Is Gay Marriage Immoral?

I think that I've seen exactly the opposite - ah, here: Bacterial vaginosis is apparently more common in lesbians than in straight women, but it's the only STD like that. If it's actually even an STD.

bacterial vaginosis, fungal vaginosis, and urinary tract infections are vaguely associated with sex. i had a yeast infection that wouldn't go away for six months of constant treatment a whole year before i ever had sex. sex can change the ph of the vaginal environment and can introduce foreign strains of fungus and bacteria. also, sex can irritate or introduce forein substances or dirt or what have you to the urethra with all the friction leading to utis. they can be sexually related, but it's most certainly not necessary.because of the presence of two vaginas and two vaginal environments with, presumably, different strains of bacteria and fungus, there could, i imagine, be a higher tendency for transfer and cross-infection of the natural flora and fauna in lesbian couples. however, this is hardly a serious issue unless untreated. it's irritating, but not life or health threatening.Edited by brennakimi, : i missed an iEdited by brennakimi, : No reason given.

So, if God made me with a heart defect, it would be a sin to repair that surgically, too. Glasses (I always picture Faith wearing glasses), orthopedic shoes, wheelchairs....Sin gets to be pretty complicated, don't it?

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

i quite agree.but i think there is a difference between a sex change and orthopedic shoes. in as much as it seems to be a sin to abort a fetus that will not develop correctly and most likely will die before too long.
i have a coworker who (at least a month ago) is pregnant. the fetus has no legs and is missing a heart valve. her doctor says that the incresed stress of growth will kill it before she's even due. but her busband is very religious and says 'we don't play god'. i wonder how much god playing radiation treatment for cancer is?i don't want this to get dragged into that, it's just the same general idea. changing what happens "naturally". and why so little of christian proscribtions actually convince me.

heres wiki's page on it Gay disease - Wikipedia
its the third paragraph down* not specific to people of a specific sexual orientation
* not confined to the bowel
* not the medical definition of a syndromeso basicly the only arguement brought out is refutted, its all based on religion
which is never a good way to make laws.good luck to the right so far they have nothing

Sorry I wasn't able to get back to the boards until now. I notice that there are already like 8 responses to your post. Haven't had a chance to read them all, so if I repeat someone else, sorry.Your post seems to be more free association than well thought out doctorine. Maybe it's paragraph structure, maybe not.I want to see if I can tease out your meaning... Here you are restating your feeling that it is "sickening", but I haven't heard a reason why you believe this to be true, or for that matter, a valid arguement. I mean, after all, in the red states most find interracial marriage "sickening", but it's not illegal. Well, I'm going to assume that several people have already pointed out that humans and bonobos are not the only animals expressing "gay" tendencies.But, more importantly, I completely fail to see the logic, if any, in this statement. Why would something be immoral if only two species did it? Or, even if just people did it? What does that have to do with morality at all? Marriage is not done to legitimize sexual practices. There are gay couples who do not have anal sex. There are straight couples that do. It seems to me that anal sex, is a poor indicator for "gay marriage". Further, you have failed to explain how "potential harm" relates to morality.Motorcycles are potentially harmful. Are they immoral?I'm not asking that you answer everything all at once. Pick a particular facet and start from there.Something along the lines of this, maybe,"I believe that homosexual sex is immoral because (x). As opposed to heterosexual sex which doesn't (y)."-or-"Gay marriage is immoral because (x), where as heterosexual marriage is moral because (y)."Maybe that will help firm up your position.

A valid argument. I would suggest that there is a scale. Is it immoral to pick an apple and eat it? Isn't that a form of fruit abortion?I just suggest that attacking a sleeping cow and knocking it off it's feet simply because there's nothing better to do in Nebraska is maybe lower on the moral scale than, say, feeding the hungry.

quote:

---

Yeah, but not as sorry as for Lou Gehrig. I mean, what are the odds of getting a disease that's got the same name as you? Biological version of 'somewhere there's a bullet with your name on' perhaps.

