Which websites shouldn't be on the net?

[Az]

wow, Diss, That wasn't graphical at all.

[Ben Kenobi]

"Why is homosexual sex too dangerous when heterosexual sex isnt?"
-Lorizael

I guess the real question here is what standard am I using? What is the measuring rod that both orientations have to measure up to?

My first criticism of homosexuality was promiscuity, which is my no means limited to homosexuality.

The first question then becomes, what is the safest form of sexual behavior?

The answer for this seems to be no sex before marriage, and then lifelong fidelity afterwards.

If both people meet this standard than there is no danger from STDs. There is much less psychological harm from breakups, divorce, etc. Everything else falls short of this.

Also, this arrangement seems best to raise children in a stable home. Most couples are happy and well-adjusted. It's not just about the danger, but also about the benefits to the couple and to society.

I have not seen any arguments as to the benefits of homosexuality other than as a relief of sexual tensions.

[Mercator]

Originally posted by obiwan18
I have not seen any arguments as to the benefits of homosexuality other than as a relief of sexual tensions.

Erm... How about the happiness of the two persons involved?

Or do you see everything in the light of "the greater good" and much rather see them unhappy in a heterosexual relationship?

If two persons are happy together and in love, who are you to decide they should go do something else?

[Lorizael]

But moderating people's behavior, especially when it concerns sex, is an extremely difficult thing to do. Unless you create detachable sexual organs, people will engage in sexual activity.

I'd rather just see advances in medical technology so that sexually transmitted diseases can be prevented and cured. This way regulating the actions of humans that aren't you doesn't have to happen.

Also, fidelity does not matter in the least bit. All that matters is that everyone involved in sexual actions is totally honest. If this can be achieved, which is probably just as unlikely as enforcing total abstinence, then sexually transmitted diseases will not spread.

One step towards that goal, however, is to teach sex in a more open way at an earlier age. If this can be done, the stigma around sex can be eliminated and people will be a lot more comfortable in sexual relationships.

Right now sex is a secretive and sinful thing that children must avoid, and even health class does not do much to get rid of this idea. IMO, sex should be discussed just as freely as any other subject, and as much should be learned about it as possible, considering that it is so important an activity.

I do certainly agree that children should grow up in a stable home, which is why protection and birth control need to be advocated. I'm on the edge of requiring a liscense for childbirth, still not sure if I want that or not (my random political thoughts, don't mind this (and yes, I know it's contradictory to what I said earlier in the post, but I have my reasons, and I'm not sure about it anyway so bla bla bla)), but I do believe that parents need to absolutely make sure they are cabable of raising children before they go ahead and do it.

As I said before, homosexuality isn't about sex, it's about relationships deeper than friendship between those of the same sex. This certainly can and most often does involve sexual activity, but the sex is not the center of the relationship, the bond between the people in it is.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by obiwan18

Flip this around Boris-

Oh no need to flip it around. I agree with you. What I was arguing with Dissident was his assertion he would never do it. Of course, if he didn't enjoy it at all, he should say so to his s.o. and not be compelled to do it anymore, or they can work out a compromise (such as, *ahem,* an artifical stand-in...).

This is a side issue though- "Homosexuality isn't defined by a particular sex act, after all." Here, I agree with you Boris.

The question now becomes what is homosexuality? Or for that matter what does sexual orientation mean?

While sexual orientation is a complex thing, I don't think it's necessary to treat it as such in a debate like this. It's simply a matter of what gender one is solely or primarily attracted to, if any.

From what I can see, it is not wrong to have homosexual proclivities, the question is whether you act on them or not. By proclivities, I mean having an attraction to men. I think people are all over the scale on this, some more than others. However, where the problem arises is acting on these impulses.

This is a common argument, and it's seriously hypocritical and flawed coming from heterosexuals. Looks like you all get to have your cake and eat it too. There is no rational reason why a homosexual should deny himself intimate contact with people to whom he is attracted. It is one of our most basic and fundamental functions as human beings, and to suggest that you're allowed to do it but a homosexual isn't is self-righteous to the extreme. Beyond the fact that, being a heterosexual, you're ignorant of what it is like to be homosexual, it is also condescending of homosexuals and their relationships. It implies homosexual relationships are somehow inherently less complex, invovling and deep to gays as their heterosexual counterparts are. This is simply not true.

