Refuting the infertility argument used to promote Same Sex Marriage

[zamyrabyrd]

Another classic example of answering questions that haven’t been asked. I’m not interested in who you would marry. But you seem very concerned about not allowing people to marry if there is a risk of disease. And that has been specifically noted as a sexually transmitted disease passed on by deviant means. So the question, again, is how do you tell if someone is going to indulge in what you quaintly describe as ‘deviant sex’?
I did not ask how people who are getting married find out what sort of sex they are likely to have together. You have constantly complained about deviant sex and how it spreads disease and have used this as an argument for not allowing gay people to get married.
Notwithstanding that it’s a facile argument, it holds no merit whatsoever if you would then allow straight people to marry if they indulge in the same behaviour – deviant, disease-spreading sex.
So, one more time: You say that people having deviant sex should not be allowed to marry. And the question, again: How do you tell who is going to have ‘deviant sex’? You seem to assume that gay people will have it but how do you tell if straight people are going to do the same?

Here we go again on the merry go round!!!
The premise of this thread is about infertility, by extension why this is so. I prefer to use the word “relations”, as it is less indelicate than the three letter word you enjoy repeating. I am a lady!
OK, it might be a good idea to test for HIV as syphilis has been done as a kind of screening. In fact, HIV has become a scourge in certain places like Africa where these types of “relations” are practiced. Frequently that disease is gotten from prostitutes.
Anything outside monogamy is a dangerous practice.
Now here’s a problem! Same sex arrangements, particularly by men, are admitted by them to be mainly open. This makes non-fertile practices even more dangerous by being exposed to the germs and bacteria of outsiders.
Back to the drawing board - traditional monogamous heterosexual marriage as it has been and will be. As for your other remarks about being on the wrong side of history and that young people now support SSM, well morality is not subject to vote. And you may be surprised at a backlash of those who are literally and figuratively fed up with this movement.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Another classic example of answering questions that haven’t been asked. I’m not interested in who you would marry. But you seem very concerned about not allowing people to marry

Let’s stop right here.

My point has nothing to do with ALLOWING of not ALLOWING people to marry.

My contention is that a same sex relationship cannot be defined as a marriage.

Same problem as above. That’s not what I asked. I asked if YOU would be happy if two people could marry if they had no medical problems. You seem to be concerned that people will pass on any disease they have if married (by Deviant Sex!), so if they had no disease, we can presumably discount that objection.

Your questions seem “tricky”.

Opposite sex couples can marry with or without medical problems. Of course I would be happy if they had no medical problems.

And again, is that the only type you should be allowed when getting married? If not, then your argument that gays have ‘different types’ of sex and should therefore not be married, is invalid.

Not exactly…

Sexual intercourse involves a man and a woman. Gay’s cannot have sexual intercourse.
Therefore “gay sex” does not justify calling their relationship a marriage.

Yet again! I really don’t believe this. You are either not reading what I write or are choosing to ignore the questions because they are in the too-hard basket. I did not ask how people who are getting married find out what sort of sex they are likely to have together. You have constantly complained about deviant sex and how it spreads disease and have used this as an argument for not allowing gay people to get married.

Deviant sex DOES spread disease. You should complain about it also.

As I said above…this has nothing to do with ALLOWING or not ALLOWING.

Nota bene DEFINING a same sex relationship as a marriage…PROMOTES and legitimizes a deviant sexual behavior that spreads disease.

So, one more time: You say that people having deviant sex should not be allowed to marry

.

Nope, never said that…see above,

And the question, again: How do you tell who is going to have ‘deviant sex’? You seem to assume that gay people will have it but how do you tell if straight people are going to do the same?

I don’t “assume” that gay people will have deviant sex…that is pretty obvious.

I really don’t know if straight people will have deviant sex and spread disease but if they do, it does not justify gay sexual behavior. Two wrongs don’t make it right.

 

[Peter_Plato]

That post has a whiff of desperation about it: ‘I’m in the minority, you disagree with me, therefore you are a sheep’. I’ve no problem with you thinking I’m wrong and I have no problem with people thinking that arguments with which they disagree are idiotic. But using derogatory terms such as ‘sheeple’ makes it sound like you think you’ve lost already. How do you think the discussion would go if someone says that some arguments for allowing SSM seem to be valid and you respond: ‘Well, if you want to be a sheep and simply take the easy road, go ahead’.

And maybe it should be ‘corralling the flock’ if you want to call people sheep.

Well, Bradski, this is where your ability to read between the lines gets challenged, along with your tendancy to collapse arguments into their weakest possible form.

