All homosexual relationships are inferior

[mwok]

HIV can spread even more through heterosexual intercourse. Drug use, needles, and mother to baby.

Yes, thats why when I go to donate blood they ask me if I’ve ever had sex with someone of the opposite sex, even once, from 1977 to present.

aabb.org/resources/donation/questionnaires/Documents/dhq/v1-3/Full-LengthDonorHistoryQuestionnairev1.3.pdf

It’s not the heterosexual intercourse that’s the problem, it’s the hazardous activities in addition to intercourse.

 

[Serious]

No no no. You see, the blindfold isn’t an actual physical blindfold because this is an analogy, so you can only take it off within the analogy - in which case, within the analogy, you would see the cliff because of what the removing the blindfold is analogous for. The cliff would be right there.

Then the analogy is wrong. Because in real life you cannot demonstrate the existence of the cliff. It is either I believe you or i don’t. And I don’t believe you blindly, but I am willing to accept that you are right and I am wrong, IF you can demonstrate your point. But your word (or the collective word of all christians, including the church and the magisterium) is simply not sufficient.

Now, this is the case in this analogy, because I’m right in the analogy because, well, I believe I’m right and because the golden rule is “Do [not do] unto others as YOU WOULD have them do [not do] unto YOU.” Not “don’t do unto others as they don’t want you to do unto them.”

There is no difference. Let’s spell them out:

The positive rule: “Do unto them as you would want them to do unto you”.
The negative rule: “Do NOT do unto them as you would NOT want them to do unto you”.
Which is the same as: “Do not do unto them that they do not want you to do”… because you would want the same treatment - and this logically follows from the negative rule. Or to put it real simple: “If you do not want them to interfere with you, then leave them alone”.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

HIV can spread even more through heterosexual intercourse. Drug use, needles, and mother to baby.

True, HIV is also in the heterosexual population, introduced via bisexuality of male partners and drug use/needles. But the trend has always been that the infection rate in heterosexual men and women are not anywhere near the infection rate in homosexuals.

The September 2011 fact sheet from the Center for Disease Control provide a grim statistic on HIV spread in men who have sex with men (MSM), compared to the numbers of infection in heterosexual men and women. See the chart on the provided link below.

A Snapshot by the CDC from most recent data 2006 - 2009

• MSM account for more than half of all new HIV infections in the United States each year (61%, or an estimated 29,300 infections).
• While CDC estimates that only 4 percent of men in the United States are MSM,** the rate of new HIV diagnoses among MSM in the United States is more than 44 times that of other men** (range: 522 –989 per 100,000 MSM vs. 12 per 100,000 other men).
• According to the latest estimates, white MSM represent the largest number of new HIV infections (11,400) in the United States, followed closely by black MSM (10,800) and Hispanic MSM (6,000).
• In a study of 21 major U.S. cities in 2008, MSM had high levels of HIV infection, and many of those infected with HIV did not know it.
• AIDS continues to claim the lives of too many MSM. Since the beginning of the epidemic, more than 286,000 MSM with AIDS have died.

[Men who have sex with men have a 140-fold higher risk for newly diagnosed HIV and syphilis compared with heterosexual men in New York City (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21857351). Abstract, December 2011

Another summary: Fact sheet from Kaiser Foundation

In San Francisco, there were 15,861 San Franciscans living with HIV/AIDS by the end of 2010. Most were male (92%) and white (63%). In addition, nearly three-quarters of all HIV/AIDS cases were among men who have sex with men (MSM) and an additional 14% were among MSM who were also injecting drug users. Of the total number of people with HIV/AIDS, 9,452 were living with AIDS at the end of 2010. 92% of those living with AIDS are male, 6% are female and 2% are transgender.

In the U.S., gay and bisexual men continue to bear the greatest burden of HIV infection, accounting for an estimated 53% of new HIV infections.

