Will the Homosexual Agenda become an important issue in 2012?

[milhouse24]

I don't really see gay marriage as a big issue either way.  Sure there are die hard straight liberals that want gay marriage, but its just not a strong demographic group.  I don't think the rest of the straight citizens care at all, and some people are just puzzled by what exactly does "gay marriage' entail legally since couples can live together anyways.  However, the more marriages, the less spousal support ex-husbands have to pay, lol!

[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.

[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. 

[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.

[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.

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.  

I'm not sure if there is a backlog of orphans waiting for adoption or foster kids.  But my basic premise is that a gay person can still biologically have children with the opposite gender provided they are medically able to have functioning parts; they just choose not to have any biological children.  But I think with adoption its also been ruled that biological sperm donors need to pay child support in the event the gay couple divorces.  A gay couple or single person can also have a private adoption through another straight couple, I don't believe there is a law preventing a person from accepting an adoption if the child is directly given to them.  I just think there are ways a gay person can obtain a child if they really want one.

[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.

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.      

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. 

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. 

I think its kinda scammy to get health care benefits based on marriage but its up to the HMO's to decide.  I think the reason wives got health insurance is because in the past they were not working or did not have full time jobs.  The wives needed the health insurance because they were home raising children.  Like in the Adam Sandler movie, its a ridiculous premise for a gay couple to get married for health insurance or other financial benefits.  But universal health care would make that a moot point.

[milhouse24]

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. 

[milhouse24]

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.

[milhouse24]

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.

[milhouse24]

I am not a troll or an old fogey.

I am a 20 year old who is enraged and disgusted by the homosexual agenda.

I will resist the Agenda as best as I can for the rest of my life.

Of course evolutionary theory dictates that passing on genes is the fundamental purpose of life. If your morality excludes that, it isn't good morality.  

Of course the homosexual agenda is driven at the top by non-homosexuals with a destructive agenda.

If the economy never recovers, we'll all be poorer but we'll survive. But if we don't defeat the homosexual agenda, our nation's very existence will be in mortal peril.  

Let's do some math here people. If the Homosexual Agenda is completed and homosexuality is elevated to an identical level with heterosexuality, it wil lead to the gradual growth of the homosexual population to the point where it might be close to half, which would not be surprising considering how hard liberals have worked to confuse gender roles. Those people will by and large not reproduce. Less reproduction is less population, less population has obvious negative effects, particularly if it is "top heavy" with a lot of old people instead of young people.

Maybe you don't believe homosexuals will be half. Let's say 10% instead. Unless the other 90% compensate by having more kids, this will also lead to destruction because 10% of those kids will be homosexual and so on and so forth.

Let's say hypothetically you have a population of 50,000,000 males and 50,000,000 females. If they reproduce at replacement level (2 kids)  there would be 100,000,000 replacements, also 50,000,000 males and 50,000,000 females. But let's say 10% are homosexuals and do not reproduce. That would mean only 45,000,000 males and 45,000,000 females. The next generation would be 40,500,000 males and 40,500,000 females. We have already lost 19% of the original population.

I rest my case. The Homosexual Agenda is indeed one of the greatest threats we have ever faced.

You speak as if population growth should be the ultimate priority of a society, above even human happiness. If this is indeed the case, there are more important steps that can be taken than stopping the 'homosexual agenda': legalizing polygamy and marital rape, lowering the marriage age to 13, restricting or eliminating access to birth control and prevention, and forbidding women from receiving an education or working outside the home, just to name a few. Why don't you spend more time talking about these very important issues?

I agree with you that polygamy should be legalized.

[milhouse24]

Of course evolutionary theory dictates that passing on genes is the fundamental purpose of life. If your morality excludes that, it isn't good morality.  

Again, you reinforce my sig.

Darwin and his successors never intended to put that tinge of moralizing into the statement that beings have the desire to pass their genes on, and, in fact, survival of the fittest presupposes that quite a few people are not said fittest and will not pass their genes on.  Survival of the fittest is supposed to be a description, not a moral judgment.  It doesn't make you "right" if you do breed or "wrong" if you don't.

Does that mean if a person is gay and not bisexual, then that gay person is unfit to breed - physically and mentally speaking of course. 

In the old days, having children was important to land ownership, but I don't think owning land is a big issue today. 

Does that mean gay people self selectively remove themselves from the gene pool?

[milhouse24]

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 promiscouity, 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.

[milhouse24]

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.

[milhouse24]

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?

[milhouse24]

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.   

There will be more monagamy among gay people, but by promoting gay experimentation, promiscuity will increase among the young and single gay people.  I'm hesitant to support or promote gay experimentation of men on men for a few medical reasons.

I believe that the Red Cross and donating blood is essential to society.  The Red Cross discriminates against gay men by not allowing any male who has had male on male sexual contact and anal intercourse from donating blood because it can potentially spread HIV. 

So I hope to encourage everyone to donate blood if you are healthy and this is also helped if there is less male on male intercourse and not more. 

[milhouse24]

HIV is tough to spread if you aren't engaging in homosexual behavior, IV drug abuse or visiting prostitutes.  Its just a scientific fact.

As a HIV prevention volunteer I can assure that is not 'scientific fact' and giving someone such advice is potentally harmful to their sexual health.

Assuming someone is not in the relatively short sero-conversion period would you mind telling us, on average, how many heterosexual contacts one would have to have amongst healthy subjects in order to become HIV+?

It depends on the prevailance of it, as you should well know. Infection rates in terms of how it can be passed (or not past) are generally the same regardless of sexuality, but something that is concentrated amongst the gay male community in an American city is going to have the ability to spread amongst gays in the same manner in which it is likely to spread amongst straights in a Botswanan village.

Wrong.  Which is why I posed the question.  All things being equal heterosexual transmission is far less likely than homosexual transmission.  This is a scientific fact.  The epidemiology of HIV transmission in Botswana is NOT the same as the epidemiology of HIV transmission amongst Western males.  ANYONE that does serious work in the HIV/AIDS area knows this.  This is not debated amongst experts.  Only lay people with an agenda who do not read scientific literature promote these incorrect views.


I hope you are not posing as an "expert" at your day job and spreading these false views.

For some crazy reason, east africans practice dry sex, which dries out the woman's vagina and while hurting the woman more, it supposedly give the man more pleasure.  Thus why dry sex and anal intercourse increase abrasiveness, cuts, bleeding, and transfusion of HIV and other viruses quicker.