The “sheeple” derogation came not as a result of desperation or frustration, but as a conclusion from how the arguments surrounding gay “marriage” have played out.

The rigorous logical arguments are all on the side of traditional marriage, while the case for SSM distills down to one of inclusivity. To wit: SS couples have a “right” to be included, like everyone else. That, my friend, is an argument ad ovis aries, one that has special appeal to herded beings, those uncomfortable with being away from the flock, even when it is the flock that is being ravaged by wolves.

In fact, the feelbad terms applied to those who voice disagreement with the whole idea of SSM (homophobe, bigot, intolerant) are all about cutting those who raise those arguments out of the herd so they are made to feel as though they don’t fit with the herd mentality on the issue. Even your casting aspersions on my motives for using the word “sheeple” is designed to get the herd on your side by making it appear that I have some kind of aversion to sheeplike behaviour.

That isn’t it at all. I think human beings have been domesticated for far too long and the mind molders and social engineers have become very effective at using the fact that human beings imprint on each other rather than on the truth to the detriment of all us sheep. (There, see how inclusive I can be?)

I am just pointing out that fact – I have nothing, in principle, against being part a herd, provided the herd isn’t headed for its demise headlong over a Garasene embankment or being gnawed on by carnivores. There is safety in numbers only if the numbers are safe, no?

 

[JapaneseKappa]

The premise of this thread is about infertility, by extension why this is so.

The thought experiment, it seems to me, should be like this:

Imagine we are on a game show called “Can They Marry” where two curtains hide two contestants from us, the viewers. Details about the pair are slowly revealed, and after each detail, we ask “can they marry?” The challenge for opponents of same-sex marriage is to identify a set of details which would allow them to rule out homosexual marriages (or only allow heterosexual marriages) without resulting in any ‘surprises’ when the curtain is raised.

The “infertility” detail was shown to be insufficient earlier in this thread. Essentially the argument was:
If “infertility” was the only detail you knew about the people behind the curtains, you would be unable to tell if they could marry or not.
In other words, basing your rejection on infertility would result in surprises when the curtain was raised. You would end up accidentally denying marriage to the heterosexual folks who want to get married at 70 years of age, or normal everyday couples who happen to be infertile.

You seem to now be saying that disease is a better detail, but I think you’ve still failed. In other words:
If “one of them has an STD” or “this pair is less likely than average to contract an STD” was the only detail you knew about the people behind the curtain, you would be unable to tell if they could marry or not.

 

[Peter_Plato]

The thought experiment, it seems to me, should be like this:

Imagine we are on a game show called “Can They Marry” where two curtains hide two contestants from us, the viewers. Details about the pair are slowly revealed, and after each detail, we ask “can they marry?” The challenge for opponents of same-sex marriage is to identify a set of details which would allow them to rule out homosexual marriages (or only allow heterosexual marriages) without resulting in any ‘surprises’ when the curtain is raised.

The “infertility” detail was shown to be insufficient earlier in this thread. Essentially the argument was:
If “infertility” was the only detail you knew about the people behind the curtains, you would be unable to tell if they could marry or not.
In other words, basing your rejection on infertility would result in surprises when the curtain was raised. You would end up accidentally denying marriage to the heterosexual folks who want to get married at 70 years of age, or normal everyday couples who happen to be infertile.

You seem to now be saying that disease is a better detail, but I think you’ve still failed. In other words:
If “one of them has an STD” or “this pair is less likely than average to contract an STD” was the only detail you knew about the people behind the curtain, you would be unable to tell if they could marry or not.

I suspect your thought experiment is going to prove too much, so to speak. If you think defining marriage, in a legal sense, as being between two individuals who are in a loving, committed relationship, then we can safely put two spinster sisters, a bachelor son looking after his aging mother or a grandmother taking care of her orphaned grandchild behind that same curtain. Come to think of it, we could put thruples or quadruples behind those curtains since loving commitment would seem disposed to that kind of openness.

The only reason for even having a loving PAIR is because sex, as an expression of love, has always been between two human beings AND the only reason sex has been seen as an expression of love (as opposed to a merely pleasurable activity) is because of its larger enterprise of creating, nurturing and sustaining new human beings (for which extraordinary love is required – simply having sex does not require love, merely two human beings disposed to pleasuring each other; a far cry from love.)

