Will the Homosexual Agenda become an important issue in 2012?

[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?

[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.

[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.  

[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.

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.

Actually many states have laws preventing gay people from adopting children. Gay adoption is legal in 20 states and D.C, illegal in 5, and the remaining 25 states have ambiguous laws regarding gay adoption or have not addressed the issue. In addition some states have also outlawed single people from adopting children. So yes, there is something currently preventing any person from adopting children.  

[HST1948]

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.

Your right, government doesn't need to enforce a couples monogamy through marriage, but that has nothing to do with the reason for gay people getting married. Like other marriages, gay marriage is, in one sense, a certification of a commitment that two consenting people have made to one another.  

You are acting like the gay community is the only group that has a problem with STD's.  One in two straight Americans will have an STD by the time they are 25 (more than the % of Americans who have college degrees). And in fact the lesbian community has a lower prevalence of STD's than the general population.

Gay marriage is a legal necessity for the same reason. If a gay couple adopts a child (in one of the 20 states where they are allowed to) the economic matters of child support and spousal support still apply. In addition gay marriage is a necessity for couple to be able to visit each other in the hospital, receive health insurance benefits from their partner (for example my father's employer doesn't provide health insurance by my mother's does and she can therefore put him on her policy from work), and a whole litany of other benefits that are people can only get if they are married.      

[HST1948]

I'm still not getting Milhouse's reasoning for why it is so necessary for everyone to biologically reproduce. His argument that reproduction by everyone is an evolutionary necessity is unfounded.  Evolution ONLY studies the population who are passing on their genetic information between generations and since gay people are generally not reproducing, the study of evolution does not concern itself with them.  Also, he is applying a scientific theory to a moral issue. As has long been established by the scientific community that theories and scientific laws do not address moral issues. In addition evolution, as said by Darwin himself, is only the observation "random" occurrences and natural instincts. These natural "evolutionary" instincts to not translate into some moral responsibility to reproduce.  Evolution will occur just as it has for the last 3 billion years whether the 3% of the population that is gay procreates or not.        

Secondly, in reference to Milhouse's point the the government doesn't need to enforce monogamy, he is right.  But, I NEVER said that it was a necessity.  Receiving a marriage certificate is not a necessity... for anyone... but it is something that people want as a sign and celebration of their commitment to one another.  This has nothing to do with the government certifying or enforcing monogamy.  This is about two people wanting to be treated equally under the law despite their sexuality.  Why should gay people who vote, are CITIZENS, pay taxes, and have the same jobs as straight people be denied any rights that their other citizens have.  And yes, the courts agree, that marriage is a civil right.

But, alas I am staring to fell better because every statement that Milhouse has made so far is an argument against all marriages, not just gay marriage.

[HST1948]

My point is why are 2 committed adults worried about getting approval or certified to be committed together, as if they only want to remain together because the government says they can, otherwise they will break up because there are no legal ramifications of a gay divorce.  2 people decide to be committed to each other with or without certification, it doesn't matter what other people in society think.  While I don't want to see anyone or couple face harassment because they are living in sin or having children out of wedlock, I think people no longer view a marriage certificate as essential towards validating their monogamous relationship. 

That's an argument against marriage in general, not just gay marriage.

I might be wrong, but I think HIV is more prevalent in the gay male community than in the straight community.  I don't know the percentage of condom use among the gay community or rate of promiscuouity.

But what does the spread of STDs have to do with gay marriage?  Are you suggesting that allowing gay people to marry will increase the spread of disease?  If not, what is the relevance of this line of argument?

I don't know the figures of men who have had gay intercourse in their lifetimes or if the trending increases the number of young men having gay intercourse.  But by promoting gay lifestyles is promoting gay intercourse, which will likely increase the rate of dangerous unprotected gay intercourse that would increase the rate and spread of HIV and STD in America.  But I'm sure HIV is nothing to worry about, look at Africa, no one is having gay intercourse there and all the straight couples are getting AIDS. 

