Besides religious beliefs against homosexuality, what are the other reasons?

[actsnoblemartin]

exactly

and unless I missed something, RetiredGysgt isn't a gay-basher. Neither am I. There are too many people in the "pro-homo" crowd that have a 100% for or 100% against mentality, and nothing in the middle.

Frankly, that's bullshit, and being just as naorrow-minded as the people who think gays should still be stoned to death.

 

[mattskramer]

But what is the most medically dangerous?

putting a penis in a mouth, or up an anus?

I don't know but I think that anal sex would be more dangerous.

The last report i saw, stated the 50% of all news aids cases came from gay men, while 26% came from hetero's

It shouldnt be a crime to point out that anal sex is the most dangerous. It isnt the only dangerous way, but facts arent biggoted or racist.

I agree. Hey. Smoking is dangerous. Drinking alcohol is dangerous. Driving fast (even if it is under the speed limit) is relatively dangerous. Eating high-fat food is dangerous. Playing football is dangerous. Snow skiing is dangerous.

And billions of people, muslims, jews, and christians, Many of them, believe its wrong, not all obviously, but many.

We gonna denounce them too?

Uh. No. We simply agree with them or disagree with them.

I dont think its right, to say, we'll if someone doesnt accept my belief, being gay is ok, theyre homophobic or anti gay.

I agree.

that is intolerant right there.

I disagree. I do not think that giving your opinion about something is the same as being intollerant. Finally, even though anal and oral sex is dangerous, I do not think that it should be outlawed.

 

[Paulie]

Anal sex and blow jobs are dangerous sexual practices. That you are now going to claim they are not is fascinating in its own right.

RGS, i love ya brother, i really do, but the logical fallacies in almost every one of your posts is incredible.

 

[jillian]

Anal sex and blow jobs are dangerous sexual practices. That you are now going to claim they are not is fascinating in its own right.

Perhaps, but the point is that no one fusses with heteros who engage in the same practices or says it's "unnatural".

And, frankly, I've never known a man who would in his wildest imaginings turn down a BJ, saying "it's a dangerous sexual practice".

 

[RetiredGySgt]

And your all ignoring the thread question. Good job of trying to twist it away and pretend it is simply a fine practice and no problem what so ever. That only religion makes it wrong or dangerous.

Further I love how somehow my answering the posed question is now somehow me asking that laws outlaw the acts. Be so kind as to quote me where i said it. Why I even give you permission to look outside this particular thread.

Quote me where i said gays should not be protected by the law. Quote me where I said gays should not have the same rights as everyone else. Again feel free to look else where for those quotes.

The best you will find is where I state Marriage is not a right gays should have. Marriage is and always has been between a man and a woman. Simple solution is to get the government out of marriage all together. Government sdhould only authorize and recognize Civil Unions You want a pretty certificate thats ays you were married? GO to a Church or other religious facility and get a non governmental document that says you were married by that religion under their definition of what marriage is. No more problems with the Constitution and forceing 48 States to do what 2 want to do.

 

[mattskramer]

And your all ignoring the thread question. Good job of trying to twist it away and pretend it is simply a fine practice and no problem what so ever. That only religion makes it wrong or dangerous.

Further I love how somehow my answering the posed question is now somehow me asking that laws outlaw the acts. Be so kind as to quote me where i said it. Why I even give you permission to look outside this particular thread.

Quote me where i said gays should not be protected by the law. Quote me where I said gays should not have the same rights as everyone else. Again feel free to look else where for those quotes.

The best you will find is where I state Marriage is not a right gays should have. Marriage is and always has been between a man and a woman. Simple solution is to get the government out of marriage all together. Government sdhould only authorize and recognize Civil Unions You want a pretty certificate thats ays you were married? GO to a Church or other religious facility and get a non governmental document that says you were married by that religion under their definition of what marriage is. No more problems with the Constitution and forceing 48 States to do what 2 want to do.