The only way your game show analogy can add anything at all to the discussion is if we have an adequate, comprehensive and accurate depiction of what marriage actually is to begin with.

nationalreview.com/article/378538/marriage-where-do-we-go-here-ryan-t-anderson

The infertility argument is bogus because it focusses too much on one aspect of what a marriage is, just as the “loving commitment” argument is bogus because, it too, focuses on one aspect to the exclusion of others. Marriage is a reality that encompasses many aspects of being human, not just one simplistic facet to the exclusion of all others.

A similar example would be to claim the word “mammal” refers only to live-bearing animals. The problem is that monotremes are mammals even though they lay eggs. Does that mean that egg-laying should now become part of the definition of being a mammal just because some mammals lay eggs? That, in effect, is what the infertility argument is claiming. Some heterosexual couples are infertile (just as some mammals lay eggs,) therefore gay couples being infertile should also be allowed to marry and the definition of “marriage” ought to be changed to permit it. The case, could then be made, I suppose, that birds should now be called mammals because a duckbilled platypus (a mammal) lays eggs and the definition of “mammal” should now be changed to permit the inclusion of birds, (and oviparous reptiles amphibians, insects, etc., while we are at it.)

Again, that is the problem with the infertility argument, it stakes its entire case on one aspect as if that aspect is the entire case to be made from the other side.

Speaking of desperation, Bradski, (pace JapaneseKappa) don’t YOU suppose the infertility argument just screams desperation, to say nothing of sheepish inclusion?

 

[PRmerger]

The argument is simply that you allow some people to marry and not others.

Right. And so do you.

We all do.

But for some reason Same Sex So-Called Marriage advocates reserve for themselves what they object to in others–namely, these SSSM folks say, “We get to draw the line as to who gets to marry but you folks don’t”.

#irony

 

[JapaneseKappa]

The only reason for even having a loving PAIR is because sex, as an expression of love, has always been between two human beings AND the only reason sex has been seen as an expression of love (as opposed to a merely pleasurable activity) is because of its larger enterprise of creating, nurturing and sustaining new human beings (for which extraordinary love is required – simply having sex does not require love, merely two human beings disposed to pleasuring each other; a far cry from love.)

If sex was only ever seen as an expression of love, then why is prostitution referred to as “the oldest profession?” Indeed, I would guess that polygamy has a longer history in human culture than monogamy.

As it currently stands, we are not talking about polygamy though, and I think that calls for legalization of polygamy are doomed to fail for the foreseeable future. After all, in the case of gay marriage, the state has no hard decisions to make: it is a binary proposition with no need for drastic changes to bureaucracy or laws. Plural marriages on the other hand require more decisions to be made. It is a non-trivial thing to extend the rights and responsibilities of marriage (as granted by the state) to more than two people. There are multiple ways this could conceivably be accomplished, but I think we should read “multiple ways” as “divided political front.”

The only way your game show analogy can add anything at all to the discussion is if we have an adequate, comprehensive and accurate depiction of what marriage actually is to begin with.

Sort of, but I think we will learn things if people who are making the most bold statements about marriage are unwilling or unable to play the game. As Chesterton said, “What embitters the world is not excess of criticism, but an absence of self-criticism” and I think this is an excellent tool for investigating ones own understanding of the details and definitions of marriage.

Again, that is the problem with the infertility argument, it stakes its entire case on one aspect as if that aspect is the entire case to be made from the other side.

The issue with your mammals example is that “mammal” is a scientific term with a rigorous definition that has no reference to eggs. That is why when you arrive at the suggestion “birds are mammals too!” you correctly label it an absurd conclusion. Marriage does not have such a set-in-stone definition. Or, to be more precise, it has multiple competing definitions. Therefore, allowing gays to marry may seem like saying “birds are mammals!” according to the Catholic definition of marriage, but the state is not interested in implementing the Catholic definition of marriage. Rather, the state is simply creating its own definition of marriage which attempts to encompass the wide variety of competing religious definitions.

My problem is essentially this:

Marriage has two contexts:

1. The society-at-large context. Here we are concerned with what sort of impact the institution of marriage (in a broad sense) has on society as a whole. This is the context that the state cares about and makes laws to regulate.
2. The individual context. Here we are concerned with the meaning of marriage to each individual. This is the context that religion mostly cares about and makes laws to regulate.

When we talk about sex and what is disordered vs ordered, we are fundamentally talking about the individual context. Society-at-large mostly doesn’t (and I would argue shouldn’t) care about what sort of sex (if any) is going on in a marriage. What marriage means to individuals, as well as how they love each other is a question with deep protection from things like the establishment clause specifically, and the “pursuit of happiness” concept generally. Certainly there are limits (e.g. public indecency) but for the most part people are, and ought to be, free to decide the meanings (sexual and otherwise) of their own marriage. You are free to argue that their interpretation is wrong, but you cannot legislate that their interpretation is wrong without reference to a society-at-large harm.