---

You do know that Lou Gehrig’s disease was and still is called Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS).
It was coined Lou Gehrig’s disease after he was diagnosed.

---

"The point now is how do we work together to achieve important goals. And one such goal is a democracy in Germany." ”George W. Bush, D.C., May 5, 2006

i think that was a joke, mutty.

oops

---

"The point now is how do we work together to achieve important goals. And one such goal is a democracy in Germany." ”George W. Bush, D.C., May 5, 2006

Oh i Hate debates on moral issues. Brings out the worst in homo sapiens sapiens....First thing's first: Such as....?Oh and unless the sources you quote are
1. A peer reviewed science journal that is not funded by special interests, is reputable, and not biased towards gay rights, OR
2. A book by a credible scientist or author, and or
3. Makes any mention of (wild, not domesticated) animals doing this not just in captivity but in nature and involves observation of adult mating pairs or adult sex in the in question manner.Dont waste my time Obviously you didnt read the whole post, or you nitpicked. I made the reference to gays, as in male gays, not Lesbians. I mentioned Gay women later in the post. No, people should just learn how to make love better, not in stupid ways.But, less I be mistaken, we are not arguing if the "sex: in question should be illegal, but Gay marraige. Hmm, I dont think I wrote that I hated gays, but that usually doesn't stop people from making acusations on here. I stated that Lesbians sex is not as sickening, but I also said it is still very, very wrong. Makes me a, um, bigot, eh? I dont consider stealing a cap as bad as Identity theft, but to me the're both bad. That makes me Bigoted to Theives??If you want to debate me on this, try to not sling mud. I remember something about that in the forum guidelines (your bigot remark?)Otherwise, you are wasting time that I cannot get back again.

---

"The Nephilim where in the Earth in those days..." Genesis 6:4

Well, according to "Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity"
by Bruce Bagemih, all manner of birds, mammals, and reptiles:preview from Google Scholar"A peer reviewed science journal that is not funded by special interests, is reputable, and not biased towards gay rights"Biased towards gay rights? What does that mean? Supporting the rights of homosexuals isn't the biased position; it's the moral position. Then why didn't you call it "Gay Male Bowel Syndrome"? "Gay" is not a term for homosexual males; it's a term for homosexuals. Don't blame me if your imprecise language causes confusion. Then why did you bring up your so-called Gay Bowel Syndrome? If gay sex isn't the topic of this thread, or relevant to your point, why did you bring it up in the first place? Yes. By definition your irrational opposition to the consensual sex practices of other adults, even to the point of denying them completely irrelevant constitutional protections, is what makes you a bigot.Just like the person who's convinced that having black skin makes a person unsuited to be a doctor - two completely unrelated thing - your position of opposing gay marriage because you find gay sex disgusting is bigotry. I appreciate that you might find that to be a provocative statement, but it's a true one.Imagine for a moment how utterly disgusting homosexuals find your sex practices. The intersection of penis and vagina? Absolutely stomach-turning to a lot of gay people.Do you see them lining up to keep you from getting married? Of course not. Despite the fact that they couldn't possibly imagine how you could enjoy something as disgusting and perverse as heterosexual sex, they're able to see beyond their disgust and recognize your constitutional rights.So what's your problem?