Tradition does not make something right or wrong. Aside from that, I think that I agree with the rest of your post. Get government out of marriage (heterosexual and homosexual) leave it up to the individual couple and their “church” to provide them whatever “marriage certificate” or recognition they want. Let the heterosexual or homosexual couples get a “civil union certificate” so that the government would treat them as a couple. If this is what you mean – I quite agree. It is fair enough.

 

[Shogun]

But what is the most medically dangerous?

putting a penis in a mouth, or up an anus?

The last report i saw, stated the 50% of all news aids cases came from gay men, while 26% came from hetero's

It shouldnt be a crime to point out that anal sex is the most dangerous. It isnt the only dangerous way, but facts arent biggoted or racist.

And billions of people, muslims, jews, and christians, Many of them, believe its wrong, not all obviously, but many.

We gonna denounce them too?

I dont think its right, to say, we'll if someone doesnt accept my belief, being gay is ok, theyre homophobic or anti gay.

that is intolerant right there.

How many blowjobs have YOU ever turned down because it's dangerous, Acts?

... and i'd bet large quantities of money that you wouldn't throw out some stop sign if the right freakydeaky girl blew your mind with behaviour usually associated with gay men. Hell, SEX is dangerous. We are children of the 90s.

 

[Abelian Sea]

I don't think that driving is wrong (that is, it is not inherently bad behavior that everyone should avoid), but there are things wrong with driving - individually it is risky and costly, widely practiced it contributes significantly to air pollution and oil dependence.

Similarly, I don't think homosexual behavior is wrong, but to pretend that there is nothing wrong with it is unintelligent.

On an individual level, it is medically riskier than straight vaginal sex. So be extra careful about it. Promiscuous sex, unprotected sex, and sex with strangers is generally a bad idea for anyone, but more so for gays in many ways, and that's worth bearing in mind (especially for us guys, who, in my experience, tend to be much 'easier' than gals).

I also think there are potential problems with carelessly normalizing it throughout society. I don't think widely accepting homosexuality would be bad for us (I don't think it's inherently bad behavior and seriously doubt it would put much of dent in the population explosion), but the journey to that point has significant pitfalls.

Life-long monogamous heterosexual relationships (like traditional marriage) are healthy for society because they tend to produce and support stable families (the hetro part is significant because people in general are much more likely to get kids through sex, intentionally or otherwise, than through any other means). However, life-long monogamous relationships aren't exactly natural. For them to be the norm requires social constructs and pressures and traditions. Many if not most religious and cultural traditions push people, overtly or implicitly, towards working to create these sorts of arrangements. Part of this is frowning on homosexuality.

I'm not saying these traditions shouldn't be modified, or that they should be applied oppressively to all individuals, but tampering with them does have its risks. I think it would be great if we could just snip out the anti-gay trends in these traditions without causing any other ripples, but it just doesn't work that way. Altering traditions without threatening their integrity is very tricky business, and maintaining the basic integrity of our traditions is, on balance, good for us, even if there are things we'd like to change about those traditions.

So: if you're gay, go be gay, but don't ignore the dangers.

 

[CorpMediaSux]

I also think there are potential problems with carelessly normalizing it throughout society. I don't think widely accepting homosexuality would be bad for us (I don't think it's inherently bad behavior and seriously doubt it would put much of dent in the population explosion), but the journey to that point has significant pitfalls.

Those would be?

Life-long monogamous heterosexual relationships (like traditional marriage) are healthy for society because they tend to produce and support stable families (the hetro part is significant because people in general are much more likely to get kids through sex, intentionally or otherwise, than through any other means).

Let's leave kids out of the equation for a moment because I will address that in a moment. When you compare hetero to homosexual couples in terms of economic productivity, homosexual couples win hands down. Without kids gay men and women are free to diversify the ways we spend our money supporting sectors of the economy that the average heterosexual couple doesn't have the expendible income for. Secondly, homosexual communities are a huge force behind urban revitalization movements often having an eye for developing neighborhoods, you want to trace urban growth, trace the growth of urban gay communities.