On the other hand, when we talk about the child-rearing benefits of marriage, we are now talking more about the society-at-large context. A healthy marriage is a great way to make healthy children, which is a great way to make a healthy society. Not many people would dispute that, I think. But it does not follow that therefore marriage must produce children or be capable of producing children, or even actually raise a child at all. After all, we are talking about the society-at-large context, and “marriage is for children” is an individual-context decision. That is why the state has no reason to refuse to recognize something like gay marriage since gay marriage has no impact on marriage’s status as “a good place to raise children.” Indeed, allowing gay marriage would bring the other societal benefits of marriage (e.g. increased financial security) to more people.

 

[PRmerger]

If sex was only ever seen as an expression of love, then why is prostitution referred to as “the oldest profession?”

For the same reason as this:

Even though human life is valued, murder is one of the oldest sins recorded in the Bible.

Why is it?

Because people are sinful.

 

[inocente]

What I am saying when there are more pressing issues like poverty and extreme unemployment, the focus should be on those rather than an marginal group that will change the whole fabric of society by their demands. This means officially mother and father will be changed to parent 1 and parent 2. This is Bolshevism anywhere it is happening.

It wasn’t exactly difficult to legalize equal marriage here, it just meant adding one sentence to the civil code.

But you’re saying no injustice can ever be righted until there’s an end to poverty? There have been far more threads on CAF against equal marriage than about ending poverty, so obviously most opponents of equal marriage don’t share your views about what are the most pressing issues.

Regarding you calling us Bolsheviks, the entire process was arrived at democratically under the rule of law and given assent by the King. If you want to call democracy Bolshevism then that’s your affair, but as this is the second time you’ve insulted Spain and its people, let me remind you of the stickies, so that when I report you I can tell the mod I gave you all due warning:

• Terms of derision, derogatory remarks, baiting, and inflammatory statements are prohibited.
• Avoid categorizing people by a term which could be considered derogatory

 

[zamyrabyrd]

It wasn’t exactly difficult to legalize equal marriage here, it just meant adding one sentence to the civil code.
But you’re saying no injustice can ever be righted until there’s an end to poverty? There have been far more threads on CAF against equal marriage than about ending poverty, so obviously most opponents of equal marriage don’t share your views about what are the most pressing issues.
Regarding you calling us Bolsheviks, the entire process was arrived at democratically under the rule of law and given assent by the King. If you want to call democracy Bolshevism then that’s your affair, but as this is the second time you’ve insulted Spain and its people, let me remind you of the stickies, so that when I report you I can tell the mod I gave you all due warning:

• Terms of derision, derogatory remarks, baiting, and inflammatory statements are prohibited.
• Avoid categorizing people by a term which could be considered derogatory

Oh by all means bring out the thought police for your righteous cause! Right is right if no one is doing it and wrong is wrong even if no one is doing it. When the people in Sodom and Gomorrah were busy fornicating, Lot should not have rebuked them?
Furthermore, I did NOT call you or the people of Spain (that according to you has 100% agreement with the movement to redefine marriage, although I have seen otherwise) Bolsheviks. I was describing how social engineering gets pushed onto an unsuspecting populace by Bolshevik methods.
Exploding the nuclear biological family is a step in the direction of dictatorship since the State has to enforce values that are not natural. As for not tackling other much more important issues (as currently in the American elections), people get warm fuzzies from thinking that they are doing some social good by gratuitously dispensing civil rights not realizing that their own rights are being taken out from them as the ground they are standing on. This has happened already in Canada. Now, do I have to apologize to the people of Canada and the US?

 

[PRmerger]

Oh by all means bring out the thought police for your righteous cause! Right is right if no one is doing it and wrong is wrong even if no one is doing it. When the people in Sodom and Gomorrah were busy fornicating, Lot should not have rebuked them?
Furthermore, I did NOT call you or the people of Spain (that according to you has 100% agreement with the movement to redefine marriage, although I have seen otherwise) Bolsheviks. I was describing how social engineering gets pushed onto an unsuspecting populace by Bolshevik methods.
Exploding the nuclear biological family is a step in the direction of dictatorship since the State has to enforce values that are not natural. As for not tackling other much more important issues (as currently in the American elections), people get warm fuzzies from thinking that they are doing some social good by gratuitously dispensing civil rights not realizing that their own rights are being taken out from them as the ground they are standing on. This has happened already in Canada. Now, do I have to apologize to the people of Canada and the US?