As for HIV transmission, the problem stems more from promiscuity than increased likelihood of transmission due to anal sex, although the vaginal walls seem more resistent.

Absolutely, it's about promiscuity, as well as unsafe sex practices. But heterosexuals are promiscuous as well, it seems, considering the skyrocketing rates of heterosexual transmissions.

Sorry Boris- condoms don't prevent HIV even for heterosexuals. Look at the difference in Africa between Uganda, and South Africa. South Africa preaches condoms, while Uganda preaches abstinence. Guess who has the worse HIV problem? Theoretically, condoms should protect people, but they break, leak, even when people use them properly.

Condoms are not 100% safe, but they are safer than unprotected sex by a huge degree, and it is damned irresponsible for people to assert otherwise. The problems in SA with HIV transmission aren't from breaking condoms, it's from a lack of education, willingness to use them and of the condoms themselves in many areas. It is irrefutable that condoms help dramatically in reducing HIV transmission.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by obiwan18
The first question then becomes, what is the safest form of sexual behavior?

The answer for this seems to be no sex before marriage, and then lifelong fidelity afterwards.

Marriage is neither a cure-all for safe sex nor an insurance of fidelity, alas. Also, people can have long-term, monogamous relationships without being married. Gays have been doing that for years (and yes, I know several longterm monogamous gay couples). Regardless, nothing here would automatically exclude homosexuals

If both people meet this standard than there is no danger from STDs. There is much less psychological harm from breakups, divorce, etc. Everything else falls short of this.

Huh? What is preventing divorce in this instance? Unless one is a prognosticator, no relationship is necessarily forever.

Also, this arrangement seems best to raise children in a stable home. Most couples are happy and well-adjusted. It's not just about the danger, but also about the benefits to the couple and to society.

And such arrangements are certainly possible for homosexual couples. There are several high-profile gay couples who are raising children in very healthy, happy environments. And statistically, surveys have shown that children of homosexual couples are very well-adjusted, certainly just as much as their counterparts raised by heterosexuals.

I have not seen any arguments as to the benefits of homosexuality other than as a relief of sexual tensions.

I've yet to see any arguments in favor of denying homosexual relationships equal status except archaic traditions and false assumptions.

However, you've ignored the chief reason why homosexual relationships should be accepted, which is the psychological health and well-being of two people who are in love and want to share their lives together without being constantly told that they are somehow lesser than others. How dare anyone denegrate the love between two people of whom they are ignorant? I wouldn't go around suggesting any heterosexual couple's relationship is somehow invalid based on their orientations, although I'm sure there are plenty of heterosexual marriages based on convenience and a blind following of tradition rather than love. But why the double standard against gays? It's irrational.

[Grrr]

Racism/ethnic/sexual/cruelty to animals.

The rest are all good IMHO. I would be really concerned if websites promoting terror/communism/fascism started to disappear ... talk about lack of freedom of speech.

[Lorizael]

Terrorism isn't about free expression, it's about using violence to send a message because you (not you) are too ignorant to think of a peaceful way.

[Grrr]

I'm not saying that terrorism is free expression ... or even that it is a good way of gathering attention.

But most terrorists DO have a cause ... which in the eyes of many paople can be seen as worthwhile ... and thus they shouldn't be muffled by some government.

[Lorizael]

My point is that promoting terrorism is different than promoting the cause or goals that terrorists may have.

[Datajack Franit]

Please stop using stupid terms as receiving oral sex because getting a deep blowjob is no way a vulgar phrase and you just don't go around telling your friends how your girl/boyfriend is good in performing "oral sex while swallowing semen"

[Lorizael]

Not your forum...

[Ben Kenobi]

I'm going to split my post. First up is Lorizael. I like saving the best for last.

"But moderating people's behavior, especially when it concerns sex, is an extremely difficult thing to do."

Lorizael, agreed. I do not say that the state should 'enforce total abstinence,' or even if the state can enforce total abstinence. I do believe the state should promote abstinence as a method of dealing with social problems.

"I'd rather just see advances in medical technology so that sexually transmitted diseases can be prevented and cured."

STD's that were once curable with antibiotics such as penicillin have grown resistent. We have always had STD's in one form or another, but never to the extent that we do now. No matter how much our technology advances, we will always face this problem.

