Homosexual Marriage and Lifestyle: Detrimental and Not Necessarily About Equality.

Being a homosexual in America pretty much sucks for the most part. I won't deny that. AIDS runs in the community and they are heavily discriminated against. That doesn't make them detrimental to society. You assert that homosexuality equals having multiple partners at a time. It's not the same thing. If you wanted to argue that having multiple partners at a time is detrimental to society, that should have been your topic. There is a plethora of reasons why homosexuals might have multiple partners more frequently (they by no means have a monopoly on it). One is that they are not allowed to by married. Another is that they are more prone to question traditional relationship structure. That doesn't mean that "the homosexual lifestyle" involves having multiple partners. The "homosexual lifestyle" is simply living out your life having sex with the same gender. I hope you realize that labeling people by sexual orientation at birth is both unnecessary and impossible. You claim that gay sex is detrimental to the individual because of the risk of contracting AIDS. It really doesn't matter what we say here. It's there choice to go for it or not. But keep this quote in mind: "A ship in the harbor is safe, but that's not what ships are built for." They are fighting for gay marriage because it IS about equality. And you are generalizing to this absurd degree. You find a stat that says gay people are more likely to sleep around, and then you assume that all gay people are utterly incapable of living a monogamous life. It's absurd. You're right about the sex defining a good relationship. What I should have said was that people fall out of love. I used the Mosuo people to demonstrate a society with less constricting marital laws. You've provided no evidence of the benefits of society to a heterosexual marriage. Children don't come from marriage. They come from sex. And raising your children together does not rely on a ceremony. The difference you didn't point out is societal acceptance. That perhaps is the largest factor in raising a child: his/her family status. I didn't know Unwin study involved the Roman Empire. To claim that the Roman empire fell because of homosexuality would have to be the stupidest thesis I can imagine. I'm not going to argue that AIDS is not harmful to society. However gay sex did not create AIDS. There is nothing inherently about gay sex that makes it riskier than hetero sex. It's just that diseases have spreading patterns and AIDS started with the homosexual community in the US. To say that the homosexual lifestyle is wrong because of AIDS is like saying playing outside is wrong because of car accidents. That study on children in a homosexual household doesn't factor out societal pressure in its conclusions, so it is as much about the inherent nature of being raised that way as it is about society's treatment of people being raised that way. It's just statistical gathering and doesn't factor in aspects such as bullying, making friends, teacher-student interaction, etc. Regarding your source in the comment section, it's hardly convincing. There source references one anthropologist by who conducted his research by looking at statistics and ascribing an imaginative explanation to it. The only data he was basing his opinion on was the correlation between registering homosexual partnerships (not marriage) and children being born out of wedlock in Scandinavia. The source does even mention that there was a rise in out-of-wedlock babies before the legalization of gay marriage in 3 out of four countries. But also, the source mentions nothing about crime. In the US, we can see how children raised in broken homes are more likely to commit crimes, but the out-of-wedlock kids they are talking about are still living with both their parents. They just see no reason to get married right away. Typically they do get married by their second child. There is no evidence that marriage is any better for society over cohabitation. I should have asked what gives the grounds to decide that gay sex isn't normal, my bad. You state biological purposes. Yes, things are developed to do a certain thing. The trunks of trees are developed to hold its leaves up high where it can reach the sunlight. We chop up those trunks and use its wood to make chairs, houses, guitars, etc. We're using something in a way that it was not originally designed to do. Is that wrong. Innovative ideas are what keeps this world spinning, and if gay men want to stick it up the butt, well, God bless them! Freedom of speech won't be restricted. Your religion should not serve as a legitimate excuse to discriminate and cause harm to people. Being called intolerant is not you losing your freedom of speech; it's them exercising theirs. Businesses are not allowed to discriminate. Simple. Locking up people for crimes does not harm society. Not recognizing those crimes harms society. Medical insurance premiums and social security taxes: there is no loss of assets here. If more money is going into the system, more money is going to come out of the system. You act like it's a loss to society if it goes to gay people (I'm not an expert, but that's what you are claiming will happen., so we'll go with that). Gay people are part of society as well. Employee benefits going to employees: I fail to see the problem there. I don't think anybody would be petty enough to adopt a kid for self-validation. Children should always be allowed and encouraged to question what is being said to them. Talking about the issues is very important. Bullying is a serious issue, and the indoctrination to hate gays is what needs to be curbed. I don't see how being a team soldier in the military is detrimental to society. Thanks for allowing me to go through all of that... strength in length I guess.