 

[Serious]

Dear Serious,

Truly, for me the issue with “leaving people alone” is that I care about everyone too much to do so. As I see it, what I believe isn’t some “urban legend.” People used to think germs were an urban legend, and sickness was caused by ill winds or something. And seeing as I care for strangers, I can’t see how doing my best to help them is wrong or intrusive.

True, I wouldn’t support going running into a homosexual’s house and condemning them. I wouldn’t support peeking on them and calling the “sodomy cops” or whatever. I would strongly support giving my views whenever it came up. I would support explaining my views and the reasons why I believe they are the right views. Most importantly, I would advocate respecting the persons who have the issue.

I truly do know homosexuals, and people who do drugs, and people who engage in premarital sex and use contraceptives. I writhe in my seat whenever I meet people I know and care for who do things I believe are wrong. But I don’t shove it down their throats. I explain my point of view. And much of the time, they’ll agree with me, and do it anyway. Which I find frustrating, and which makes me want to force them to do it. But, I know that I can’t. At the same time, I cannot advocate legislation which lets them do bad things; I’m morally obligated to try to stop them. I don’t see this as bad, because they’ll do it whether it’s legal or not, like Prohibition.

This kind of thinking and action is what I mean when I say I am “against” any issue. I don’t intend to curb stomp you or verbally bludgeon you for your opinion (I don’t mean “you” as in “you” individually). In fact, I’m usually the one who gets bludgeoned for my opinion. All that I hope for is for that person to do what I know is right, which isn’t suppressing their feelings, but living above them. Just as I’d want my siblings or children to do what’s best for themselves. Just as I want my parents and aunts and uncles to do what is best for themselves. It’s not organized oppression, it’s just what I see as my validated concern. I’m opposed to things like gay marriage for more reasons than just my faith and morals.

Sincerely,
JNdoum

I have only a few remarks to make. Mostly I agree with you, but not in everything. You said: “All that I hope for is for that person to do what I know is right”, and it should be corrected to “All that I hope for is for that person to do what I believe is right”. Because if you knew, you could demonstrate it to others, and of course you cannot.

You say that you would not support a “sodomy police”, and I fully agree with you. But again, you do not reflect the views of everyone. Some would do exactly that. Would you stand up against those people? (Rhetorical question. )

You did not actually spell out if you would be for or against to give homosexuals equal rights that the heterosexaul married couples already enjoy, so I am in the dark in that respect, though your words seem to indicate that you would be against such a measure. Maybe it would not be called marriage (though it is merely semantics) but a “civil union”, which would allow them to have visitation rights in hospital, use the tax system to their advantage, inherit from each other and stuff like that.

There was a nice saying by Voltaire: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” This should be amended to: “I disapprove of what you DO, but I will defend to the death your right to DO it.” Not to replace the original, but added to it. What say you?

 

[mwok]

So based on the CDC, unions that involve homosexual intercourse are inferior to unions that involve heterosexual intercourse because HIV is more prevalent in homosexual relationships?

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

True, HIV is also in the heterosexual population, introduced via bisexuality of male partners and drug use/needles. But the trend has always been that the infection rate in heterosexual men and women are not anywhere near the infection rate in homosexuals.

The September 2011 fact sheet from the Center for Disease Control provide a grim statistic on HIV spread in men who have sex with men (MSM), compared to the numbers of infection in heterosexual men and women. See the chart on the provided link below.

A Snapshot by the CDC from most recent data 2006 - 2009

• MSM account for more than half of all new HIV infections in the United States each year (61%, or an estimated 29,300 infections).
• While CDC estimates that only 4 percent of men in the United States are MSM,** the rate of new HIV diagnoses among MSM in the United States is more than 44 times that of other men** (range: 522 –989 per 100,000 MSM vs. 12 per 100,000 other men).
• According to the latest estimates, white MSM represent the largest number of new HIV infections (11,400) in the United States, followed closely by black MSM (10,800) and Hispanic MSM (6,000).
• In a study of 21 major U.S. cities in 2008, MSM had high levels of HIV infection, and many of those infected with HIV did not know it.
• AIDS continues to claim the lives of too many MSM. Since the beginning of the epidemic, more than 286,000 MSM with AIDS have died.