Promoting only heterosexual lifestyles is also promoting heterosexual sex witch, like homosexual sex, leads to the increase and spread of HIV and STD's.  HIV is no longer the "gay mans disease" as it was in the 1980's and 1990's.  The rate of HIV in the heterosexual men has been slowly increasing over the past decade, while the prevalence of HIV in homosexual men has actually been decreasing (*Courtesy the Public Health Agency of Canada & CDC).  Canada, which allows gay marriage, has seen a steady decrease in the prevalence of HIV among gay males since they legalized gay marriage in July 2005 (this is also true for the United States. I don't attribute this to the legalization of gay marriage, but it does prove that gay marriage, and "promoting" the acceptance of homosexuality has not lead to an outbreak in STD's.    

[HST1948]

What does Eugenics have do do with the gay adgenda?

Milhouse's constant statements that people have some sort of "evolutionary agenda" to have children that has to be state-supported and funded, which apparently A. mistakes evolution from a statement that beings have an innate desire to spread their genes to the next generation to some sort of bizarre "beings have a moral obligation to try to spread their genes on," as if evolutionary instinct = an actual responsibility, and B. that the State has a vested interest in encouraging a certain level of fertility and childbirth.  The level of implied social engineering in his argument is pretty appallingly eugenicist.

I may be wrong, but I've read stories about European countries and Japan having significant birthrate problems that will affect a lot of the future social programs for the retirement of the aging population.  Just because you don't want to have kids or continue your family lineage, doesn't mean no one else should be concerned about their families and promoting childbirth.  Anyways, I'm sure in a few years, Mormons, Irish Catholics and African Americans will outbreed every one else.

You are right European nations and Japan are having problems that will at some point, but this is not due to the 3% of the population that is gay. The reason that people in these countries are not having as many children is due as much to the exorbitant cost of living as it is to anything else.

Secondly, I don't care who procreates or "continues their family lineage". People can have as many kids as they wish, and no one is stopping them.  People are free to be concerned about their families and promoting childbirth.  Gay marriage has NO effect on who else is procreating or any of their concerns. In fact gay marriage does not influence a straight persons life in the least; people are free to populate the Earth as they wish.

[HST1948]

I'm still not getting Milhouse's reasoning for why it is so necessary for everyone to biologically reproduce. His argument that reproduction by everyone is an evolutionary necessity is unfounded.  Evolution ONLY studies the population who are passing on their genetic information between generations and since gay people are generally not reproducing, the study of evolution does not concern itself with them.  Also, he is applying a scientific theory to a moral issue. As has long been established by the scientific community that theories and scientific laws do not address moral issues. In addition evolution, as said by Darwin himself, is only the observation "random" occurrences and natural instincts. These natural "evolutionary" instincts to not translate into some moral responsibility to reproduce.  Evolution will occur just as it has for the last 3 billion years whether the 3% of the population that is gay procreates or not.        

Secondly, in reference to Milhouse's point the the government doesn't need to enforce monogamy, he is right.  But, I NEVER said that it was a necessity.  Receiving a marriage certificate is not a necessity... for anyone... but it is something that people want as a sign and celebration of their commitment to one another.  This has nothing to do with the government certifying or enforcing monogamy.  This is about two people wanting to be treated equally under the law despite their sexuality.  Why should gay people who vote, are CITIZENS, pay taxes, and have the same jobs as straight people be denied any rights that their other citizens have.  And yes, the courts agree, that marriage is a civil right.

But, alas I am staring to fell better because every statement that Milhouse has made so far is an argument against all marriages, not just gay marriage.

Marriage was started as a religious ceremony, not a government ceremony, to protect the chastity of the woman until marriage and future childbirth.  It became a legal entity to allow for land ownership and inheritance to children.  I don't even believe humans are meant to be monogamous for their entire lives.  Marriage is outdated and no longer necessary to anyone.  Unless perhaps, gay people are waiting until marriage to have intercourse or to deposit the male sperm in the female egg.

The point is marriage is no longer always a religious ceremony, and the government now defines what marriage is.  As long as the government takes an interest in marriage, good law abiding, tax paying citizens should have this right (within reason).

I do agree with you on one point atleast, I believe marriage is an outdated system.

[HST1948]

Where do all these bigoted 20-year-olds live? I mean, I know I'm not necessarily representative of the average early twenty-something, but I go to a Catholic university, and even the College Republicans here are full of gays.

I think with the "gay agenda" particularly popular shows like 'Will and Grace', etc. there have been a huge growth in gay men and gay women (L Word) among high schoolers and college students.  My main concern is from a medical standpoint, in that a lot of gay men lead promiscuous lifestyles with multiple partners and no longer fear the spread of HIV, and engage in unprotected gay intercourse.  