However, life-long monogamous relationships aren't exactly natural.
In fact they are LESS natural than homosexuality which has been a part of human sexuality since before we valued long term monogamous relationships, legalized state marriage or a nuclear family with 2.5 children. In fact the declining marriage is no doubt directly the result of the failure of enforced and pressured monogamy. It has nothing to do with homosexuality.

Many if not most religious and cultural traditions push people, overtly or implicitly, towards working to create these sorts of arrangements. Part of this is frowning on homosexuality.

Bollocks. You can encourage monogamous, life long romantic partnerships that have nothing to do with hetero or homosexuality but the kind of things that go into making a long term monogamous relationship work. Succesful monogamy isnt about heterosexual or homosexuality. It's actually about those two individuals, be they gay or straight. I guess I'm failing to see your point here.
You ARE correct that there is a relationship between people who promote life long monogamous marriage and people who don't like homosexuals. But that relationship isn't causal.

I'm not saying these traditions shouldn't be modified, or that they should be applied oppressively to all individuals, but tampering with them does have its risks. I think it would be great if we could just snip out the anti-gay trends in these traditions without causing any other ripples, but it just doesn't work that way.

The process that you claim "doesn't work" happens ALL the time, it's one of the hallmarks of human cultural evolution. You take many of your arguments about the sanctity of marriage and you replace the word "interracial" with "homosexual" and you have the basis for a HUGE number of cultural conservative arguments before 1967 arguing for the illegality of interracial marraige. Yet I would be shocked if you were to say you are anti interracial marriage. Rather, the argument has remained the same but race has been "sniped" out of the discussion, leaving homosexuality. You can continue this to ALL sectors of American society. In the 19th century, feminists and abolitionists worked together to get slaves and women the right to vote on a universal principle of social equality. When women did not get the suffrage after the Civil War they simply remade those arguments into explicitly feminists arguments. When conservatives could no longer talk about the dangers of the Negro vote, they switched to the problem of the female vote.

Traditions, mores, arguments, standards etc. They evolve with the time and people like yourself have always tried to argue that radical change will substantively hurt society. You've never been proven right once.

 

[Abelian Sea]

In fact they are LESS natural than homosexuality which has been a part of human sexuality since before we valued long term monogamous relationships, legalized state marriage or a nuclear family with 2.5 children. In fact the declining marriage is no doubt directly the result of the failure of enforced and pressured monogamy. It has nothing to do with homosexuality.
...
You can encourage monogamous, life long romantic partnerships that have nothing to do with hetero or homosexuality but the kind of things that go into making a long term monogamous relationship work. Succesful monogamy isnt about heterosexual or homosexuality. It's actually about those two individuals, be they gay or straight.

I agree with all of this.

I guess I'm failing to see your point here.

My point is that the traditions that have largely kept up the pressure to be monogamous have, as part of them, anti-homosexual trends. I don't think those trends are necessary, and I'd like to see them removed, but I think it would best to remove them with as little harm to the healthy parts of those traditions, and people's respect for those traditions, as possible.

You ARE correct that there is a relationship between people who promote life long monogamous marriage and people who don't like homosexuals. But that relationship isn't causal.

It isn't causal, but there is a connection. I wish there weren't, but there is, and in practice it creates a tension between working towards gay rights and working to support marriage. In principle this tension shouldn't be there, but in practice it needs to be taken into consideration so it can be worked around.

The process that you claim "doesn't work" happens ALL the time, it's one of the hallmarks of human cultural evolution.

I didn't say traditions couldn't be changed, just that they can't be surgically modified without having other consequences.

Traditions, mores, arguments, standards etc. They evolve with the time and people like yourself have always tried to argue that radical change will substantively hurt society. You've never been proven right once.

And yet we agree that the decline of marriage is caused at least in part by the weakening of the pressure to be monogamous for life, which largely emanates from traditional standards, which, in addition, had and still have such obnoxious components.

Removing those components involves risk. This is because the sway those mores have over human behavior by and large comes from the degree to which they aren't questioned. Changing them risks weakening their grip in other areas, and that can have unintended consequences (such as, say, ever shorter marriages).

