Harm in Homosexuality?

I mean that since he is adopting the exact same stance as his opponents, and that stance is ridiculous (even by his own statements), I personally cannot care one way or the other what happens for him.If he never gets, and indeed loses any chance at getting, everything he wants because of his inflexibility and ignorance, that would surely be just desserts.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I agree with you on this point. OTOH I also agree with the point made that 'marriage' is regarded by many people as being, by definition, between a male and a female. Actually my dictionary even says that. Although it isn't technically accurate (because we have had civil marriages for a fair while) marriage also has religious and cultural overtones for many people. Actually I've known a few straight couples over the years who lived together but didn't want to get married because of all the "baggage" that comes with it.My preferred solution would be a civil union or contract or whatever you want to call it that is the basis for all legal parternships. Entering into this contract would be the sole basis on which all legal rights relating to "couples" (property, inheritance, health and other work benefits and the doubtless hundreds of others you can think of) are established.If this is done marriage would become an optional religous layer that individual churches can offer to whoever they choose (and withold it from whoever they chose). Obviously you would have to make sure the legislation made it illegal to differentiate against people who only had the civil union.I'm not a lawyer (even I have standards ) so I don't know if an approach like this would be possible in either of our countries. Assuming it would be possible, would this work for you ? It seems to me it provides equality between straight and gay couples while allowing religious organisations to make their own choice as to what categories of people they marry.Of course, the Christian right would never accept it, but that's because they tend to be homophobic bigots.

---

Confused ? You will be...

jazzlover,You still haven't come up with anything harmful about homosexuality. Instead you have listed practices that you see as harmful, specifically unsafe sex and IV drug use, and the subsequent risk of HIV transmission. You also seem to have a hang up on anal sex as intrinsic to homosexuality.The problem with all of the points that you bring up is that heterosexuals practice them as well - unsafe sex, IV drug use, and anal sex. Thus all of the things you list could also be used, by your logic, to describe heterosexuality as harmful.In fact, female homosexuals are at lower risk, on average, than heterosexuals for the transmission of HIV - does that mean that male homosexuality and heterosexuality are 'harmful', and lesbianism is not?No, because sexual orientation is not defined by the practices of some. Homosexuality simply means one is physically and emotionally attracted to members of the same sex - it says nothing about the potentially "harmful" practices of individuals.Besides, th is i s all extraneous, since the primary mode of HIV transmission is heterosexual sex; therefore HIV is more of a "heterosexual disease" than a homosexual one. Is heterosexuality harmful? Check the stats, they are from the UNAIDS 2001 Gender and HIV report - immediately you'll notice that about half of those infected with HIV are women. How did they get HIV from male-male anal sex?Now, lets look at the mode of transmission column, where MSM means male-male sex is a primary mode of transmission for HIV. Let's make the huge assumption that if MSM is mentioned, every case of HIV in that country (including women) was transmitted by male-male sex. Adding up the total number of HIV case s in those coun tries with MSM as one mode of transmission, then dividing by the total number of cases, give an HIV transmission rate of about 9% by male-male sex - and this is a gross exaggeration due to the big assumption we made above - I would guess the real rate is at least half of that.Look at the rest of the numbers and modes - you'll see that heterosexual sex is by far the leading mode of transmission of HIV.Also notice what is missing from modes of transmission, FSF, or lesbian transmission. Thus female homosexuality is the safest sexual orientation you can be...Again, you haven't given a single reason why homosexuality is "harmful", you've only presented misconceptions about an infectious disease and sexual practices. So, the most harmfu l aspect of homosexuality you can come up with is that it makes you feel "icky".(Though I at least I applaud your honesty.)Since you are apologizing for your language, I should probably mention that the last I heard "homo" is considered a derogatory term.y

How I define homophobe is someone who fears homosexuals. Listen guys, BTW sorry about calling you a girl I guess the pink got in the way, just because we are having a discussion about who agrees or disagrees about the pro's and con's of homosexuality doesn't mean we don't like or get along with them. That is what makes me so damn pissed at you all. By me disagreeing with homosexuality you automatically assume that I hate all gays. That I don't want them to have a good life. What I don't like and the only thing I don't like is the EXTREME homosexuals that are trying to mandate changes in the schools and governement to MAKE me except there way of life as good. And I won't. I will never think it is okay. SO normalizing homosexuality is an EXTREME to me and 75% of the country. So when the small amount of gays in this country are aloud to push their aggenda onto all of us because of the cowards in the government that won't stand up for the majorities wishes then something is wrong. So call me what you want, you been wrong this far why stop now.

yeah, looks like you are correct.(Jude 1:7) I guess that's what an immoral society can look forward to, or do you not believe in God. If you do, is He justified in judging and punishing the unrighteous how He sees fit, no? Not saying that gays can't go to heaven but if they turn their backs on God and continue to blow Him off why wouldn't He turn His back on them? Or you for that matter?