"fidelity does not matter in the least bit. All that matters is that everyone involved in sexual actions is totally honest."

So long as STD's exist, unless you stick with one person, you are putting yourself at risk, and your partner at risk.

"One step towards that goal, however, is to teach sex in a more open way at an earlier age. If this can be done, the stigma around sex can be eliminated and people will be a lot more comfortable in sexual relationships.

Right now sex is a secretive and sinful thing that children must avoid, and even health class does not do much to get rid of this idea. IMO, sex should be discussed just as freely as any other subject, and as much should be learned about it as possible, considering that it is so important an activity."

Fine. This does nothing to fix problems such as increased STD transmission. Is our goal to encourage, 'comfortable' sexual relationships among minors or to promote the well-being of children?

Abstinence education does not treat sex as 'sinful,' just as a powerful force that has appropriate channels of expression. Appropriate in this case is to wait until you are in a committed monogamous relationship. They outline some of the hard facts, such as the chances of getting an STD, pregnancy, some of the emotional consequences as well. The kids need the facts to make an informed decision. They don't need more pressure to become sexually active.

[Maniac]

deleted

[Ben Kenobi]

Boris- good. All it took was a little flame to get to some of the better arguments.

"Absolutely, it's about promiscuity, as well as unsafe sex practices. But heterosexuals are promiscuous as well, it seems, considering the skyrocketing rates of heterosexual transmissions."

Agreed. Nowhere do I say all heterosexual sex is healthy or good. This is why this next part is so important.

"(and yes, I know several longterm monogamous gay couples). "

Boris- is this your ideal? Do you strive for this kind of relationship? I have heard some argue that it does not matter one bit. Why should gay people follow the old standards?

And what do you mean by longterm? I use lifelong as the ideal, the standard, 'till death do you part.

Finally, do you have the percentage that actually sustain a lifelong relationship?

"And such arrangements are certainly possible for homosexual couples. There are several high-profile gay couples who are raising children in very healthy, happy environments. And statistically, surveys have shown that children of homosexual couples are very well-adjusted, certainly just as much as their counterparts raised by heterosexuals."

Again, important point. Source? I have seen the opposite reported, that having two parents, a mother and a father works best.

In order to do a proper comparison, you have to compare those children raised by two homosexuals, with those who are raised by both the mother and father. If you compare a few gay families with all others you skew the results.

I will also ask about yourself- would you feel inclined to emulate this example?

"However, you've ignored the chief reason why homosexual relationships should be accepted, which is the psychological health and well-being of two people who are in love and want to share their lives together"

The key word here is 'accepted.'

If by accepted you mean treated on par with monogamous married heterosexual couples, than no.

If by accepted you mean treated on par with common law couples who most certainly are in love and want to share their lives together. Then you already have that, at least in Canada.

In either case I will still argue that to get married is superior to the other two, in terms of psychological, and physical well being of the parties involved. Marriage also encourages the production of children, something I don't see you arguing for monogamous homosexual couples.

"There is no rational reason why a homosexual should deny himself intimate contact with people to whom he is attracted."

Why is it hypocritical to argue the opposite? It is the same standard I hold for myself. There are good reasons to restrain oneself from having intimate contact with everyone whom he is attracted to.

As for all conduct, it is only rational if there is a better option out there. This is what I have been trying to argue all along. Many former homosexuals have testified that they are much happier in their new life than their old.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by obiwan18
Boris- good. All it took was a little flame to get to some of the better arguments.

This is an issue quite important to me, so petty flames are not appreciated. I'd prefer they be left out of it. Say what you mean, don't incite, please.

Agreed. Nowhere do I say all heterosexual sex is healthy or good. This is why this next part is so important.

So please stop bringing up supposed homosexual promiscuity as a rationale for delegitimizing same-sex couples. If it applies to heterosexual couples as well, it is an irrational double standard to use it as a qualification for the value of relationships.

Boris- is this your ideal? Do you strive for this kind of relationship? I have heard some argue that it does not matter one bit. Why should gay people follow the old standards?

At this point in my life, I'm not actively seeking a permanent relationship, but that has more to do with my current career and socio-economic status than my being gay. I can certainly, easily, see myself getting "married" to the right guy someday. I would at least like the right to do so.