Again, I'm not saying mores shouldn't be changed. In many cases, like the ones you mentioned, the risk is well worth taking. I'm just saying we shouldn't be blithe about it; risk can be mitigated, but it first has to be acknowledged.

And yes, this point could have been made about past civil rights issues, and no doubt will be made about future ones. That doesn't mean those changes were/are/will be wrong, just that they shouldn't be undertaken recklessly. Or is recklessness the only way to make the changes happen?

Ultimately I was just pointing out the social risks, to go along with pointing out the medical risks. In neither case do I think the behavior/movement is therefore bad (in fact I enjoy the former and support the later), just that the risks should be noted and minimized.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Gay Rights? Gays already have all the same rights as everyone else. The same political and legal rights and protections as all other US citizens. There is no need for any special "rights" for Gays. No special laws required to allow them to exist nor to protect them.

The only thing remaining is codifying Civil Unions. But activist Gays are against even that. Marriage is a union between a man and a woman, always has been and should always remain so.

Remind me of your personal stance on pologamy? That is also an act between consenting adults, shall we call multiple wives of one man marriage also? Why do we punish these people for their sexual and communal beliefs? It is ok to screw a member of the same sex but not ok to have relations of a consentual nature with more than one woman?

Why can not a man with several female ( or male even) partners in a mutual relationship of a long term nature not have the same rights as a married man and woman? Discrimination indeed.

Get back to me when you support that as well as gay marriage.

 

[007]

Dangerous in what sense RGS. I asked you a question before and you did not answer me.

Since you want to play show me games, let's get down to brass tacks...

CAUTION: HOMOSEXUALITY MAY BE DANGEROUS TO YOUR HEALTH

Wayne D. Leeper


I firmly believe that young people being lured into homosexual activities today are as naïve regarding the dangers of homosexuality as I was regarding dangers of smoking. So in an attempt to reach these young people with the truth and to aide family and friends of those practicing a homosexual lifestyle I would like to provide the following statistics. Homosexual activist would have us believe that homosexuals comprise ten percent of the population of the United States. Numerous studies, however, have placed this population at between one and two percent. But even if you want to accept the ten percent as correct, consider the following statistics:

70% of homosexuals admit to having sex only one time with over 50% of their partners.

The average homosexual has between 20 and 106 partners per year. The average heterosexual has 8 partners in a lifetime.

Many homosexual sexual encounters occur while drunk, high on drugs, or in a orgy setting.

Many homosexuals don’t pay heed to warnings of their lifestyles: “Knowledge of health guidelines was quiet high, but this knowledge had no relation to sexual behavior.

Homosexuals account for 3-4% of all gonorrhea cases, 60% of all syphilis cases, and 17% of all hospital admissions (other than for STDs) in the United States.

Homosexuals live unhealthy lifestyles, and have historically accounted for the bulk of syphilis, gonorrhea, Hepatitis B, the “gay bowl syndrome” (which attacks the intestinal tract), tuberculosis and cytomegalovirus.

73% of psychiatrist say homosexuals are less happy than the average person, and of those psychiatrist, 70 percent say that the unhappiness is not due to social stigmatization.

25-33% of homosexuals and lesbians are alcoholics.

50% of suicides can be attributed to homosexuals.

Homosexuals account for well over 59% of the aids cases in the United States.

Homosexuals account for a disproportionate number of hepatitis cases 70-80% in San Francisco, 29% in Denver, 66% in New York City, 56% in Toronto, 42% in Montreal, and 26% in Melbourne.

37% of homosexuals engage in sadomasochism, which accounts for many accidental deaths. In San Francisco, classes were held to teach homosexuals how not to kill their partners during sadomasochism.

41% of homosexuals say that they have had sex with strangers in a public restroom, 60% say they have had sex with a stranger in bathhouses, and 64% of these encounters have involved the use of illegal drugs.

Depending upon the city, 39-59% of homosexuals are infected with intestinal parasites like worms, flukes and amoebae, which is common in filthy third world countries.

The median age of death of homosexual men is 42 (only 24% live past the age 65). The median age of death of a married heterosexual man is 75.