While I think that gay marriage will likely produce more monogamous gay relationships, and slightly decrease gay promiscuity, thereby slowing the spread of HIV, the legitimizing and promoting of gay intercourse will increase the rate of experimentation and likely spread of HIV in the population.  But I guess it doesn't matter since all humans will die from Global Warming.

I don't get why everyone thinks that the popularity of gay intercourse is increasing due to the increased promotion of acceptance of homosexuality.  If anyone on this thread bothered to actually look at tangible facts, the would find that since polls have been done the % of people who admitted to being gay has remained remarkably stable (between 2% and 4%).  Some studies have even shown that the % of men who have engaged in sexual relations with other men has decreased over the past 50 years. There was a study done, although I don't know if I particularly believe it's results, that showed in the late 1950's close to 10% of the male population had admitted to have engaged in gay intercourse more than once in the past.  When you adjust this with a large margin of error, one can reasonably say that in the late 50's about 2%-4% of the population had engaged in gay relations, which is consistent with results that have been found over the past 40 years.  Just because something is uncovered, doesn't mean that it hasn't always been there.

A lot of straight men lead promiscuous lifestyles with multiple partners and no longer fear the spread of STD's and don't use condoms (more so now due to the increased popularity in of "the pill and other such female birth controls). And btw thank you for reversing your opinion on gay marriage not having an effect on the rate of promiscuity.

[HST1948]

What does Eugenics have do do with the gay adgenda?

Milhouse's constant statements that people have some sort of "evolutionary agenda" to have children that has to be state-supported and funded, which apparently A. mistakes evolution from a statement that beings have an innate desire to spread their genes to the next generation to some sort of bizarre "beings have a moral obligation to try to spread their genes on," as if evolutionary instinct = an actual responsibility, and B. that the State has a vested interest in encouraging a certain level of fertility and childbirth.  The level of implied social engineering in his argument is pretty appallingly eugenicist.

I may be wrong, but I've read stories about European countries and Japan having significant birthrate problems that will affect a lot of the future social programs for the retirement of the aging population.  Just because you don't want to have kids or continue your family lineage, doesn't mean no one else should be concerned about their families and promoting childbirth.  Anyways, I'm sure in a few years, Mormons, Irish Catholics and African Americans will outbreed every one else.

You are right European nations and Japan are having problems that will at some point, but this is not due to the 3% of the population that is gay. The reason that people in these countries are not having as many children is due as much to the exorbitant cost of living as it is to anything else.

Secondly, I don't care who procreates or "continues their family lineage". People can have as many kids as they wish, and no one is stopping them.  People are free to be concerned about their families and promoting childbirth.  Gay marriage has NO effect on who else is procreating or any of their concerns. In fact gay marriage does not influence a straight persons life in the least; people are free to populate the Earth as they wish.

But should governments have some sort of incentive plan to promote Heterosexual breeding and childbirth?  Should they promote the straight lifestyle?  Do health care providers consider gay intercourse and unprotected anal intercourse a high risk lifestyle and increase costs?  Will HIV medical coverage costs rise with the increase in HIV patients?

Again, look at tangible facts the cost of treating HIV patients has been drastically lowered since the introduction of Reverse Transcriptase Inhibitors.  If caught early enough a simple series of inexpensive "cock tales" can be administered which inhibits the HIV virus from attacking cells.  As with everything else, the higher the prevalence of a disease the more research is done, and thus new and cheaper methods of treatment are discovered. It is far more expensive to treat someone who smokes or likes to eat McDonald's everyday than it is to treat someone with HIV, provided that it is caught early enough. I don't know what the health insurance companies consider gay sex, or if they even ask, but I think that anyone involved in polygamy should pay extra for their health insurance. 

I don't think the government should promote any lifestyle, gay or straight. And this is a thread about "the gay agenda", not health care costs.

[HST1948]

My point is why are 2 committed adults worried about getting approval or certified to be committed together, as if they only want to remain together because the government says they can, otherwise they will break up because there are no legal ramifications of a gay divorce.  2 people decide to be committed to each other with or without certification, it doesn't matter what other people in society think.  While I don't want to see anyone or couple face harassment because they are living in sin or having children out of wedlock, I think people no longer view a marriage certificate as essential towards validating their monogamous relationship. 