Actually the Ancient Greeks were pederasts, for the most part, and the practice was not unique to them. Wiki article on homosexualitySo straight people get to have a monopoly over the TV airwaves? Personally, I find soap operas and shows like Blind Date and Survivor sickening, but you don't see me calling for the heads of all those who participate in such drivel. I just don't watch the damn shows! Others have covered this, so I'll leave it alone, for now So, the guys who want to get married and no longer take other partners should be denied the right to do so because the more promiscuous ones might get some bacterial infections (there are many included in the original definition of GBS). So, likewise, straight people who want to enter into a monogamous union should be barred from doing so because the more promiscuous ones might get an STD or cervical cancer (women only)? Hey, its your logic, not mine. So, Gay Bowel Syndrome isn't exclusively gay at all if it is caused by anal sex because I know a whole lot of straight people who enjoy (and some even prefer) anal sex including many teens who do it because they took some silly virginity pledge and think that anal sex isn't really sex. If our bodies were not designed for "sex like that" then why the hell is the "male G-spot" stuck way up in the rectum? Seems like a silly place to put a pleasure zone if an intelligent designer didn't want it to be utilized. I'm assuming you have never met a straight man who likes his wife/girlfriend/lover to titillate that area.Fortunately, we have evolved creativity and a desire to have sex around the clock regardless of whether it will produce children. And in that sense having a pleasure zone in an unlikely spot makes perfect sense. Well, besides GBS, you didn't present anything else besides your own disgust which doesn't amount to much especially when laws are being considered (or shouldn't, rather). As for the syphillis, hmmm...did you happen to "heared" that from a fundie website? I'm willing to bet that you cannot find a single medical or public health website that supports that claim.According to every lesbian health website or pamphlet I have ever read, syphillis is extremely rare in lesbians. The most common STD's are Herpes, HPV and bacterial vaginosis. All the rest (HIV, chlamydia, trichomoniasis, syphillis, etc) can be transmitted through lesbian sex, but it is much harder to do so and, thus, is not very common. A federal gov. women's health site
A Seattle area gov health websiteWas that link really all you could find? It didn't say anything. Apparently you couldn't use any of the others that are listed above that one on google which actually state that GBS is an outdated term and is not exclusive to gays. Just like GRID is now called AIDS and has been for the past 20 years. Better luck next time.Edited by AdminNWR, : fix broken links (remove '"' around url in dBcode)

ludo must never have watched bravo, mtv, or hbo. bravo is practically the gay-sploitation network now. it's gayer than the channel we get on digital cable that actually IS a gay and lesbian network. you mean the prostate? where else are you gonna put it?the curious point, however, is that primary function is not a good argument for either gender. the female g-spot is where it is, apparently, because it decreases pain in childbirth. much like breasts, it has been co-opted into sexual use.but of course, the point you bring up about intelligent design is a good one. presupposing there is an intelligent designer, why would he have made it pleasureable if we weren't meant to use it? there are straight couples that routinely engage in not only anal sex, but anal sex where the man is receiving. sounds to me like fundamentalists are just not very creative or imaginative when it comes to screwing... i guess it's called the "missionary" position for a reason. well, sounds to me like lesbian sex is safer than straight sex. let's make lesbianism the only legal form of sexuality. i like how even the fundies are quite as disapproving of lesbian sex as they are gay (male) sex. turns out, everyone likes lesbians. or, at least, the highly inaccurate image in their heads (and on cinemax) of lesbians.

---

Well weel then. Kudos on finding a source that at least seems reputable. Of course i'll have to look this book up, check the sources within it, and make sure it is truly legit. And even youre source says you are wrong on the number. It says over 450 species of mammal, bird, and so on, not "1000".Now then; hehe. Based on what?? What is your foundation? What do you based this kind of morality on? Who made you preveror of morality?? Some would say calling people insults and cussing is immoral too.And this; Because That is the original term for the disease which as others have shown in the thread, turns out to be a false one. Hey, I was trying to use an argument besides the Bible (Nuggin said to bring such an argument in the OP, which you obviously didn't read well ) I did my best at the time. Try to come up with a better argument against homosexual marraige rights. It's what I had at the moment. and by your seemingly calling my distate for the acts and my religious views on homosexual sex/marriage "irrational Opposition" ( Views which are in agreement with Christianity. Romans 1:26-27)and your fondness for insulting and cussing out people who dont agree with YOU, then those particular thingies makes you a foul mouthed Christophobe. But then again it's not like your interested in the forum guidelines on insults and baiting tactics, now are you??Besides, you seem to have conveniently ignored my comparison to bigotry of robbers. Edited by LudoRephaim, : No reason given.

---

"The Nephilim where in the Earth in those days..." Genesis 6:4