The median age of death of lesbians is 45 (only 24% live past the age 65). The median age of death of a married heterosexual woman is 79.

Homosexuals are 100 times more likely to be murdered (usually by another homosexual) than the average person, 25 times more likely to commit suicide, and 19 times more likely to die in a traffic accident.

21% of lesbians die of murder, suicide or traffic accident, which is at a rate of 534 times higher than the number of white heterosexual females aged 25-44 who dies of these things.

50% of the calls to a hotline to report “queer bashing” involved domestic violence (i.e., homosexuals beating up other homosexuals).

About 50% of the women on death row are lesbians.

The complete report along with and supporting documentation can be found at: http://www.inoohr.org/homosexualstatistics.htm

Given these statistics, is it any wonder that a loving God would admonish His children to avoid this lifestyle?

http://www.nationalmorality.com/index_files/Page1368.htm

 

[007]

In this debate of civil unions and marriages for homosexual couples, the Gay Elite is painting homosexuality as something totally normal and healthy and even encouraged for those who have same sex attractions. And we can listen to religious pundits talk about the immorality of it all and we can listen to the gay rights activists talk about their "oppression" but somewhere in the middle is the truth. You know the old saying, there are three sides to every story, your side, their side and the truth.

So what is the truth? Are we just being close-minded bigots who are trying to hold them down or is there something intrinsically unhealthy in homosexuality? Well according to most public health organizations there is. The National Center for Infectious Disease in 1992 stated that male homosexuals are 1,000 (no, that is not a typo, that is the correct number, 1,000) times more likely to acquire AIDS than the general population. Where is that safe sex we hear so much about? Why are still 64% of the people with AIDS gay men, even after 20 years and billions spent on research and producing medication? Money that could be spent on other diseases like Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, heart disease, etc is being allocated to stop the pandemic of AIDS. AIDS is just the beginning of health risks, though. Here are some of the others.

1) Hepatitis A, B & C
2) Herpes Simplex 1, 2 & 8 (yes, there is an 8)
3) cytomeglalovirus
4) gay bowel syndrome
5) amoebiasis
6) anal warts
7) anal cancer
8) shigellosis
9) chlamydia
10) gonorrhea
11) syphllis
12) giardia lamblia
13) cryptosporidium
14)isospora belli
15) microsporidia

The last four are found almost exclusively in gay men. They are basically intestinal illnesses causing severe and chronic diarrhea. They get this through anal sex and through fecal matter. Many gay men engage in coprophilia, which is the excitement and sexualization of fecal matter. Such behavior increases the risks of diseases that are unheard of in the heterosexual community, which probably explains as most people read the list they are not recognizing about half of the diseases listed. Because diseases is so rampant in the homosexual community the average life expectancy is fifty. Homosexuals lose up to nearly 20 years because risky sexual behavior.

A study published in the International Journal of Epidemiology on the mortality rates of homosexuals concluded: In a major Canadian centre, life expectancy at age twenty for gay and bisexual men is eight to twenty years less than for all men. If the same pattern of mortality were to continue, we estimate that nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently aged twenty years will not reach their sixty-fifth birthday. Under even the most liberal assumptions, gay and bisexual men in this urban centre are now experiencing a life expectancy similar to that experienced by all men in Canada in the year 1871. http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS01J3.

Let’s look at that from another perspective, they are not losing 20 years they are losing 133 years! Metaphorically speaking, they are not even living in this century. Their dangerous behavior has catapulted them back to 1871. We live in a time where we can operate on a child inside the womb, can do heart transplants, successfully divide co-joined twins, even do brain surgery, yet their life expectancy is 133 years behind the rest of the general population! Is this normal and healthy? Yet we continue to push this lifestyle on people and encouraging them to engage in risky behavior. We don’t do this with any other behavior. We don’t tell our children who are experimenting with drugs, alcohol or cigarettes to continue doing so. You will never hear a parent say, "Well if being and alcoholic and doing crack makes you happy, I guess I am fine with it." We drag them off to rehab kicking and screaming, just to get them help. Yet because the general public is not truly aware of all the dangers of homosexuality, they encourage their children to accept their gay identity. "If this is what makes you happy, I will support you." Our "nobility" has effectively destroyed them. Truly, we have turned our backs on them in the name of being "politically correct." We were told that gay and lesbian relationships were no different from heterosexuals ones. That they were just as stable, loving and monogamous, and we believed it because we wanted to believe it. However is that the truth? Are gay relationships a stabilizing force for those who self-identify as gay?

