Should homosexuality be illegal?

If the mother and father are legally obligated by birth to provide and care for that child- why do care whether they get married?

Oh right- even though obligated you notice that married couples tend to be more stable and provide for their children- regardless of whether or not those children are their biological children or not.

So why are you opposed to the marriage of a same gender couple with two children- but not opposed to a single mother with children marrying a man who is not the father of the two children?

 

The facts are quite thick. They indicate far more transmissions occur during vaginal sex.

 

I have never defined anus sex as the origin of HIV: just a very significant risk where disease transmission is concerned. That HIV is a Simian (monkey) origin disease is also not in dispute: these facts are water under the bridge.

All I'm trying to say is that whereas the government is expected to subsidise HIV and other lifestyle diseases, the government has the right to take measures to reduce its costs burden. In Singapore, given the high degree of HIV spread amongst homosexuals, my government should consider banning anus sex to keep healthcare cost down:

 

So does that mean you would be OK with homosexual marriage as long as the male participants promise to use adequate lubrication and practice safe sex?

 

Cure?

The HIV problem has plagued sufferers for the longest time and is constant able to mutate. BTW, we haven't even found proper cures for influenza nor the common cold and remain heavily dependent on vaccines against measles , small pox, chicken pox viruses etc, so I wouldn't hope too hard for a HIV cure: the bugs seems always one step ahead of science.

And U know the names of pharmaceuticals , majority would rather bleed U dry by promising a new drug for every new mutation that HIV presents. Better be safe than sorry in this instance I guess.

 

Many developed countries are facing a baby SHORTAGE: silver TSUNAMII, increased aged dependency ratios etc and pensions / healthcare funding crisis.
To legislate same sex marriage would thus be detrimental to population growth and the payment of pension plans, not to mention administratively troublesome (more marriages and more messy divorces to handle, legitimisation of anus sex with its unnecessarily burdensome + high healthcare costs to society): in short, same sex marriage is unhelpful to national stability and prosperity in the long run.

The long term good of society should be considered before any new policy such as same sex marriage is considered.

BTW, one reason for dissolution of a normal (heterosexual) marriage is non-consumation of the marriage. So by this fact, to allow same sex marriage would be to either turn the consumation clause on its head or to promote anus sex which cannot be for the good of society or the strength of a country.

Same sex marriage is thus to be AVOIDED unless one is all out to BANKRUPT one's own country.

 

You do realize that homosexuals probably will not procreate even if you deny them same-sex marriage don't you? (Have you had Biology class yet?)

So how does denying them same-sex marriage affect the population??

 

My post has been edited since your last visit and U might want to check out the edits.

Suffice to say, marriage certification is a privilege and not a right. The duty government is also to safeguard to $ reserves and strength of the country against foreign invaders etc.

In sofar that same sex couples are by definition unable to reproduce off spring to support the army, economy etc, there is zero basis to reward such relationships the privileged status of a licensed marriage and it's attendant pro-procreation benefits. To do so would dilute the benefits accrued towards the future strength of the country and herald the demise the nation's strength and stability and herald the end of her state as a sovereign independent state.

 

What a silly thing so maintain. SSC can reproduce. They often do.

That you don't know this speaks volumes about you.

 

They can only reproduce via purchased sperm (for female same sex couples) or donate sperm (2 males)/ surrogate female.

Maybe if society REALLY wanted to go down that route, religious teachings aside, then a careful way would be to see if ethics board would approve an experiment or else look towards the experience of other countries before trying out.

Unfortunately, to allow a child to be brought up in a homosexual environment might still constitute CHILD ABUSE because the child might get the wrong impression that anus sex is okay without realising his very very high risk of contracting HIV and live a dismal, impoverished life IRREVERSIBLY WRECKED by HIV disease.
========================
SEXUAL TRANSMISSION
HIV transmission risk during anal sex 18 times higher than during vaginal sex
Roger Pebody
Published: 28 June 2010
..
The risk of HIV transmission during anal intercourse may be around 18 times greater than during vaginal intercourse, according to the results of a meta-analysis published online ahead of print in the International Journal of Epidemiology.
...
http://www.aidsmap.com/HIV-transmis...-higher-than-during-vaginal-sex/page/1446187/

 

Thanks for admitting you lied when you said they couldn't reproduce.

 

U might want to reappraise my full post rather than be too quick on the keyboard.
In future, U might want to seek clarification in a more courteous way.
Thank you.

 

He's just seeking justification for his prejudice.

- - - Updated - - -

You did lie when you said they can't reproduce. None of your pointless blather aside from that is relevant.

 

A far greater danger awaits a child that grows up in a house with obese people or people who smoke

- - - Updated - - -

SCOTUS declared marriage a RIGHT in the Loving case. You legal opinion is noted and dismissed.

 

You don't think there are opposite-sex sham marriages out there? Hell, Britney Spears was married once for a grand total of 53 hours. But it was to a man, so perfectly valid in your book, I'm sure. How about this: It's none of your damn business. How's that work for you?

What kind of punishment would you recommend for gayness?

Am I the only one who sees the laughable contradiction here? You have the nerve to sit here and tell us you think we should go back to the good ol' days and make homosexuality illegal and then in the very next breath pronounce that the American legal system is about freedom? Can I have some of whatever it is you're smoking?

 

What you do in private with other consenting adults is nobody's business. Frankly, we should just get government our of the marriage business altogether. Marriage is a social and cultural tradition. We allowed government to co-opt it (mainly to prevent mixed-race marriages back in them good ole days), and now the social engineers are upset because they can no longer impose their state-sanctioned discrimination on people they don't like.

 

It is a breathtaking contradiction, is it not?

A leap of logic Evel Kneival would envy.

 

Why don't you just worry about your own lusts and leave everyone else alone.

Except in the 50 states where they can.

Now you're just making word salad.

 

You have hit the nail on the head. The party of 'smaller government' is a contradiction in itself.

 

Ah, couldn't think of a better choice of words.

 

Why is it any of your business what consenting adults wish to call their relationship?

 

Great quote by Goldwater. But I think it was "you don't have to be straight, you only have to shoot straight." What we have today in modern conservatism is closer in form and function to theocratic authoritarianism than it is to the Goldwater school which would rightly be called classical liberalism.

 

Are you willing to add Muslims to that list? As in "A Question for Christians/Muslims/Conservatives?"

 

I get three cocktails into my wife and she lets me get p l e n t y perverty.

And it too is addictive. You want me in jail as well?

 

Sure....but I thought we were talking about America.