Although the stats are complicated by the fact that both gay and lesbian relationships are, at least based on the ones I know, more likely to be not strictly monogamous than heterosexual ones. (But don't tell George Bush that, please.)

I think a lot of people are talking around the real issue, which is that they find homosexuality and homosexual sex icky. Which is becoming an unacceptable thing to say in polite circles.

There is this. I also think it is plain, old-fashioned political expediency, as turning this into an issue a) keeps everyone distracted from the economy, the Not!WMDs and the overall frelled up mess that is Iraq (which, in part, was something to distract us from the mess that is Afghanistan), b) gives Bush, Inc. a big stick to whack the democrats and moderate republicans with, and c) gives Bush, Inc. an even bigger stick to whack Dean with if he gets the nomination, since he's from that hotbed of sin, Vermont.

I looked up where I got my figures from, and it included diagnostics and drugs like Viagra along with funds for fertility procedures, so it comes out looking like a lot more is paid for by insurance. It is mostly out of pocket, though a married couple already has the financial breaks to make it easier to pay out of pocket.

I think one of the issues about marriage that's coming up is that homosexual sex is obviously not meant for procreation. Even if a het couple is older or using birth control, there is still a chance that they could conceive. Actually, since birth control isn't externally obvious, one could imagine that every het couple isn't having the dirty sweaty sex for fun, but in order to produce a baby. A gay couple marrying pretty much means that one has to think of them having entirely non-biologically productive sex.

A gay couple marrying pretty much means that one has to think of them having entirely non-biologically productive sex.

Which comes back to "gay sex is icky".

That 65-year-old woman isn't going to have a baby, ever. Maybe she's protected by "grandmothers never have sex".

But if you read your bible, it has old women getting pregnant. God just has to personally intervene to get her knocked up. Presumably, God would not do this for gay couples. And it also goes into passing laws against sodomy and oral sex, since they are sex that's pretty much entirely for recreation with any couple. No matter how fertile a woman is, odds are against her getting pregnant from cunnilingus.

I think that when those sodomy laws were actually passed, a couple of hundred years ago, it really was all about reproduction. I don't think that's the case any more, and I have a hard time seeing any kind of social taboo these days against heterosexual people who have non-procreative sex.

But these people aren't making a Biblical argument, they're making a natural-law argument. Gay marriage is wrong because it can't make babies. Gay marriage is wrong because it leads to adultery.

Neither of those natural-law arguments is consistent with the modern Western approach to heterosexual marriage. Therefore the opposition is based on something other than natural law. That something else may indeed be Biblical.

[Actually I think this is Utilitarian rather than natural law. Mongo is ignorant of the ways of philosophy.]

Then by that logic, they should make birth control illegal for married couples, or declare marriages invalid if they couple doesn't produce children, or have to proof of trying to conceive within a certain amount of time. And fertility tests should be required to get marriage licenses. Oh, and to cut down on fornication, single people can't have birth control either.

Fay, did you DRINK the gross milk??

I did. Or at least, I got through half of it. I'd just arrived in Iasi, having spent 8 hours travelling in the sleeping compartment of a lovely, antiquated train, lying top-to-toe (8 of us in a 6 person space), unbelievably hot and sticky, after spending 12 hours in Bucharest train station. When we arrived at Iasi and went off with our respective host families, we were tired and smiley and thirsty and I entirely forgot the fact that one of our party had warned me to refuse milk if offered it, as it would be sour. When the lovely host family asked if I wanted tea, coffee or milk, a vision of a glass of ice-cold milk sprang to mind and I said milk. And milk came. And it was sour. And I drank it. Or at least, I managed half of it. And I was not sick.

A gay couple marrying pretty much means that one has to think of them having entirely non-biologically productive sex.

I'm a freak for finding this sexy, I know. Nothing to see here. Carry on.

That 65-year-old woman isn't going to have a baby, ever. Maybe she's protected by "grandmothers never have sex".

Depressingly, I'm perfectly sure she is protected by "grandmothers never have sex."

Then by that logic, they should make birth control illegal for married couples, or declare marriages invalid if they couple doesn't produce children, or have to proof of trying to conceive within a certain amount of time. And fertility tests should be required to get marriage licenses. Oh, and to cut down on fornication, single people can't have birth control either.

I'm pretty sure Scalia hates Griswold v. Connecticut, which struck down a law preventing married couples from using birth control.