A 1991 study of homosexual men in New York City revealed that the average number of lifetime sexual partners was 308. (Meyer-Balburg H. Exner, T.,Lorenz G., Gruen, R., Gorman, J, Ehrhardt, A (1991) Sexual Risk Behavior, Sexual Functioning and HIV-Disease Progression in Gay Men Journal of Sex Research. 28, 1: 3-27.)

Clinicians Mattison and McWhirter studied 156 long-term homosexual relationships, but found that not one couple was able to maintain sexual fidelity for more than five years. Most maintained a monogamous relationship for less than one year. Homosexual theorists respond by redefining promiscuity as normal and healthy for homosexual men(The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Schmidt, 1995)

A. P. Bell and M. S. Weinberg, in their classic study of male and female homosexuality, found that 43% of white male homosexuals had sex with five hundred or more partners, with 28% having 1,000 or more sex partners. (A. P. Bell and M. S. Weinberg, Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1978), pp. 308, 309; See also A. P. Bell, M. S. Weinberg, and S. K. Hammersmith, Sexual Preference (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1981)

http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1034938/posts

You may be of the mind set that promiscuity while not an admirable trait is really no concern of yours-really? Remember that 87 billion we spent on the war in Iraq? You want to know how much we spent on fighting AIDS? During fiscal year 2000, the United States spent $10.8 billion on HIV/AIDS patient care. That’s $l,359 per month per HIV/AIDS patient. (www.whitehouse.gov/onap/facts.html) That is just for one year, now multiply that for 20 years and it is our own personal Iraq. Also take this into consideration, 11 million people will be diagnosed with cancer and only 900,000 are diagnosed with AIDS, we spend seven times as much on AIDS per patient. "The inequity for diabetes and heart disease is even more striking. Consequently, the disproportionate money spent on AIDS detracts from research into diseases that affect more people." http://www.corporateresourcecouncil.org/white_papers/Health_Risks.pdf

Don’t take this to mean, that I think we shouldn’t be spending money on those who are affected by AIDS or that we should stop looking for a cure for AIDS, but to demonstrate while we are bending over backwards to accommodate the Gay Elite, they are still promoting promiscuity as demonstrated by this man: An editorial in Steam, a magazine for homosexuals, quotes a man who has been HIV positive since the early years of the epidemic: "I'm so sick and tired of these Negatives whining about how difficult it is to stay safe. Why don't they just get over it and get Positive." According to Scott O'Hara, Steam's HIV-positive editor: "One of my primary goals is the maximization of pleasure, and just as I believe that gay men have more fun, so too, do I believe that Positives have learned to have much more fun than Negatives. I'm delighted to be Positive. . .The Negative world is defined by fear, ours by pleasure." (Rotello, G. (1997) Sexual Ecology: AIDS and the Destiny of Gay Men. NU: Dutton, p. 242.)

Then there is this reckless man with no regard to the lives he is affecting; The prospect of going through the rest of your life having to cover yourself up every time you want to get intimate with someone is an awful one....Now I've got HIV and I don't have to worry about getting it." he said There is a part of me that is relieved, I was tired of having to be careful, of this constant diligence that has to be paid to intimacy when intimacy should be spontaneous." After admitting to almost never using a condom he adds; There is no such thing as safe sex, if people want to use condoms they can, I didn't go out and purposely get HIV. Accidents happen. http://www.corporateresourcecouncil.org/white_papers/Health_Risks.pdf

Yet these same men while talking about how great it is to be positive are the same demanding more research into AIDS, more money spent on patients and as soon as those protease inhibitors, AZT and all the other drugs stop working and they are lying in their bed dying before the age of 30 with tubes coming out from everywhere and are unable to even move, will they be singing their positive song then? Will they be talking about how wonderful AIDS is then? Will they care that because of their recklessness, other men are also dying? Will they regret taking these other men’s lives? In case you think men like these two are the exception, sadly they are not. This is actually quite common.