At any rate, the "why should gay people follow the old standards" argument is flawed, as it shows you're thinking of marriage in terms of tradition. Tradition is meaningless in terms of legal rights. What matters is what is fair. If gays want to get married, for whatever reason, I believe it is their right to do so. The fact is being married carried with very important benefits that gays would like to have. In fact, it's been enumerated at somewhere like 1,400.

And what do you mean by longterm? I use lifelong as the ideal, the standard, 'till death do you part.

As I said before, I doubt you are a prognosticator. The majority of heterosexual relationships are not life-long, and that number is increasing all the time. A longterm relationship is simply one in which the two people involved intent to remain together, monogamously, for an indefinite period of time.

Finally, do you have the percentage that actually sustain a lifelong relationship?

It's fairly impossible to say, but that's due to many factors. First, gays have not had the luxury of being open for very long, so couples that have been together until they die of old age are naturally going to be rare. But that is not very meaningful, as, given the large numbers of gays who want same-sex marriage laws and take advantage of them where they exist shows, there is clearly many gays who wish to form lasting bonds. They should have that right.

Again, important point. Source? I have seen the opposite reported, that having two parents, a mother and a father works best.

In order to do a proper comparison, you have to compare those children raised by two homosexuals, with those who are raised by both the mother and father. If you compare a few gay families with all others you skew the results.

I've never seen any credible study done to support that gay parents are somehow less fit than straight parents. Here's a summary of the Hawaii case:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_pare1.htm

At any rate, if upper middle-class parents will produce healthier, happier children than those of, say, lower class parents, should the state deny poor people the right to marry? If statistics show black couples raise children better than white couples, should the state only allow blacks to marry? It's an irrational argument, because all sorts of factors effect what is best for different children. There were undoubtedly some couples who could have raised you a little better than your own parents. So should you have been taken from them and given to a "better" family?

Come to think of it, all of the f*cked up people I know are products of heterosexual homes. So what does that say?

I will also ask about yourself- would you feel inclined to emulate this example?

To have kids? Hell no, not now. That may change, but it's not for me. But what that has to do with anything? Do you really think that's due to my being gay? No, it's due to my not really liking kids or being interested in the sacrifices parents have to make. Lots of gays have kids and want to have kids. I'm not one of them.

The key word here is 'accepted.'

If by accepted you mean treated on par with monogamous married heterosexual couples, than no.

If by accepted you mean treated on par with common law couples who most certainly are in love and want to share their lives together. Then you already have that, at least in Canada.

First, you've failed to provide any consistent argument as to why it shouldn't be accepted that isn't also just as applicable to heterosexuals.

The second point is just offensive. Don't like it? Move to Canada! Why should gays have to move to another country to partake in benefits that should be theirs HERE? I guess you might like it if gays all up and left the country, but it won't happen. Would you like to be told you had to move to a foreign country to get married? Do you think it's that easy?

In either case I will still argue that to get married is superior to the other two, in terms of psychological, and physical well being of the parties involved.

What about it? Did I argue marriage was somehow bad? Dude, I'm arguing FOR marriage for gays. If you want gays to have more psychological and physical well-being, then support same-sex marriages. Gays are fighting for the right to marry precisely because they think this is true.

Marriage also encourages the production of children, something I don't see you arguing for monogamous homosexual couples.

What are you talking about? I've been saying that gay couples make perfectly fit parents. So of course I think homosexual couples should have the right to raise children.

However, I am distressed at your seemingly shallow reasoning for people getting married. In my experience, the marriages that fail most are those entered into by young people following the traditional path mindlessly, doing what is expected--getting married and having babies--without truly thinking about what they really want and if they really want to spend their lives with the other person. That's why most first marriages fail, IMO. And I've seen a lot of the screwed up kids as a result. Worse, unfit heterosexual couples can have kids by accident. At least gay couples have to REALLY want their kids, considering the legal hoops involved.

Why is it hypocritical to argue the opposite? It is the same standard I hold for myself. There are good reasons to restrain oneself from having intimate contact with everyone whom he is attracted to.

It's hypocritical if you deny homosexuals the right to marry. If you want to promote abstinence before marriage, fine--but at least then give homosexuals the right to marry and THEN hold them to your same standards. To say homosexuals are immoral because they have sex out of wedlock, and then deny them the ability to wed, is an unfair Catch-22.

