Homosexuality provides a benefit to modern society.

" But marriage is and should be between one man and one woman period. A fervent minority shouldn't ask that a fervent majority accept a new definition of marriage. " You do not have to accept gay marriage, nor would a gay marriage bill require you to accept gay marriage yourself. Rather, by not having gay marriage you are forcing your beliefs in traditional marriage upon others. Aside from that, if you go back to just a little bit before the rise of the Romans, and even around that time, marriage might include a couple slave-girls on the side, or multiple wives and/or concubines. Single and long-term marriage is a fairly recent invention of Western Culture. Also, many important features, as well as the ease of getting it, is not anywhere close to the equal of marriage. " I find that your comparison of AIDS in the black community to be quite racist in a d of itself. I want to vehemently disassociate myself with any of your accusation that blacks have "8 times as high as the incidence rate among whites." This isn't exactly correct, although its higher not because they are ad you say "lower class and as a result, have less access to condoms, and other such safe sex measures." " I apologize if I came off racist. Perhaps I failed to properly explain myself. But it is true. African Americans have had significantly less opportunities in society, and are overrepresented in anything that has to do with poverty as a result. I do not like it, but I was simply saying that the causal factors can be attributed to lack of society support, and not attributed to homosexuality. If people were more accepting of homosexuality and more supportive, then we would see much lower rates. Perhaps I also misexplained, or you misunderstood education. I meant, that there is a lack of information going around about how STD's can still spread even by non-vaginal intercourse. People think they are safe, both heterosexual and straight, simply because they have no impregnation to fear. Well, there is a problem with abuse towards people of the same gender. It is often theorized that this happens because A. someone has suppressed their own sexuality, and has made this into an outlet B. someone is truly attracted to children, C. someone is a narcissist and the child looks like them when they were young, or D. they are in a position of power and hierarchy and they are expressing their dominance, and it simply happens that children of the same gender is the children they have the most access to. Women and general are more often reported as being sexually abused in general, so it is not much of a surprise that that number would be harmful. Now, to address your contention that children can be 'sexualized'. The causal factors of homosexuality are completely irrelevant. Whether it is caused by a trauma or by genetic and hormone factors is completely irrelevant. Yes we should not support rape and molestation, but it has absolutely no bearing on whether homosexuality should be accepted or the resolution. " So its heterosexuals fault because they don't accept homosexuality and that's why AIDS is a problem. We have a problem of recognizing anatomy exits and entrances and whether I accept you as you say, has no bearing on your responsibility to be accountable for you actions. I find that my reading of the CDC reports come up with different figures than yours, but that's ok I guess we will let the readers decide on the AIDS issue." We were both reading on the same CDC reports. I just happened to look at their general report on both race, gender and sexuality, and you only looked at sexuality. If you looked at gender and sexuality, you would see that it is men that have more incidences of AIDS, and the lesbian population, which are included with homosexuals, make up a very small percentage of AIDS population. And yes it is the general populations fault. Homosexuality can be beneficial for population control and adoption, but the negatives are mostly caused by a lack of acceptance. If we accept homosexuality, a lot of the causal factors for problems like AIDS and depression and suicide will show up significantly less. "So are we to believe now that married people who stay married are less free?" No. But not everyone wants to stay married their whole lives. Sometimes you don't love the person anymore. Sometimes your marriage was a green card sham. Sometimes your spouse is a gold-digger. Sometimes your relationship was simply for the children. You cannot know everyone's circumstances. In a perfect world, people would get married for love, and they would love each other until the day they die. However, this is not the case for a large number of marriages. A truly free society should be able to marry anyone capable of true consent (as in, adult humans) and leave them if they do not love them anymore, or the purpose of the marriage is no more. So although the divorce rate is not ideal, although homosexuality is in no way related to the divorce rate (unless you factor in people who divorce after coming out, but that is not significant, and the fault of those who do not let them come out at a younger age), is a sign of a more free society. Countries with low divorce rates are more often ruled by religion, and have harsh social policies and less technology, wealth, and personal freedoms. "If they love each other and consent, so incest is fine with him, but not with the sane of mind. I suppose that if one man wants to have multiple wives that old be alright too. Or if a man wants multiple men to be married that would be ok too, after all they are adults and give consent. Well incest and polygamy are an abomination as much as gay marriage for those of us who aren't mentally disturbed." You have falsely assumed that these things are assumed to be wrong. My question is, why should they be just considered wrong because we live in a Western country that had that culture? I think incest is wrong for some other reasons, mostly because of genetic defects, and perhaps simply my inherent Western distaste, but I think that Polygamy, Bigamy and Incest should receive more of a discussion than just submitting to our heritage. I encourage everyone to research Mr. James Dobson and his views. I think you will find that he is fairly crazy. ."Prior to a 1970 American Psychiatric Association convention in San Francisco, homosexuality was listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Psychiatric Disorders as a `mental illness'. The APA conventions had been disrupted by angry homosexuals for years prior to 1970, however that year's location afforded them the ability to make the necessary changes to the `status' of their lifestyle. Through harassment and intimidation they succeeded in "gagging" any opposition from the APA members. " I have a question on this. Why is a prestigious medical academy that is part of one of the fields that is most benefitting in knowledge from recent technology not so afraid of people shouting? Every time they re-update it, they get a bunch of people shouting to change it back. So why don't they? The reason is, they found out something they didn't know before. They were wrong. So they admitted it. Medicine and science have nothing they set out to prove or disprove. And if a specific researcher does, they will be found out, and everything they did will be extensively examined. "Today, children are being taught in government controlled schools that homosexuality is "just an alternative lifestyle"." I don't know what your talking about. I have a fairly large GSA in my school, and yet the only thing I have been told, is not to bully people for being gay. That's it. "If you look at the variation of sexuality of one individual and one culture, between different cultures, you see that the range of forms of sexual expression is just too varied to simply divvy up the map by saying "gay & straight"." Yes this is true. I already stated the benefits of adoption and population control.