Homosexual men in San Francisco who reported having unprotected anal sex increased from 30% in 1994 to 39% in 1997. Those who said they had unprotected sex with multiple partners grew from 24% to 33% during the same period. (Sack, K. (1999) "For Gay Men, HIV Peril and Rising Drug Use," New York Times. Jan. 29 internet version)

http://www.defendingtruth.org/content.asp?content_id=71

 

[007]

Research shows that homosexual men are not getting tested for HIV. A report from the Centers for Disease Control showed that more than three-quarters of the homosexual men studied were unaware they were carrying HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. Ninety percent of homosexual black men, ages 15-29, who have the virus, did not know they had the virus until researchers told them. The figure for Hispanic homosexual men is 70 percent and for the white homosexual men 60 percent. (Centers for Disease Control, International AIDS Conference, Barcelona, Spain. July 7-12, 2002.)

Personally, I believe the men that I quoted above should be prosecuted for manslaughter, though technically it is more like premeditated murder. They knew they had a fatal disease, they went out, took no precautions and effectively killed another person. I think as long as we continue to look the other way, their behavior won’t stop and more people will continue to die! Of course, the Gay Elite would be up in arms talking about we are violating their civil rights, but what about the civil rights of those they are willingly infecting? Don’t their rights count for anything?

So when others tell you the gay community is doing all they can to stifle the spread of AIDS, ask them why over a third of them still refuse to cover up when having sex? [Make no mistake about condoms are not 100% effective, in fact the AIDS virus is 100 times smaller than sperm. Condoms also are not transported in air-conditioned vehicles and heat can actually damage the latex. AIDS only needs the most microscopic hole to infect a person. So even those who use condoms consistently can still get the AIDS virus that being said condoms do decrease infection rates. However, the best "cure" for AIDS overall is not getting it to begin with and monogamous marital relationships and abstinence should always be highly encouraged. ]

"AIDS, meanwhile, remains the greatest threat of all the sexually transmitted diseases. Researchers can't easily track the rate of new HIV infections because many people don't get diagnosed for years. However, federal statistics released last fall revealed that infection rates among gay and bisexual men in 29 states grew by 17 percent from 1999 to 2002. Experts fear the AIDS epidemic is growing worse because gay men are abandoning safer sex practices, possibly because of "condom fatigue" or a misplaced belief that AIDS is a treatable condition."

http://sp.trafficmarketplace.com/f.ad/t.pun.default/

The truth of the matter is when it comes to the dangerous practices of the gay community political correctness takes precedence over the welfare of society at large. Let’s look at some of the suggestion some people have for counteracting this epidemic.

Notification of sex partners of STD patients through the Internet. Experts say a growing number of gay and bisexual men meet anonymous sex partners through the Internet. Several small studies suggest that many men would respond to heads-up e-mails from health officials warning them that their partners are infected with STDs. (This is about the only one that makes sense.)

Better outreach to the gay community through the media and in venues like bars, sex clubs and parties. Researchers say the efforts need to both educate gay men and encourage them to take responsibility for their decisions regarding sex. (So let’s not close down the sex clubs and parties, let’s not close down the bathhouses, let’s not charge these people with running a brothel especially in places where you are paying to gain entrance and therefore paying for sex, which is illegal in most states beside Nevada. Let’s just encourage them, yeah because that has worked well so far! We have been encouraging them over the last 20 years and the rates continue to rise! Why all of sudden will it work now?)