[Men who have sex with men have a 140-fold higher risk for newly diagnosed HIV and syphilis compared with heterosexual men in New York City (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21857351). Abstract, December 2011

Another summary: Fact sheet from Kaiser Foundation

In San Francisco, there were 15,861 San Franciscans living with HIV/AIDS by the end of 2010. Most were male (92%) and white (63%). In addition, nearly three-quarters of all HIV/AIDS cases were among men who have sex with men (MSM) and an additional 14% were among MSM who were also injecting drug users. Of the total number of people with HIV/AIDS, 9,452 were living with AIDS at the end of 2010. 92% of those living with AIDS are male, 6% are female and 2% are transgender.

In the U.S., gay and bisexual men continue to bear the greatest burden of HIV infection, accounting for an estimated 53% of new HIV infections.

Have you looked at sub-Saharan Africa? It has 2/3 of the people with HIV/AIDS and it’s almost all spread by heterosexuals

 

[RobbyS]

I am not making that value judgment. I only say that “the right of my fist ends where your nose begins”. I have no right to hurt you, but as long as I do not hurt you, I can do whatever I damned well please. And it is no one else’s business.

That pretty much begs the question: What would be the consequences of homosexual marriage? When they instituted no fault divorce the discussion did not foresee the harmful effects, not only on the children of divorce, but attitudes toward marriage itself. You get to the point where thepublic accepts the old hippie view that it is just a bourgeois thing, that a marriage license is just a piece of paper, or at best a contract with multiple escape clauses. So buys, especially say, why get married, why commit at all. If marriage can be reduced to sexual/personal affections, then why bother, except for the government benefits that might ensue?

 

[RobbyS]

Have you looked at sub-Saharan Africa? It has 2/3 of the people with HIV/AIDS and it’s almost all spread by heterosexuals

Heterosexual who engage in polygamous sexual relationships. Which is BTW also a characteristic of the homosexual life-style. As a practical matter, do you really, really think think that gays who get married will be any more faithful to their “partners” than “straight”men are? Bottom line, they are trying to force the public to accept their actions a not just permissible actions, but moral. And they want to use all the instruments of state coersion to compel us to agree.

 

[RobbyS]

True, HIV is also in the heterosexual population, introduced via bisexuality of male partners and drug use/needles. But the trend has always been that the infection rate in heterosexual men and women are not anywhere near the infection rate in homosexuals.

The September 2011 fact sheet from the Center for Disease Control provide a grim statistic on HIV spread in men who have sex with men (MSM), compared to the numbers of infection in heterosexual men and women. See the chart on the provided link below.

A Snapshot by the CDC from most recent data 2006 - 2009

• MSM account for more than half of all new HIV infections in the United States each year (61%, or an estimated 29,300 infections).
• While CDC estimates that only 4 percent of men in the United States are MSM,** the rate of new HIV diagnoses among MSM in the United States is more than 44 times that of other men** (range: 522 –989 per 100,000 MSM vs. 12 per 100,000 other men).
• According to the latest estimates, white MSM represent the largest number of new HIV infections (11,400) in the United States, followed closely by black MSM (10,800) and Hispanic MSM (6,000).
• In a study of 21 major U.S. cities in 2008, MSM had high levels of HIV infection, and many of those infected with HIV did not know it.
• AIDS continues to claim the lives of too many MSM. Since the beginning of the epidemic, more than 286,000 MSM with AIDS have died.