No. Promiscuity is the dangerous part. So I will now have to say to all of you that have been reading along that the only thing wrong with homosexuality (besides my moral problem with it) would be if it is handled in a "ho hum" way or being promiscuous just like being promiscuous heterosexualy is what leads to the abundance of STD outbreaks. SO I guess if we, as a society, can keep it in our pants to a certain extent and whatever life choices out of the faces of others then there should be no harm, should there?

C'mon. Get over yourself. Nobody's trying to do that, because nobody gives a good god-damn how you feel about gay people, or homosexuality in general. Why would they?What they're trying to do is get you to butt the hell out of things that aren't any of your business. When you stand in the way of gay marriage, for instance, that's not just you refusing to like homosexuality. That's you standing, unconstitutionally and counter to the principles of America, in the way of equal rights for gay people. And that's what they're trying to get you to stop doing, and rightfully so.That's not gay people "pushing their agenda" on anybody else. That's gay people resisting an agenda being pushed onto them by people like you.

jazzlover_PR responds to me:

quote:

---

God forbids homosexuality because that kind of conduct goes against the natural use of our body as stated specifically in Romans 1 - 26,27.

---

Then I hope you are mute because the "natural use" of your vocal cords is to cough, not speak.And I hope you never use your penis for sex since the "natural use" of the penis is for urination.

quote:

---

Our shit hole has one single purpose, to take a crap.

---

Then the next time you're suffering from food poisoning and are so nauseous that you are incapable of ingesting anything orally since you will just throw it up immediately, I hope you remind your doctor that your "shit hole has one single purpse, to take a crap" and thus you will refuse that rectal administraton of Compazine. Never mind that you might die if you don't calm your stomach down...your ass is an exit, not an entry.And I'm serious about your penis being only for urination. That's the tip of your urethra there, buddy. It is a perversion of its natural use to have an organ of bodily excretion used for sexual purposes.

quote:

---

I apologize for my language but its the simplest way of saying it and everybody understands it.

---

Obviously not or anal sex wouldn't be so popular.

quote:

---

I guess AIDS are harmfull enough. But then again thats just me.

---

Well, since you're heterosexual, yes. AIDS is a heterosexual disease, after all. Three-quarters of all cases of AIDS were transmitted via heterosexual sex.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

holmes writes:

quote:

---

That is a pretty solid analogy.

---

No, it isn't. Whether we call the food "Kosher" or "non-Kosher" is irrelevant as the argument is over whether or not we call it "food."And, in the end, you are arguing for "separate but equal." As we all know, this is unconstitutional and inherently unpractical. If two things are supposed to be equivalent, then we cannot trust every governmental agency to remember to include "civil union" every time they mention "marriage" and vice versa.It's simple logic: If two things are identical, why are you using different terms to refer to them? The only reason is because there is something different between them, which means they will be treated differently.

quote:

---

We are down to debates over the use of a name, and to be honest those who feel it carries a previous connotation (which allowing another group to share would seem odd) have a point.

---

No, they don't. People do not get to hold fundamental rights hostage simply because they want to play semantic games.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Tusko responds to me:

quote:

---

I could be wrong, but I don't think that the D D is equating homosexuality and paedosexuality (mmm... why doesn't that word exist?) in the way you feared.

---

But the point is that there is no reason to look at pedophilia in the first place. We're comparing homosexuality to heterosexuality. Where on earth does pedophilia enter into it? Why does changing the sex of the participants make anybody think of children? Why is it that whenever people discuss the morality of homosexuality, pedophilia inevitably comes up? What is it about two women having sex that makes people think about sex with children?You would never think of pedophilia when discussing heterosexuality in general, so why does it always come up when discussing homosexuality? Especially in a discussion comparing it to heterosexuality?

quote:

---

In the '50s, most people probably viewed them with similar disgust.