More free STD tests and greater use of rapid tests for HIV infection and, now, for syphilis that allow people to get results immediately. "If we can do 'one-stop shopping' for people at various high-risk venues that's going to help," Valdiserri said. (Free? They are already getting it for free! They can go to any FREE CLINIC, that’s why it is called that, and get a free STD test! They don’t want to! Even if they had HIV tests like you have home pregnancy tests that doesn’t stop them from continuing dangerous behavior. Did having pregnancy tests, stop women from having unplanned pregnancies or having abortions? It is ludicrous to think that testing is going to influence their behavior.)

No one wants to come out and condemn homosexuality as an unhealthy lifestyle because the gay lobby has too much political clout and they are more afraid of offending them than helping them. The public at large needs to be aware of the facts surrounding homosexuality and stop buying into the myths being perpetuated. This is not about hating gay people, in fact, it is about loving them. If you love someone you don’t let them engage in dangerous behavior. Unless you think someone like Scott O’Hara, someone spreading his Positivity around, should be dating your son. Think about that next time. Those in the homosexual lifestyle need our love and help not our complacency.

http://www.defendingtruth.org/conte...page_num=2&char_count=10219&prev_char_count=1

 

[Abelian Sea]

The only thing remaining is codifying Civil Unions.

That is what I was thinking of. Well, that and just general social acceptance, though that isn't a right; I guess I just used the term "gay rights" as shorthand since I was responding to a post that had gone off on a civil rights spree. Not very accurate of me; sorry about that.

Marriage is a union between a man and a woman, always has been and should always remain so.

My reflex is to agree with that; the term "marriage" has more than just a legal meaning, and I don't think it would be worthwhile trying to alter it very deeply. I've heard the seperate-but-not-equal arguments against establishing same-sex civil unions but not same-sex "marriages," but I find it hard to get riled up about it so long as they end up being substantially similar legally. Plus, not aiming for that particular term would make civil unions much more feasible to actually bring about.

Maybe the government should just butt out of that particular religious arrangement altogether; switch out "marriage" for "civil union" in the laws and reserve the term "marriage" for the formal religious commitment before God. That would ensure the legal equality of same-sex and mixed-sex unions while avoiding the insult to various religions that would result from altering the meaning of marriage (though I can't imagine they'd be happy for the term "marriage" to lose its legal standing, even if all marriages were accompanied by legal unions with the same total effect - like they are now, but with a different term on the legal end). On the other hand, the unity of secular law and ancient tradition when it comes to marriage is probably an important factor in how seriously people take the institution. Divorcing the one from the other might cost more than it would be worth.

Oh, and in reference to CorpMediaSux's post, I think there's a significant difference between the idea of mixed-race marriages and the idea of same-sex marriages. Making the former socially acceptable didn't really alter the meaning of marriage at all; it was still a man and woman making a formal and usually-explicitly-religious commitment. Making the later socially acceptable would tinker far more deeply with the traditional meaning of marriage. I guess I just don't see the gay union issue as urgent enough to try meddling with such an important institution at such a deep level; it's not like non-married people can't vote or own property or anything (I mean, I guess they can't adopt, but that isn't exactly a right).

Remind me of your personal stance on pologamy? Why can not a man with several female ( or male even) partners in a mutual relationship of a long term nature not have the same rights as a married man and woman? Discrimination indeed.

It passes my general litmus test: consenting adults (for the record, I'd also draw a line somewhere before extremely damaging/dangerous fetishes like amputation or doing it while flying an airplane).

Healthy long term multiple-partner relationships are certainly possible. Sounds like a decent set up for child rearing, too, what with the extra parents. It'd probably be easier to arrange that there's always at least one of them home. In principle I'd have no problem with such relationships being given a formal place in the social structure.

The problem, in practice, is that fiddling too quickly or carelessly with what's formally acceptable as a family risks cheapening that formal structure into irrelevancy. I'd hate to see civil unions implemented and turn into little more than a brand of financial scheme while encouraging people to take marriage even less seriously than current trends indicate. Such institutions have to be strong to be valuable, and while I think they could be more inclusive, we should be careful not to wreck them getting to that point.

 

[007]

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/p4enfUyGWSY&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/p4enfUyGWSY&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>