[Men who have sex with men have a 140-fold higher risk for newly diagnosed HIV and syphilis compared with heterosexual men in New York City (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21857351). Abstract, December 2011

Another summary: Fact sheet from Kaiser Foundation

In San Francisco, there were 15,861 San Franciscans living with HIV/AIDS by the end of 2010. Most were male (92%) and white (63%). In addition, nearly three-quarters of all HIV/AIDS cases were among men who have sex with men (MSM) and an additional 14% were among MSM who were also injecting drug users. Of the total number of people with HIV/AIDS, 9,452 were living with AIDS at the end of 2010. 92% of those living with AIDS are male, 6% are female and 2% are transgender.

In the U.S., gay and bisexual men continue to bear the greatest burden of HIV infection, accounting for an estimated 53% of new HIV infections.

Remember the Ryan White case, which led to a successful propoganda barrage that warned about an AiDS plague that was supposed to strike the general population. Fact is that AIDS in the United States is caused almost entirely by drug users and homosexual males.

 

[Iron_Donkey]

Then the analogy is wrong. Because in real life you cannot demonstrate the existence of the cliff. It is either I believe you or i don’t. And I don’t believe you blindly, but I am willing to accept that you are right and I am wrong, IF you can demonstrate your point. But your word (or the collective word of all christians, including the church and the magisterium) is simply not sufficient.

Again, clearly you think the analogy is wrong, but this is irrelevant. Not that I’m unwilling to defend my position (though I am unwilling to defend it right now in this thread), but that what others think of the truth of what I believe (or for that matter, the actual truth of what I believe) actually does not matter so far as the Golden Rule is concerned. Because again, the Golden Rule says that I should do to others what I would want them to do me, not what they would want me to do to them.

There is no difference. Let’s spell them out:

The positive rule: “Do unto them as you would want them to do unto you”.
The negative rule: “Do NOT do unto them as you would NOT want them to do unto you”.
Which is the same as: “Do not do unto them that they do not want you to do”… because you would want the same treatment - and this logically follows from the negative rule. Or to put it real simple: “If you do not want them to interfere with you, then leave them alone”.

First bold is incorrect, second bold is correct, but only because the hypothesis is false. That is, I do not want people to ignore (what they see as) the truth to avoid annoying me. Now, once they start annoying me, I may very well attempt to change what they think is true, but I would much prefer that people behave according to the truth as they see it than simply ignore the truth as they see it for my sake.

Or to put is real simple, I do not have a desire that people not interfere with me. Learning is good.

 

[Serious]

That pretty much begs the question: What would be the consequences of homosexual marriage?

Nothing at all. Two people who love each other would live in a legally sanctioned relationship.

When they instituted no fault divorce the discussion did not foresee the harmful effects, not only on the children of divorce, but attitudes toward marriage itself.

Is it better for the children to be in a hostile relationship, then after a quick and friendly divorce?

You get to the point where thepublic accepts the old hippie view that it is just a bourgeois thing, that a marriage license is just a piece of paper, or at best a contract with multiple escape clauses. So buys, especially say, why get married, why commit at all. If marriage can be reduced to sexual/personal affections, then why bother, except for the government benefits that might ensue?

Exactly. There is nothing special about it, except for the goverment benefits.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Have you looked at sub-Saharan Africa? It has 2/3 of the people with HIV/AIDS and it’s almost all spread by heterosexuals

As a matter of fact, yes, I looked at the African data. The behavior of the population engaging in promiscuous sex and transmission of HIV that started the epidemic in Africa and the U.S. have been investigated and compared.

In Africa:

It was in Kinshasa in the 1970s that the first epidemic of HIV/AIDS is believed to have occurred. The emerging epidemic in the Congolese capital was signalled by a surge in opportunistic infections, such as cryptococcal meningitis, Kaposi’s sarcoma, tuberculosis and specific forms of pneumonia.

It is speculated that HIV was brought to the city by an infected individual who travelled from Cameroon by river down into the Congo. On arrival in Kinshasa, the virus entered a wide urban sexual network and spread quickly.

Heterosexually-spread HIV epidemic had begun.Truck drivers – alongside other migrants such as soldiers, traders and miners - have been identified as a group which facilitated the initial rapid spread of HIV-1, as they engaged with sex workers and spread HIV outwards on the transport and trade routes.

