through with it?"  So Science tells me that a gay person cannot exist in evolutionary theory. 

But I also don't believe Gay marriage will destroy society.  After all, the Earth is over-populated as Al Gore said, and there will always be men and women copulating.  There is however the issue of STD's which I think is a serious issue in the Gay community and increasing the prevalence of STD's if the Gay population increases.  But I just saw a movie about Lyme disease, and that seems to be spreading far quicker.

I agree with some of what you said but I disagree with you two bolded points.

A) Even if same sex marriage is not allowed people will still be gay and will not procreate. The two issues of procreation and marriage in this case are completely independent.

B) I don't understand your point about STD's.  How would allowing two adults to commit to a monogamous relationship increase the prevalence of the spread of these STD's?

A) If schools are supposed to promote Evolutionary theory, and that each individual human will do whatever is in his interests to ensure survival of himself, his family lineage, his town, and his species; then PROMOTING gay marriage as a realistic lifetime partnership counters that theory about why humans exist.  However, maybe Humans are touched by God, and the laws of Evolution don't apply to humans since we were created by God and not connected to the animals on this planet.  A Government has an survival interest in promoting procreation because more children mean more taxes paid, more children to farm, more children to support senior citizens, and basically survival of the human species.  A Government does not need to encourage or support something that does not contribute to its function.  


 And yes, there are many straight couples today who wait until marriage to lose their virginity and have intercourse.

Marriage as and economic and legal function, power of attorney, health care benefits, retirement benefits, inheritance, can all be taken care of with a "legally binding contract drawn up by an attorney" or decided in civil court.  These are not functions that a government needs to be involved in and they are up to the private companies that are involved.  The government however does have an interest when it comes to "child support by the biological parents" and "divorce settlements between spouses"

B) I personally don't believe that Gay Marriage will stop promiscuity in the Gay Community and the spread of STDs.  Currently, there is a high rate of Gay promiscuity and STD's in the gay community; and guess what, gay people have free will to live together monogamously and they seem to choose not too.  The Government is not going to cause promiscuous gays to become monogamous.

C) Birth Control and Condoms are the primary cause of the breakdown of marriage.  Condoms have increased sexual activity with multiple partners, without condoms there would be more STDs and diseases, hence, gays would get STD's quick and faster.  In addition, modern medicine and the lowering cost of health care has allowed HIV patients to live longer.  Birth Control has allowed women to take on multiple partners and work outside the home, without the burden of raising children.  Society needs to focus more on single mothers, welfare queens, and deadbeat dads.  Think about the children first.

First of all studies have shown that married people, both gay and straight tend to have higher incomes and pay more taxes, in addition to the money they pay for marriage licenses. So the government does have an interest in gay marriage because it generates more money for the state. And this certainly contributes to the governments function. And we have seen in China the results of rapid over population.

Secondly, marriage does not necessarily mean a religious ceremony. The Webster dictionary sitting on my desk defines marriage as "a social union or legal contract between people that creates kinship".

Thirdly, I never said that allowing gay marriage would stop promiscuity in the homosexual community, but allowing marriage certainly won't increase it.

In reference to comment "C" condoms and birth control are part of the break down in marriage, but certainly not the main cause.  The cause of the breakdown in marriage is the empowerment of women that occurred in the 1960's which allowed women to get jobs and support themselves so they didn't have to live a life of servitude in the home or be stuck with abusive husbands.

[HST1948]

I love this ridiculous "everyone needs to breed!  EVERYONE!"  thing that gets brought up as an argument against gay marriage.  I mean, there have been people that don't want children in every era.  

Hey, if you really feel that way, you should be passionate supporters of gay adoption and getting orphans into stable two-parent households.

I don't think scientifically that gay adoption is even necessary.  A straight couple usually adopts if the woman or man cannot have children.  But there is nothing physically preventing a gay male or gay female from becoming pregnant, unless they are not mentally capable of intercourse with the opposite gender for the purposes of procreation.  Also, it is possible for single individuals to adopt or serve as foster parents, or even adopt relatives.  

Lol. It seems that your understanding of reproduction is even worse than your understanding of the evolutionary theory.

And I agree with Mikado's statements.  There are plenty of children who would be better of to be placed in a stable household through adoption and loved , even if the adoptive or foster parent(s) is (are) gay.

[pbrower2a]

A) If schools are supposed to promote Evolutionary theory, and that each individual human will do whatever is in his interests to ensure survival of himself, his family lineage, his town, and his species; then PROMOTING gay marriage as a realistic lifetime partnership counters that theory about why humans exist.  However, maybe Humans are touched by God, and the laws of Evolution don't apply to humans since we were created by God and not connected to the animals on this planet.  A Government has an survival interest in promoting procreation because more children mean more taxes paid, more children to farm, more children to support senior citizens, and basically survival of the human species.  A Government does not need to encourage or support something that does not contribute to its function.  

Evolution is scientific fact, just like Newtonian physics (with relativistic qualifications), the gas laws, and the atomic theory of matter. Science has no moral lessons to teach. Science can tell one the effects of giving a cyanide pellet to a victim; morality tells one not to commit murder.  

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It is possible to have an atheist marriage. Think of this: no Commie state, however militant its official atheism, ever outlawed marriage. The rest says much about your prurient interest in sex.

By the way -- many marriages are done in which there is no possibility of any pregnancy, In fact there is much sex that can never result in a child. Do you have problems with marriages involving the elderly, let alone elder sex?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Marriage has values other than legal formalities.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In view of AIDS, promiscuity among gays has become a dangerous habit. Lesbians seem to have very low rates of AIDS. But let us remember -- few jurisdictions have decided that marriage is a good way of promoting monogamy.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Bullhist! Birth control can lead to more sex and hence a stronger personal bond within a couple.

