If one of the problems with gays is promiscuity--as the author says--wouldn't marriage and monomgamy be preferable?
Except they (homosexual men) have higher numbers of partners , even when they consider themselves "committed" to a relationship. The only thing they are really committed to is their self-destructive behavior.
Since when do marriage and monogamy go hand in hand? Obviously, they should, but a piece of paper signed by some damn clerk isn't going to stop someone from cheating on their spouse.
FWIW, there is far too little monogamy in traditional, heterosexual marriages. Why would gays fare any better?
<< If one of the problems with gays is promiscuity--as the author says--wouldn't marriage and monomgamy be preferable? >>
Unquestionably marriage would be better. But then, no one is stopping them from marrying.
Also, if they married and were monogamous, they wouldn't be homosexual anymore.
Dan
You may find this article of interest:
Dutch Decline: Losing interest in matrimony. Here's an excerpt: Since the start of the Dutch gay-marriage debate — in which gay-marriage activists successfully made the case for separating civil marriage from the legal rights and duties involved with the raising of children — the percentage of Dutch babies born out of wedlock has skyrocketed. As Stanley Kurtz has also pointed out (here and here), in the 15 years since the beginning of the long march toward gay marriage, the illegitimacy rate in the Netherlands has risen from 11 percent (1989) to over 31 percent (2003).You may find this article of interest:
Same-Sex 'Marriage' Goes to School. Here's an excerpt:And the last one for now:Imagine finding out that your kindergartner's teacher read the story Heather Has Two Mommies or Daddy's New Roommate before nap time. Having two daddies or two mommies is just the same as having one of each, she explains.
Or perhaps you'll learn over the dinner table that a special speaker visited your middle-schooler's health class. The speaker instructed your pre-teen about homosexual sex—in graphic detail. Then the speaker asked for volunteers to role-play. One student was to act the part of "a young lesbian who's really enraptured with another woman" and who's "thinking about having sex."
What's Wrong With Letting Same-Sex Couples "Marry?"
Why on earth would you think a piece of paper would make a promiscuous homosexual monogamous?
It doesn't work for heteros either ... they just don't have to pay as high a price for their promiscuity.
Best to try to stop those who are engaging in a deadly behavior.
I would target the basic behavior that is deadly. It sounds like you would attempt to allow that behavior but to control it.
That was also the argument with condoms....it has proven ineffective.
wouldn't marriage and monomgamy be preferable?
When did marriage begin leading to monogamy?
Your question was: "If one of the problems with gays is promiscuity--as the author says--wouldn't marriage and monomgamy be preferable?"
My answer: No. Don't trample my rose garden just to have a place to breed bed-bugs.
BTW - to all other readers - I'm not being snide - it's a waste of time to try to reason with these people or their syncophants. "Argle Bargle Wastes Time" is more than my screen name; it's a necessary modus operandi for survival of our society when confronted with false sophistry like this. The people arguing the case for "homosexual marriage" are willing to drag everyone else down into the mud so that they can skim on the top of it. They are consumed with self-interest and don't care about the harm they are causing and its inevitable end if we don't stop it - i.e., like spoiled children, they don't care if they cause the destruction of traditional marriage as long as they get what they want. They have resorted to devious slogans such as "How does my [gay or lesbian so-called] marriage affect yours?" to fool and sway the weak-minded and the weak-willed. (The words in [ ] don't appear in the printed slogan, but you get the idea clearly enough when you see them together - often you "get it" even if there is only one of them present.)
My short answer to that slogan is: I don't have enough space in this comment block to inform you of all of the terrible things that legalizing "homosexual marriage" will cause, nor do I care to waste my time and effort on fools and deviants who have a history of reacting to sound arguments like swine react to pearls cast before them. Short, impersonal slogans in response that clearly decry such absurdities and abominations are all that you need to say or write back to them. However, because they are likely impervious to your opinions and will spit your sound reasoning back in your face, the other things we all must do include seeking out and voting for candidates for public office who will not grant them special rights and privileges that the rest of the population does not enjoy. It may also be necessary to impeach judges who make end runs around the law, i.e., those who clearly exceed their authority on this and other subjects by legislating from the bench. There is no basis for "homosexual marriage" in either the common law or statute law. No judge has a right to misinterpret deliberately the many centuries of law and commentary on the subject to in effect alter the law. That is the duty of the legislature. In a few places civil unions have been duly authorized by elected legislatures and either not vetoed by elected governors, or, perhaps their veto was override. No matter - this is how new law must be made, not by judicial fiat - not by one judge usurping the legislatrure, et al. Judicial fiat law leads towards that "slippery slope" lawyers are so fond of warning us about. Homosexuals are nefarious to beg courts to abandon our reliance on a three-part government with its well-thought out checks and balances. Instead, they may lobby for new laws and follow those laws, e.g., form a civil union, or as some have done, they may legally adopt each other. But they may not drag my wife's wedding gown and my tux down into the mud. They would do it if they could, and they would never apologize for doing it or pay the cleaning bill, so they must be stopped by all legal means before they succeed in their nefarious quest.
No, because gay marriage isn't about ending promiscuity and encouraging monogamy. It's about getting legal rights not otherwise entitled to these individuals. This isn't about morality to them, it's about legality and politics.