But in South Africa:

It is thought that the first case of HIV in South Africa was in a white, homosexual air steward from the USA who died of pneumonia (PCP) in 1982. Blood specimens showed a 16 percent infection rate among tested gay men in Johannesburg in 1983. The small-scale epidemic was largely confined to white gay men and remained virtually unheard of in the general population in the mid 1980s.

And In the USA:

At the beginning of the 1980s various reports began to emerge in California and New York of a small number of men who had been diagnosed with rare forms of cancer and/or pneumonia. The pneumonia, Pneumocystis Pneumonia Carinii (PCP), is generally only found in individuals with seriously compromised immune systems. However, the men were young and had previously been in relatively good health. The only other characteristic that connected them was that they were all gay.

As far as I can glean, the poster to whom I replied is in the USA, and his comment seems to be muting the fact that in the American experience since AIDS has exploded in the 80’s, and up to now, the number and rate of infection is more significant in men who have sex with men.
,

 

[Serious]

Because again, the Golden Rule says that I should do to others what I would want them to do me, not what they would want me to do to them.

You speak of the positive version, and what you say points out the dangers of it. The positive version is very easy twist. Example: “You say: I want that pretty girl to make passionate love to me, and therefore I will make passionate love to her - even if she does not want it!”.

You cannot do that “trick” with the negative version. Obviously you do not wish to be raped, therefore you extend the same to her, and do not attempt to rape her.

Or to put is real simple, I do not have a desire that people not interfere with me. Learning is good.

I bet you would change your mind real soon, if someone would keep on hounding you and keep on bothering you, especially with something that you see as sheer idiocy and nonsense. Are you really willing to be bothered by someone who believes that your life is determined by the constellations of the stars at the time of your birth, and keep on “stalking” you to explain that you should accept the curative powers of pyraminds, or something equally inane new-age type of nonsense? I don’t think so.

 

[mitex]

Remember the Ryan White case, which led to a successful propoganda barrage that warned about an AiDS plague that was supposed to strike the general population. Fact is that AIDS in the United States is caused almost entirely by drug users and homosexual males.

Ryan White got AIDS from a blood transfusion! He was a hemophiliac! That’s not his fault! How dare you

AIDS affects heterosexuals just as much as gays and drug users. Not very “loving” or “Christian” of you to stereotype people like that.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Ryan White got AIDS from a blood transfusion! He was a hemophiliac! That’s not his fault! How dare you

AIDS affects heterosexuals just as much as gays and drug users. Not very “loving” or “Christian” of you to stereotype people like that.

RobbyS will likely come back to reply on his own behalf. However, you seem to have a reading or comprehension problem. Nothing in Robby’s comment disagrees with the facts of the Ryan White case that have to do with how he contracted the disease. The short post did not state or infer that the kid deserved to get it or should be faulted. Do you understand the part where he wrote that *it (meaning the case) led to a propaganda barrage … *?

Calm down. Emotion and hysteria take away from your arguments.
,

 

[sw85]

I am not making that value judgment. I only say that “the right of my fist ends where your nose begins”. I have no right to hurt you, but as long as I do not hurt you, I can do whatever I damned well please. And it is no one else’s business.

I’m always amused when atheists come here with the “that’s your opinion” attitude. It’s characteristic of the “epistemic weakness” idea common to most modern political ideologies – the idea that no one possesses certain knowledge of the good and therefore everyone must be free to pursue their own vision of the good.

The reason this amuses me is because *obviously *Catholics don’t believe this, so *obviously *this appeal isn’t going to work with them. If we thought no man could possess certain knowledge of the good, we wouldn’t be Catholics.

 

[Serious]

The reason this amuses me is because obviously Catholics don’t believe this, so obviously this appeal isn’t going to work with them. If we thought no man could possess certain knowledge of the good, we wouldn’t be Catholics.