---

Irrelevant. Lots of things are generally considered disgusting, but that doesn't mean they have any connection. You would never bring up pedophilia when discussing heterosexuality, so what on earth makes someone think of sex with children when the topic is homosexuality?And the answer, of course, is that people seem to think that gay people are child molesters.

quote:

---

That's why bestiality and necrophilia

---

Stop right there! What on earth does sex with animals or sex with the dead have to do with sex with people of the same sex? You would never bring these up when discussing heterosexuality, so why on earth are you even thinking about them when discussing homosexuality?

quote:

---

I personally see incest as the next archaic taboo that should be tackled.

---

Gads, is there nothing you seem to think is connected to homosexuality? You'd never bring this up when discussing heterosexuality, so why do you bring it up when discussing homosexuality?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

holmes writes:

quote:

---

Clearly keeping marriage with its original meaning and creating a new union with a different name defends the tradition without actually hindering anyone.

---

Incorrect. It hinders everyone who is being treated differently because some people are offended over the use of a word.You're arguing "separate but equal," holmes, and you know better than that.We are arguing reality, not theory, holmes.

quote:

---

It hurts because pretty much worldwide, in just about every religious tradition, there is no such thing as gay marriage.

---

So if I can show you Christian same-sex marriage, can we drop this specious argument? Same Sex Marriage in Premodern Europe by John Boswell.It even includes the Catholic marriage rites for same-sex marriage.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

holmes writes:

quote:

---

It appears that you are saying because of such incidents you must now antagonize those that might support what you are willing to accept in order to beat those against gay rights?

---

Not quite. What it means is that those who claim to be supportive of gay rights really aren't supportive at all.

quote:

---

I don't think that is the right solution.

---

It's the only way to find out who truly is committed to equality and who is just a homophobe pretending to be supportive.

quote:

---

It is quite clear that gay marriage initiatives created to protest the opposition ended up polarizing citizens and riled many up to take a stance against more gay initiatives.

---

No, it isn't clear at all. Take a look at the actual voting results and compare them to what the opinion was beforehand.

quote:

---

Perhaps gay activists should be reaching out to the majority and undercut the radical right by working to get civil unions that are appropriate into law.

---

Thank you, massa! I'll be yo slave if yo be a nice massa and only whup me whuns a week!Holmes, state-sponsored "civil unions" provide no federal benefits and are not transferable from state to state. They are practically worthless.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

You're wasting your time. If you disagree with him then you are ignorant. No matter how many times I tried to tell him that seperate does not mean equal, he continued to rant on and on on how cvil union is the solution and all that crap.

---

Hate world.Revenge soon!

DoubleThis message has been edited by Lam, 11-18-2004 03:18 AM

---

Hate world.Revenge soon!

holmes responds to Lam:

quote:

---

quote:

---

I don't think so, not if we are talking about individual states.

---

​

I thought we were going to talk about reality. 11 states do not a nation make.

---

Um, holmes? You're not seriously saying that the only states that have anti-marriage laws are just those 11 that voted this year, are you?Out of the 50 states, 43 have laws that prohibit same-sex marriage explicitly and one, Wisconsin, doesn't have a law but a recent Supreme Court ruling and its attorney general say that same-sex marriage is invalid. That does make a nation. Only Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Rhode Island, and Vermont don't have laws prohibiting same-sex marriage...though I'm giving Vermont the benefit of the doubt since they do have "civil unions," but they are not equivalent to marriage. Note, New Jersey has anti-marriage legislation pending.

quote:

---

That San Francisco effort, and then the threat of additional efforts across the nation, while appluaded by people that are gay marriage positive, and people like me that like civil disobedience, was actually counterproductive. That scared a lot of people that didn't need scaring. And it worked right into the hands of conservative agendas.

---

Bullshit. Most of the states had the laws already on the books. Those that did it did so in the great Hawaii panic back in the 90s. Remember the Defense of Marriage Act that Congress passed?

quote:

---

I think one of the largest bits of groupthink is that gay activists are missing the real point that marriage has a history and a connotation that really is important to some people.

---

Right. Marriage was between people of the same race. But that didn't stop the government from standing up for equal rights. You are using the same argument, holmes. If it isn't valid when it comes to race, why is it valid when it comes to sex?

quote:

---

Don't you get it that instead of being practical and realistic, this is being pursued with an all or nothing with us or against us mentality?

---

Because we're living in the real world, holmes, where it is all or nothing. If you don't get equality, then the only thing you have is lip service.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!