Marital infidelity can wreck a marriage. But I have seen other causes, like spousal abuse and "mental cruelty". Some marriages are mistakes from the start, which relates heavily to people getting married in their teens. I have known this one:

"We are having financial problems and you are spending money on... a boat? a motorcycle? camping gear? an expensive hobby? expensive jewelry? You ask me to make sacrifices, yet you can't think of anything more than that damned piano?

 

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Why is it that this thread is making me more and more wary of just anyone being able to breed. There are some "dropped on the head genes" that should not be passed on.

[HST1948]

Why is it that this thread is making me more and more wary of just anyone being able to breed. There are some "dropped on the head genes" that should not be passed on.

Thank you!!! Someone finally said exactly what I believe. I mean really, we make people take a test to drive and we make people prove that they have enough income to be responsible home owners , yet to raise children there are no prerequisites.  

[The Mikado]

[Lambsbread]

You're very arrogant.

[pbrower2a]

Why is it that this thread is making me more and more wary of just anyone being able to breed. There are some "dropped on the head genes" that should not be passed on.

Madness and stupidity are two different entities.  The stupid are at least easy to control.  Madness is impossible to control because it often has its own competence.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Why is it that this thread is making me more and more wary of just anyone being able to breed. There are some "dropped on the head genes" that should not be passed on.

Madness and stupidity are two different entities.  The stupid are at least easy to control.  Madness is impossible to control because it often has its own competence.

Did you get that from a fortune cookie?

[milhouse24]

I love this ridiculous "everyone needs to breed!  EVERYONE!"  thing that gets brought up as an argument against gay marriage.  I mean, there have been people that don't want children in every era.  

Hey, if you really feel that way, you should be passionate supporters of gay adoption and getting orphans into stable two-parent households.

I don't think scientifically that gay adoption is even necessary.  A straight couple usually adopts if the woman or man cannot have children.  But there is nothing physically preventing a gay male or gay female from becoming pregnant, unless they are not mentally capable of intercourse with the opposite gender for the purposes of procreation.  Also, it is possible for single individuals to adopt or serve as foster parents, or even adopt relatives.  

Lol. It seems that your understanding of reproduction is even worse than your understanding of the evolutionary theory.

And I agree with Mikado's statements.  There are plenty of children who would be better of to be placed in a stable household through adoption and loved , even if the adoptive or foster parent(s) is (are) gay.

If a gay man can produce sperm and a gay woman has a functioning uterus, they are biologically able to have children, they just choose not to biologically get pregnant with the opposite gender, so they are not adopting out of necessity but out of choice.  But there is nothing currently preventing any person from adopting children, gay or straight.

[milhouse24]

A) If schools are supposed to promote Evolutionary theory, and that each individual human will do whatever is in his interests to ensure survival of himself, his family lineage, his town, and his species; then PROMOTING gay marriage as a realistic lifetime partnership counters that theory about why humans exist.  However, maybe Humans are touched by God, and the laws of Evolution don't apply to humans since we were created by God and not connected to the animals on this planet.  A Government has an survival interest in promoting procreation because more children mean more taxes paid, more children to farm, more children to support senior citizens, and basically survival of the human species.  A Government does not need to encourage or support something that does not contribute to its function.  

Evolution is scientific fact, just like Newtonian physics (with relativistic qualifications), the gas laws, and the atomic theory of matter. Science has no moral lessons to teach. Science can tell one the effects of giving a cyanide pellet to a victim; morality tells one not to commit murder.  

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It is possible to have an atheist marriage. Think of this: no Commie state, however militant its official atheism, ever outlawed marriage. The rest says much about your prurient interest in sex.

By the way -- many marriages are done in which there is no possibility of any pregnancy, In fact there is much sex that can never result in a child. Do you have problems with marriages involving the elderly, let alone elder sex?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Marriage has values other than legal formalities.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In view of AIDS, promiscuity among gays has become a dangerous habit. Lesbians seem to have very low rates of AIDS. But let us remember -- few jurisdictions have decided that marriage is a good way of promoting monogamy.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Bullhist! Birth control can lead to more sex and hence a stronger personal bond within a couple.

Marital infidelity can wreck a marriage. But I have seen other causes, like spousal abuse and "mental cruelty". Some marriages are mistakes from the start, which relates heavily to people getting married in their teens. I have known this one:

"We are having financial problems and you are spending money on... a boat? a motorcycle? camping gear? an expensive hobby? expensive jewelry? You ask me to make sacrifices, yet you can't think of anything more than that damned piano?

 

I don't really understand why a couple needs to government protection to enforce monogamy in their relationship.  Are you afraid the other person will cheat so you require a marriage certificate?  Monogamy is a choice between 2 consenting adults, regardless of what the government says.  Two non-married adults can be in a committed monogamous relationship for their entire lives.  I just don't think the government is needed to enforce monogamy.  Humans have plenty of free will to decide if they want to be monogamous.

I don't think gay marriage solves anything in the gay community.  It may make some weak willed gay people monogamous because now they have a legal contract.  But I think the prevalence of STD in the gay community is alarming and a potentially dangerous epidemic that shouldn't be promoted. 

Straight marriage is a legal necessity when it comes to economic matters of child support and spousal support.  In the event of pregnancy, most fathers feel the need to economically support the well being of the mother and child, and legally claim financial responsiblity.