Harm in Homosexuality?

I don't think we can say that "most" homosexuals have a "huge amount of partners" unless you have some evidence to that effect.In any case, since you have identified the problem as promiscuity, you have not shown that "homosexuality" is harmful; you've shown that promiscuity is harmful.Homosexuals and heterosexuals alike have the ability to choose unsafe sex or many partners - these things increase the likelihood STD transmission, not sexual orientation.Also from the US Dept of Health site you cited: Is being "black" a harmful lifestyle, too?Also, if you consider the entire world, the leading cause of the spread of HIV is heterosexual sex.Thus the average heterosexual lifestyle is harmful, according to your logical.

Regarding your source on promiscuity, I want to reference your comment on Africa: Your source for homosexual behavior is from 1978, before it was known that sex caused HIV/AIDS in the US. Thus the source is severely outdated and of little use to discussion of homosexual behavior after discovery of GRIDS/AIDS/HIV.No, the question becomes, do you have any source on homosexual behavior that isn't thirty years old? Your assertion that the present "homosexual lifestyle" is one of promiscuity needs evidence. (And your questions are very offensive without some serious evidence). (I'm assuming you meant to say "not a harmful lifestyle".)No, the statistics do not mean that ethnicity determines "danger" of HIV infection. It implies that there are black culture attributes (likely in a certain subculture) that result in a higher rate of exposure. It is those attributes, and not "blackness", that increase likelihood of HIV infection.Just like it is not "homosexuality", but certain attributes of (a likely subculture of) homosexuality that increase risk. Thus being "homosexual" or "black" in itself is NOT dangerous or harmful.Yes, I can, following your simple reading of statistics. I did exactly what you did, only with global statistics rather than national statistics. In examining the global epidemic, would you throw out the US numbers because they "skew the statistics" towards homosexuality?Since I used a much bigger sample size, I have a better representation of the average person with HIV, and that average person is heterosexual. Thus, (again according to your logic) the heterosexual lifestyle is harmful.I think you wanted to stick with the US because the statistics appear to match your argument.You need to learn some AIDS-related history. The epidemic spread of HIV in homosexual populations of the US happened twenty years ago, when the US was no more "knowledgeable about these things" than Africans currently are.Your refusal to excuse is no excuse at all - historical perspective is needed.

Okay. Let's look at data from a recent CDC report on HIV in the US: From this data, heterosexuality is more harmful than homosexuality when it comes to transmitted HIV. Heterosexuals must be more promiscuous than homosexuals. Also, heterosexuality is getting increasingly harmful each year!Egads!
_______________Added by edit: A better table title would be "Number of cases of HIV by year as percentage of HIV cases in 1998".This message has been edited by pink sasquatch, 11-14-2004 03:27 AM

There is evidence that there is a strong genetic component to homosexuality; even if the exact nature of that component is unclear: I ask those who think that homosexuality is immoral: How can a characteristic determined by genetics be immoral?We don't consider ethnicity in moral terms, or hair color, or a developmental syndrome such as autism, so why homosexuality?When a characteristic is based in genetics, individuals have no choice in the matter. Without the possibility of choice, there is no decision where morality can enter the equation.

So you are defining homosexuality by sex acts? That seems to be the case by the nature of your post.

Lam - I'm not sure why. In support of Dread I thought it was quite obvious he was stating the two were completely different. I think if people read that he was equating homosexuality with pedophilia it is their own reactionary hang-up.(My opinion is Dread deserves an apology...)I wish people would actually read Dread's posts carefully. He repeatedly get replies from people assuming he's anti-homosexual, when clearly he is not from his posts.

Dread,I agree.I just wish people would have read your posts carefully before jumping to conclusions and attacking you as some sort of ignorant bigot.I found their behavior offensive.

Actually I think you need to "think again", wasting sperm is punishable by death: Others have used this passage as Biblical proof that oral, anal, or any non-vaginal sex act is a sin against God.LB, if you are interested in talking about the Bible in reference to homosexuality, why not join the Bible and Homosexuality discussion, rather than posting in this intentionally Bible-free thread.I'd be interested to see what anti-homosexual verses you have to offer.

Perhaps we are looking at this problem in the wrong way: Apparently an antihomosexual society is harmful, since it applies psychological pressures so great that they result in depression and suicide. Additionally, an antihomosexual society does not provide services to homosexuals who need them, exacerbating the problem.Thus the harm is not in homosexuality, but in homophobia.

Your rant leads me to believe that you do not have a single reason why homosexuality is harmful. If you do, please present it, and we'll discuss it.Or was there a point that was already brought up in the thread that you think we dismissed to readily and you'd like to defend?

That would be off-topic. If you want to start a seperate topic, do so.Again, your response leads me to believe you can't come up with anything harmful about homosexuality. If you can, by all means come out and state it so we can have an actual discussion.

Perhaps if you gave more than vague comments you would get somewhere. Either present an actual argument or stop whining.

You provide a nice list of assertions with no evidence to back them up. You say studies exist. Please link to the studies or give more information about them. I went to fathermag, and didn't see what you were talking about. Please provide a direct link.The studies I have seen state that having two loving parents (vs. one) is the important factor in raising a well-adjusted child, not the gender of the parents. Yeah, if you check the Bush is Back pt II thread, you'll find the statistics showing that red states, and specifically the states that voted against homosexual marriage, are the ones with the highest divorce rates.The heathen "blue states" keep their families together better than the anti-homosexual Bible-belt-basket "red states". Who should we trust about the dangers of homosexuality to the sanctity of the family? That has nothing to do with homosexuality. Do you really base your knowledge of sex on MTV? No wonder you have bizarre ideas. The stats I present weren't of heterosexuals with HIV. They were of confirmed cases of heterosexual transmission of HIV. You do know the difference right? Heterosexual transmission means they got HIV through heterosexual sex, and not homosexual experimentation.If they got it through homosexual experimentation it would go in the homosexual transmission category.You interpretation is wrong. You do realize I'm actually looking at your sources, don't you? There is nothing about "fisting training" at 888webtoday.com.And maybe you should think about more objective sources than unreviewed conservative websites.Provide some real studies, please.

First of all, why do you think I'm a "HER"?I'm guessing it is because you quickly judge people with little to no knowledge of them.Since you "know" my sex, do you "know" my sexuality, too?By the way, it was not my perspective, I was reiterating what I thought was an important conclusion of the study: There would be no stress associated with "coming out" to an open society (indeed in an open society "coming out" wouldn't exist as a process). The stress and fear and depression come from the pressure of being one's self in a bigoted society. The lack of services available for homosexuals (again a result of a bigoted society) exacerbate this problem.That's the conclusion of the study.

You're wrong. Here it is: Unless you think that "eternal fire" refers to something other than hell...