You live in the hope and anticipation you will find a woman to love and wed and settle down with. Why you are so keen to deny this right to those who love their own gender is baffling.

As for all conduct, it is only rational if there is a better option out there. This is what I have been trying to argue all along. Many former homosexuals have testified that they are much happier in their new life than their old.

Ahhh, I was waiting for the "ex-gay" argument. Truly irrational. Ever wonder why groups like Exodus adamantly refuse to release any statistics on success rates? They just claim success in big ads in newspapers. Well, guess what? Ex gay groups don't work. They don't change sexual orientation, they don't permanently repress sexual desires, and they certainly don't make people happier. Remember their posterboy, John Paulk? They splashed him and his "ex-lesbian" wife all over newspapers saying gays could change, he was the proof. Where did they catch Paulk a couple of years ago? In a gay bar in Baltimore, chatting up men. Oh, how irate Exodus was and how they vanished from the national scene so quickly!

Oh, and care to know what happened to the two men who founded Exodus?

[Datajack Franit]

I know! I know! They stole every single penny from the org and fleed together to the tropical islands

[Boris Godunov]

Hehe, nope... they fell in love, left the organization, got "married" (ok, committment ceremony) and denounced it as the crock of BS it was. And, IIRC, they're still happily together.

Mental health experts have denounced such organizations as preying on vulnerable people and causing much stress (being a failed ex-gay is, after all, worse than being homosexual for some). There's also the wee little fact that psychological studies show there is no evidence that sexual orientation can be altered by will, and trying to do so is likely to cause great emotional distress while attempting to do so.

[aahz_capone]

Jesus H Christ!

You guys make something so simple seem so complex! Must be all that pent up sexual frustration. Get a "oral sex while swallowing semen" (Datajack Franit, you joker ! ) and chill!

Over here in holland, at least in my social circles, no one could give a toss what orientation you are and how that affects something or other bla bla bla...

anyway, what the hell is a "failed ex-gay" ???

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by aahz_capone
Over here in holland, at least in my social circles, no one could give a toss what orientation you are and how that affects something or other bla bla bla...

Exactly as it should be!

anyway, what the hell is a "failed ex-gay" ???

Ah gay person who tries to "convert" to heterosexuality and is unsuccessful. So in other words, a redundant phrase.

[aahz_capone]

wow! holy sh!t I didn't even know you could make up terms like that... and I'm a trekkie!

you have to be one confused talking-with-sick-fuks renegade fundamentalist wannabe to try... to convert... hetero... unsucces....

sorry, I can handle quantum mech but my brain can't grasp this concept.

This implies that there were erm... "successful" erm.. converts... They don't just get the fact that they are bi?

[Boris Godunov]

"Successful" in terms of changing orientation? No. In terms of repressing it, sure...but how can that really be a "success," since the continued sexual attraction to the same gender is a source of torment?

John Paulk certainly isn't someone I would want to imitate. Now he's ****ed up the lives of several people because of this ex-gay nonsense.

[aahz_capone]

OMG! I looked up John Paulk on google and found a torrent of (pos and neg) crap! How do people buy into this ****? If you're gay, why would you want to stop?

There's even still his original story at
http://www.anotherway.com/pages/john.html

I love this quote:
"Today, I'm happily married and I hear "man, husband, and Christian." "

Christian?!

[Boris Godunov]

The problem is that there are plenty of miserable gays, but these groups prey on them in that they attribute the misery to just being gay. Paulk was living a crappy life, but that wasn't because he was gay--it was because he was stupid and made horrible choices on how to live as a gay man. Had he been heterosexual and living the same way, I'm sure he would have been just as miserable.

But instead of doing what a normal person would do, he jumped to conclusion he had to change his sexuality to be happy. The result is a man who professes to be changed and happy on the outside, but is clearly still homosexual on the inside. In other words, a liar.

Lots of gays undergo this torture, though. That's the problem of being in an environment that treats homosexuality as something to be reviled. Of course they will fight it as much as they can. They just won't "win" that fight.

[SpencerH]

What's not there to be understood? Some people believe that homosexuality is a conscious choice (and a sin) rather than a biological difference. If you believe that, why wouldnt you try to 'help' just as you would someone who had made another bad choice such as drug use?

[Lorizael]

Assuming it's a choice, it's not necessarily a bad one.