That's an argument against marriage in general, not just gay marriage.

I might be wrong, but I think HIV is more prevalent in the gay male community than in the straight community.  I don't know the percentage of condom use among the gay community or rate of promiscuouity.

But what does the spread of STDs have to do with gay marriage?  Are you suggesting that allowing gay people to marry will increase the spread of disease?  If not, what is the relevance of this line of argument?

I don't know the figures of men who have had gay intercourse in their lifetimes or if the trending increases the number of young men having gay intercourse.  But by promoting gay lifestyles is promoting gay intercourse, which will likely increase the rate of dangerous unprotected gay intercourse that would increase the rate and spread of HIV and STD in America.  But I'm sure HIV is nothing to worry about, look at Africa, no one is having gay intercourse there and all the straight couples are getting AIDS. 

Promoting only heterosexual lifestyles is also promoting heterosexual sex witch, like homosexual sex, leads to the increase and spread of HIV and STD's.  HIV is no longer the "gay mans disease" as it was in the 1980's and 1990's.  The rate of HIV in the heterosexual men has been slowly increasing over the past decade, while the prevalence of HIV in homosexual men has actually been decreasing (*Courtesy the Public Health Agency of Canada & CDC).  Canada, which allows gay marriage, has seen a steady decrease in the prevalence of HIV among gay males since they legalized gay marriage in July 2005 (this is also true for the United States. I don't attribute this to the legalization of gay marriage, but it does prove that gay marriage, and "promoting" the acceptance of homosexuality has not lead to an outbreak in STD's.    

Well medically speaking, its been proven that anal intercourse spreads HIV more effectively, so its likely straight couples are engaging more in anal intercourse or more people are having affairs through the internet.  I have conceded that humans are weak-willed and need legal documents to force them into monogamy, otherwise, all men and gay men are horny pigs who will have promiscuous lives if they weren't tied down by marriage. 

I don't even know why HIV is increasing in Hetersexual couples and it really disturbs me.  I thought the entire point of medical campaigns was to decrease the spread of HIV.  Its really alarming for HIV to spread from gay people and drug users to Heterosexual people.

Lol. So now you believe that marriage licenses, or as you call them "documents", will force people into and promote monogamy.  Way to reverse course.

And medically speaking ALL types of sex spread HIV, you are right anal sex spreads it more effectively. The spread of HIV in the heterosexual community is due an increase in polygamy and people waiting to get older to marry and having pre-marital sex with multiple partners.   

[HST1948]

I've seen this argument before on this very board. The world milhouse is trying to promote is pretty much a genetic fascist utopia where the demand is that the population at least breaks even or increases. For what real purpose I have no idea (to take over the world of course! :-p ), because all these claims of 'oh noes the population will fall and costs will go up and we'll be poor!' are just the far side of insane and unfounded at multiple levels of evidence. You can't win against this guy as if he is ever forced to concede a point he'll move his claim a little further off. And of course, that's difficult as he'll ignore your basis of claims entirely instead falling back time and again on the genetic imperative. (why should the government care about that? society will function how it will!)

So... I ask that if you want to save your sanity, you ignore him forever.

I think I will do just that. Best suggestion on this thread so far!

[HST1948]

Serious question: This is actually the first time I've ever heard people wring their hands over a decline in U.S. population. How big of a problem would a decline in U.S. population be? Or, even, a decline in world population? How many people are we supposed to cram on this planet?

I'm far from the type to insist that we need to control birth rates or anything like that, but my god, look at this trend:



I've had trouble finding solid estimates of the maximum sustainable human population for Earth. I've seen 40 billion and 150 billion thrown about, but have also seen estimates as low as 1 billion. (One billion, as in, this current rate of growth and even this current level of population is unsustainable long-term.)

I frequently find people talking about a need to curb the world's population or find a better way to manage the boom in areas where starvation is a real issue. But this talk that we have an evolutionary imperative to stuff even more people on this planet of all is fairly new to me (and, at first glance, counter productive).

Is a tiny percentage of the population not crapping out babies like rabbits really that bad a thing? Do conservatives really want to live in hyperdense urban areas out of necessity?

Most estimates of the carrying capacity of Earth that I have learned in my Human Ecology classes are somewhere between 20 and 30 billion people.  This said, it is hard to estimate because advances in technology can certainly change/increase this number.