>>I figure in his case it's not because he was gay, but because the society doesn't provide for stable life at older age for all - just for straights. Getting old together as a mixed couple is fine, the two get the benefits and respect. Others are forgotten.
>
>Basicaly speaking the gay orientation is based upon a cult of body.. There is exeption? for sure yes.. But when we talk about a subject, the exeption are exeptions.. So a big point in common is what is produced after our choices.. The fruits.. At gays lifes, there is couples running their lifes nicely in full love.. I do believe so.. But, the rule itis NOT.. So the word gay for homosexual life is a big lie.. The exactly word it should be VERYSAD life..
>
>almost no fellowship.. only the use of the other to fillitup their own needs..

It's amazing that they don't form a community, show little solidarity and generally don't put up much of a collective defense against the way the society persecutes them. OTOH, being outcast, and probably often in doubt about themselves (under all the pressure that's thrown upon them), they can't really be a revolutionary organization which would have a goal, method, and take care of their own.

And since they aren't entitled to a legal union, I figure they wouldn't feel the pressure to stay together. Let's face it - in mixed marriages, we may have had this much throughput if there weren't social obligations for the couples. They have economic interest to stay together, they are (legally and otherwise) responsible for their offspring, they have the fear of heavy litigation in case they want to break up. Gays have none of that, so their tendency to change partners much more often than straights may not have that much to do with their sexual orientation, but rather with their situation. Put straights in the same situation and watch what happens.