I’ve never drawn that comparison. And as I said, those engaged in the discussion here have not done that - I don’t know why you raise it.
Who has suggested any of this? Are you just creating a strawman?
Your assertions have somewhat less credibility.
I don’t think it’s either deep or intellectual to see what is plain. But I also think it may be less than entirely honest to insist “nothing to see here”. Perhaps after a while though, what was plain to see no longer is.
The “benefits” suggested to arise from homosexuality do not as far as I can tell rely on same sex sexual relationships. At most, they may rely on an absence of opposite sex interest, where no question of morality arises.
Wha…? Just scroll up a few posts Rau. I mean, for heaven’s sake. I don’t think I have ever taken part in a discussion about ssm or gays in general on this forum without someone bringing up bestiality or incest.Freddy:
Me, never. And as I said, those engaged in the discussion here have not done that - I don’t know why you raise it.
Understandable. Perhaps take that up with those having raised the things you mentioned.
Why would it increase stability? Some approaches may be sharply rebuked. Others would seem to be of no consequence to the population as a whole.
Not all arguments against gay sex are religious. The perversion of the bodily parts in the act itself creates a health danger to those bodily parts and the elevated promiscuous behavior of MSM relative to non-MSM increases the spread of the associated diseases.
While your post demonstrates your aversion to the perversion of bestiality and incest, you reject the same sentiment in other’s aversion to homosexual acts as perverse. Again, I ask on what principles (or teaching, if you like) do you argue in support of your position.
Upstream I repeatedly posted non-religious foundational observations for sexual morality. It wasn’t really even an argument as such, it was a set of observations.o_mlly:
Rather than nonsensical arguments that suggest that it’s not a great idea just to ‘do what you want’ or that this piece of bodily architecture must only be used in certain prescribed ways, it would be better to admit that all arguments against gay sex are ultimately based on religious beliefs and then take it from there.
There is no more “health danger” associated with gay sex in itself than what there is with straight sex. If two gay men are in a lifelong monogamous relationship, there is almost zero chance that either one will get an STD or spread one. It is promiscuous behavior and unprotected sex that increase the risks of STDs, not “perversion of bodily parts in the act itself.” Straight people are also quite capable of getting and spreading STDs when they are promiscuous and practice unprotected sex.Freddy:
Not all arguments against gay sex are religious. The perversion of the bodily parts in the act itself creates a health danger to those bodily parts and the elevated promiscuous behavior of MSM relative to non-MSM increases the spread of the associated diseases.
Please read the articles as the conclusions drawn from both studies disagree with your opinions.
How does the study you posted disagree with what I said? It doesn’t have anything to say about the health consequences of being in a lifelong monogamous gay relationship. If gay men had lifelong partners and no sex outside that one relationship like some devout Christians, there would not be any risks of STDs.Thorolfr:
Please read the articles as the conclusions drawn from both studies disagree with your opinions.
Most gay men haven’t been hanging around CAF and learning about the Catholic perspective on sexuality, so what might seem plain to you is not necessarily plain to others. When the feelings someone has feel as natural and normal to them as breathing, they’re probably not going to notice the “incongruity” you speak of.Thorolfr:
I don’t think it’s either deep or intellectual to see what is plain. But I also think it may be less than entirely honest to insist “nothing to see here”. Perhaps after a while though, what was plain to see no longer is.
Perfectly understandable. Two things would be helpful for this issue in our culture, one from each “side”:Rau:
Most gay men haven’t been hanging around CAF and learning about the Catholic perspective on sexuality, so what might seem plain to you is not necessarily plain to others. When the feelings someone has feel as natural and normal to them as breathing, they’re probably not going to notice the “incongruity” you speak of.Thorolfr:
I don’t think it’s either deep or intellectual to see what is plain. But I also think it may be less than entirely honest to insist “nothing to see here”. Perhaps after a while though, what was plain to see no longer is.
The above is not what you posted.
The study showed the opposite.
Also, you claimed:
The assertion is meaningless for two reasons. First, it equally applies to both heterosexual and homosexual active individuals – the study does not address what is axiomatically true. And second, the study shows that gay lifelong monogamous relationships are not the norm but rare.
Two separate claims above. The first, again, is not instructive as promiscuity and unprotected sex in both heterosexual and homosexual individuals increase risk of disease. As to the second, the CDC in the study does report that the incidence of disease in the body parts misused by homosexuals increases:
You didn’t read what I wrote. I very purposely added the words “in itself.” That is to say, there is no STD risk associated, for example, with anal or oral sex by themselves. The risk comes from having sex with someone who has an STD and there are ways to avoid having sex with someone who has an STD. One way is to be in a monogamous relationship with someone who doesn’t have an STD. And it doesn’t matter how rare this kind of relationship is in practice in the gay community (and it’s not as rare as you might suppose). The fact is that anal and oral sex does not cause STDs and many straight couples also have this kind of sex. Those sex practices are hardly exclusive to gay men. The STD is caused by a virus or bacteria that is transmitted from someone who has that STD and it can also be transmitted during regular heterosexual intercourse. The virus or bacteria doesn’t care whether it’s infecting a throat or a woman’s private parts. I’ve been in a monogamous relationship with my partner for more than 20 years and have never gotten an STD from him.
And neither are you reading what I am writing. I said that the arguments are based on religious beliefs. Meaning that if your specific religion did not teach that gay sex was immoral you wouldn’t need any arguments at all against it.Freddy:
Not all arguments against gay sex are religious. The perversion of the bodily parts in the act itself creates a health danger to those bodily parts and the elevated promiscuous behavior of MSM relative to non-MSM increases the spread of the associated diseases.
Well put. Who is going to deny either point?Thorolfr:
Perfectly understandable. Two things would be helpful for this issue in our culture, one from each “side”:Rau:
Most gay men haven’t been hanging around CAF and learning about the Catholic perspective on sexuality, so what might seem plain to you is not necessarily plain to others. When the feelings someone has feel as natural and normal to them as breathing, they’re probably not going to notice the “incongruity” you speak of.Thorolfr:
I don’t think it’s either deep or intellectual to see what is plain. But I also think it may be less than entirely honest to insist “nothing to see here”. Perhaps after a while though, what was plain to see no longer is.
1 acknowledge that relationships of all kinds can have good things about them, even life-long committed goods, even when they are not fully unitive and procreative. If my gay neighbors love one another and are committed to live their lives this way, I have to respect them as persons.
2 acknowledge that the marriage of man and woman is unique, complementary, and essentially human in a unique way that no other relationship can ever be. This requires abandoning the pretense that gay relationships are “just like” the marriage of a man and woman. They simply are not, and pretending otherwise is counterproductive for everyone. This does not have to detract from respect for gay couples.
Because all the arguments against gay sex are based on the religious teachings of your church. It says that God doesn’t want it to happen. Let’s face it, if there was zero mention of homosexuality in the bible or if it was entirely indifferent to it then arguments about disease or the natural compatability of various body parts wouldn’t be needed.
Well, no they are not.goout:
Because all the arguments against gay sex are based on the religious teachings of your church.
Not so.