Fortunately catholics are not a homogenous group (not even all are homophobic ). Many of them do not find any problem with the concept of “live and let live”, of respecting others, even if they disagree with them. I guess these are the ones whom you like to call “heretics” and “apostates”. But the fact is that your kind of “ultra-reactionary”, “holier-than-thou” super-orthodox catholics is on the decline and the number of those “heretical” and “librul” catholics-in-name-only type of people is on the rise. And there is no sign of that trend to reverse itself. You may try to find solace in the idea that the Church will “excommunicate” the undeserving cafeteria-catholics, but that is not likely to happen any time soon. The church cannot afford to excommunicate the majority of its members. What would happen then to the money?

So I wish you the best in your declining years. Comfort yourself that you will be admitted to heaven and then you can say “nyah-nyah” to the heretics burning in hell. I am sure it will be a great consolation. Cheers, bud!

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Heterosexual who engage in polygamous sexual relationships. Which is BTW also a characteristic of the homosexual life-style. As a practical matter, do you really, really think think that gays who get married will be any more faithful to their “partners” than “straight”men are? Bottom line, they are trying to force the public to accept their actions a not just permissible actions, but moral. And they want to use all the instruments of state coersion to compel us to agree.

That’s a stereotype.

Depends on how they understand marriage.

Remember the Ryan White case, which led to a successful propoganda barrage that warned about an AiDS plague that was supposed to strike the general population. Fact is that AIDS in the United States is caused almost entirely by drug users and homosexual males.

These days it keeps picking up steam in infecting heterosexuals (especially blacks for unkown reasons).

Nothing at all. Two people who love each other would live in a legally sanctioned relationship.

Is it better for the children to be in a hostile relationship, then after a quick and friendly divorce?

Exactly. There is nothing special about it, except for the goverment benefits.

I know people who were used as weapons against another parent.

Fortunately catholics are not a homogenous group (not even all are homophobic ). Many of them do not find any problem with the concept of “live and let live”, of respecting others, even if they disagree with them. I guess these are the ones whom you like to call “heretics” and “apostates”. But the fact is that your kind of “ultra-reactionary”, “holier-than-thou” super-orthodox catholics is on the decline and the number of those “heretical” and “librul” catholics-in-name-only type of people is on the rise. And there is no sign of that trend to reverse itself. You may try to find solace in the idea that the Church will “excommunicate” the undeserving cafeteria-catholics, but that is not likely to happen any time soon. The church cannot afford to excommunicate the majority of its members. What would happen then to the money?

So I wish you the best in your declining years. Comfort yourself that you will be admitted to heaven and then you can say “nyah-nyah” to the heretics burning in hell. I am sure it will be a great consolation. Cheers, bud!

Saying “not even all are homophobic” heavily implies most are.

Actually there is currently a return to orthodoxy amongst youth

 

[Iron_Donkey]

You speak of the positive version, and what you say points out the dangers of it. The positive version is very easy twist. Example: “You say: I want that pretty girl to make passionate love to me, and therefore I will make passionate love to her - even if she does not want it!”.

You cannot do that “trick” with the negative version. Obviously you do not wish to be raped, therefore you extend the same to her, and do not attempt to rape her.

Actually, I wrote out the positive version because it’s shorter. The other one is similar. Using negative formulation anyway: I will not do to others what I do not want them to do to me still doesn’t reference what they want at all. What the rule prohibits depends on who is applying it to themselves. To use your example, a person who for some twisted reason wanted to be raped would not be prohibited from raping by the golden rule.

I bet you would change your mind real soon, if someone would keep on hounding you and keep on bothering you, especially with something that you see as sheer idiocy and nonsense. Are you really willing to be bothered by someone who believes that your life is determined by the constellations of the stars at the time of your birth, and keep on “stalking” you to explain that you should accept the curative powers of pyraminds, or something equally inane new-age type of nonsense? I don’t think so.

