You miss th e point altogether, Ake. Evidently you would like to have some Cloud Chief decree how people may live and what should happen.

Some of us cleave to a different model. Equal rights under the law, and personal responsibility for the consequences.

Your argument, extended, would make the Founding Fathers responsible for revery hurtful thing ever said, because they made alegal principle of free speech. These are two different things, man.

The right to legal blessing does not relieve married people of personal responsibility for how they live their lives. But it DOES, as Don pointed out, tend to reduce the incidence of promiscuous transmission of STDs. Why is that hard to understand? Why do you think homosexuality, by its nature, is any more prone toward promiscuity than heterosexuality? I have seen huge amounts of promiscuity among heteros. I fail to see why you think homosexuals would be any more promiscuous. In fact, given that hetero sexuality is so much more heavily promoted in ads and magazines and such, it would probably be mor einclined to promiscuous behavior.

So I don't think your arguments hold much merit here.

Obviously, given the mechanics involved, homsexual sex will probably include a higher frequency of anal penetration than hetero sex. Not exclusively, of course, but greater. If said homosexuals are in a monogamous relationship, with legal structural support, the chances of this being a transmission vector are greatly reduced. Not increased.

A