But if it is a choice, it's certainly not a conscious one. People don't wake up and think, "You know, I'd really like to be gay!" Well, maybe some people do, but they probably don't follow through with it. And if they do, odds are they'll soon find out that they just can't do it.

[Ben Kenobi]

Boris- I have to apologise for the flame, I was tired of going around in circles, and wanted to get to some of the better arguments.

"Must be all that pent up sexual frustration."
-aaz_Capone

No comment

"The problem is that there are plenty of miserable gays, but these groups prey on them in that they attribute the misery to just being gay."

I agree with you here Boris- no one should be forced to go into counselling, it should be entirely self-motivated.
It will not work otherwise. However, those who do not want to be gay should be encouraged to leave the lifestyle. Right now, any psychiatrists who treat patients who want to change sexual orientation, can lose their licence from the APA. I don't agree with this policy at all. I think that if they were allowed to treat, that they could really help some people.

"Truly irrational. Ever wonder why groups like Exodus adamantly refuse to release any statistics on success rates? They just claim success in big ads in newspapers. Well, guess what? Ex gay groups don't work. They don't change sexual orientation, they don't permanently repress sexual desires, and they certainly don't make people happier."

Here is the response from Exodus- www.exodusnorthamerica.org

"What you are really asking is whether there is realistic hope for change for men and women who do not want their sexual orientation to be homosexual. And the answer to that is yes."

Here is another forum, not an ex-gay ministry

http://www.geocities.com/rainbowchri...on_Exgays.html

"Based on self-reporting by the patients to Schroeder and Shidlo, 14% did manage long-term to either greatly reduce or completely stop homosexual practices."

Regarding Paulk

"'We as a board wish to express our ongoing love, support, and commitment to John,' said a public statement issued by Bob Davies, director of Exodus. 'I hope that our redemptive response to this situation will be a godly example' to others, Davies continued...

"But we must not fail to recognize the power of this gesture. To Mr. Paulk, and more importantly to the thousands, maybe even tens of thousands, of others like him still struggling with their Gayness, Exodus has sent a strong message: We will be there for you even in the bad times. You can depend on us, lean on us. We will not abandon you. We are your home...

"In Christian love, we are standing with John through this time. John is our friend and we love him. It has nothing to do with public relations. But those who don't know Christian love firsthand cannot understand how it works, and why we offer it."

As for moving to Canada, I'm Canadian! What I wanted to get at was your meaning for acceptance, which I now know you are fighting for gay marriage. I find this a much more credible argument than others who argue that marriage has no benefits, which I was paraphrasing earlier.

"The majority of heterosexual relationships are not life-long, and that number is increasing all the time."

Last I checked 50% of marriages fail, which means that the other 50%, or more than 50% of those who do marry stay together, since many people remarry.

Certainly this does not take into account common-law couples, which we both agree is less than ideal. Just because people fail does not make the institution invalid. It just means there are things to work on.

"A longterm relationship is simply one in which the two people involved intent to remain together, monogamously, for an indefinite period of time."

This is what I was looking for. I'm not trying to prognosticate, I'm just looking for your ideal. You are looking for a lifelong relationship? You plan to adopt kids? These all strengthen your argument for marriage.

"supposed homosexual promiscuity?"

Boris, many gay activists flaunt their promiscuity, because they argue that this is perfectly natural. I think we both agree that homosexuals, and heterosexuals should control themselves.

"This implies that there were erm... "successful" erm.. converts... They don't just get the fact that they are bi?"
-aaz_capone

Boris, your definition of sexual orientation as the gender that one primarily prefers does not allow for bisexuality. To accomodate this, you would need to set benchmarks, saying that bisexuals are those with a split of 40/60 - 60/40 or some other number.

"Come to think of it, all of the f*cked up people I know are products of heterosexual homes. So what does that say?"

You need a larger sample size.
And a proper definition of your categories

"In my experience, the marriages that fail most are those entered into by young people following the traditional path mindlessly, doing what is expected--getting married and having babies--without truly thinking about what they really want and if they really want to spend their lives with the other person."

Agreed Premarital counselling is a HUGE benefit to sustaining healthy marriages. I'm curious, what benefits of marriage appeal most to you?

I guess the real question is what is the purpose of marriage? Why does a society want or need marriage?