Indeed, I do not want to be hounded and I do not support hounding and continuously bothering a person. But lack of stalking a person and never giving them a moment’s peace is not the same as leaving them entirely alone.

Your astrologer, for example, could legitimately approach me to try to change my mind despite the fact that I am perfectly happy with where my mind is right now. But he could not, for example, break into my house at 3am, wake me up, and start telling me that I need to follow the signs of some stupid planet or other. Again, the fact that I think astrology is ridiculous just doesn’t come into play, and neither does the fact that I think there is absolutely zero chance that I will come to accept astrology.

 

[JNdoum]

I have only a few remarks to make. Mostly I agree with you, but not in everything. You said: “All that I hope for is for that person to do what I know is right”, and it should be corrected to “All that I hope for is for that person to do what I believe is right”. Because if you knew, you could demonstrate it to others, and of course you cannot.

You say that you would not support a “sodomy police”, and I fully agree with you. But again, you do not reflect the views of everyone. Some would do exactly that. Would you stand up against those people? (Rhetorical question. )

You did not actually spell out if you would be for or against to give homosexuals equal rights that the heterosexaul married couples already enjoy, so I am in the dark in that respect, though your words seem to indicate that you would be against such a measure. Maybe it would not be called marriage (though it is merely semantics) but a “civil union”, which would allow them to have visitation rights in hospital, use the tax system to their advantage, inherit from each other and stuff like that.

There was a nice saying by Voltaire: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” This should be amended to: “I disapprove of what you DO, but I will defend to the death your right to DO it.” Not to replace the original, but added to it. What say you?

Well, you see, belief is knowledge, in truth. I do not, in actuality, know for a fact much of anything. I simply believe I have not been lied to about everything. Therefore (to me at least) belief and knowledge are interchangeable terms, and I apologize for the confusion that may cause.

As for rights to homosexual couples, I could support a union so long as it did not involve sex. But I really could not ask them to do this. I could only give my point of view, and advise. I wish to point out that if the case were in fact that homosexuals were being horribly oppressed, I would speak out. If they were not allowed to touch each other or something riddiculous like that, I would denounce such unfair laws. However, I would not support laws which I believed promoted wrong practices. I could also not support a homosexual marriage, because my religion specifically states that a marriage is a union between a man and a woman. Besides this, I do not see a homosexual union as a natural occurence.

Despite this, I would never denounce a homosexual for his actions or his homosexuality. I am called by my God not to judge or condemn my brothers and sisters, so I try my best not to do so even in my heart. And I can, to some extent, empathize. I am in the process of seriously considering the priesthood, which calls for a life of celibacy. Therefore I understand the difficulty of giving up what you believe harms no one, and sex. I also may have to give up children, which I have wanted for practically my entire life. I understand it isn’t easy, and I understand if they fail, or decide not to. But I don’t support the decision, I support the person. I believe that if they turn around, then they can be forgiven, and that if they don’t they may well be forgiven by God, who understands them better than I do. But I feel I must explain to them why I believe it is wrong as often and as lovingly as possible.

Your assumption that I cannot demonstrate it to others is sort of inaccurate, as I probably could demonstrate it to others. My beliefs are not a strictly heterosexual idea. Whether the individual accepts the demonstration is an entirely different question, and whether by their standards the definition is valid. I can only believe and live by the truths that I believe are true. I just happen to have a large community which agrees with many of my truths, and I believe that my Maker has laid these truths down. So I could never undertone them, or hide behind the mask of “ambivalence.”

I believe strongly in free will, and that I don’t have the right to infringe upon this, which I believe is the point you are trying to make. But I do not believe advocating my beliefs is violating theirs, but expressing mine. I think we could argue for years over what is “true” or not, but the point is that I think that truth should be used like food, given to the hungry, and allowing them to eat it or not. You are correct in saying that it should never be force-fed, or used to choke another. I hope that cleared my viewpoint up a bit more for you.