Wow, zamy. I suggest you take a more sanguine and measured approach to those who disagree with you.

It will serve you better in having your arguments considered.

 

[zamyrabyrd]

Wow, zamy. I suggest you take a more sanguine and measured approach to those who disagree with you.
It will serve you better in having your arguments considered.

“Thought Police” are the exact words used to describe the draconian100,000 euro fine on a Spanish pro family group in 2010 that asked the question “Proud of What?”
wnd.com/2010/07/179577/

‘THOUGHT POLICE’ SLAM MEDIA WITH FINE TOTALING $125,000
Offending ad sang praises of traditional family structure

“The European Centre for Law and Justice (ECLJ) is deeply concerned about a decision by country of Spain to punish a Christian-inspired media group for defending the traditional family. The ECLJ believes the decision is a dangerous restriction on freedom of expression of religious media.”

eclj.org/Releases/Read.aspx?GUID=496702da-27da-40cc-b78b-44836d02a2c6&s=eur

You were saying???

 

[zamyrabyrd]

Further to the assertion of complete unanimity I remember the Spanish pro family ad in 2010 and had a hard time searching it up just now.
christian.org.uk/news/spanish-govt-fines-media-group-for-family-values-ad/
The advert, which was aired 273 times, showed footage of homosexuals marching in Gay Pride Day parades, and posed a series of questions for viewers to consider.
These included: “Is this the type of society you want?” and “Are these the examples you want for your children?”
These are the lovely people that are not only being protected but coddled:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPpwTXAUftA
Orgullo Gay, orgullosos… ¿de qué?

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Gee, you’ve got more front than Maceys. You either answer questions I’m not asking or refuse to answer the ones I do ask. And then I omit to comment on one irrelevant part of your post and you take umbrage.

What? Did he say irrelevant? Well, yes he did. As this thread is about SSM and sex education for children is a different matter entirely. What I do in my bedroom and what gay people do in their bedroom is completely our own business and there is zero connection with how children are introduced to sexual matters. If you want to talk about it, then start a thread and I’ll join in.

Likewise any comments you have regarding sexual diseases are irrelevant to a discussion about marriage. Not least because you are not willing or able to consider the matter when it comes to straight couples. Unless you want to make it relevant and answer the questions I’m asking. I’m not holding my breath because I know your argument holds no water and your reticence in answering shows that you realise it to.

You asked…

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bradski
But surely you have no problem with people having sex any way they want? I mean, what’s it got to do with you? It’s hardly deviant, is it…

I answered:

It is deviant, in that it deviates from the normal…and I do have serious problems with it.

1. When it is promoted to children as a normal, natural, wholesome and healthy form of sexual activity…I have a BIG problem.

1. When any form of deviant behavior spreads disease that threatens all of society…I have another BIG problem.

I agree that the question is irrelevant to the subject of this thread but since you asked…I thought it would be courteous to give you an honest answer. Obviously that answer struck a nerve. I’m sorry but it is about you people started accepting the truth. To avoid this in the future I would suggest asking only relevant questions.

 

[Thorolfr]

When it is promoted to children as a normal, natural, wholesome and healthy form of sexual activity…I have a BIG problem.

You might have a big problem with homosexuality, but your disease based arguments don’t seem to be having much impact among most young people, including most young Catholics. According to a Pew Research Survey from last year, “Fully 85% of self-identified Catholics ages 18-29 said in a 2014 Pew Research Center survey that homosexuality should be accepted by society, compared with just 13% who said it should be discouraged.” In addition, “Three-quarters of Catholic adults under 30 support legal same-sex marriage.”

pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/10/16/young-u-s-catholics-overwhelmingly-accepting-of-homosexuality/

If anything, these kinds of arguments will probably backfire and will be seen as mean spirited and judgmental and even contrary to the Catechism of the Catholic Church which says that homosexual persons “must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity.” Even if you think that their sexual orientation is disordered, there is nothing respectful, compassionate or sensitive in constantly equating LGB people with “spreaders of disease”. A kinder approach would be more successful.

 

[Bradski]

OK, it might be a good idea to test for HIV as syphilis has been done as a kind of screening. In fact, HIV has become a scourge in certain places like Africa where these types of “relations” are practiced. Frequently that disease is gotten from prostitutes.

Are you saying that people with aids should not be allowed to marry?

Now here’s a problem! Same sex arrangements, particularly by men, are admitted by them to be mainly open. This makes non-fertile practices even more dangerous by being exposed to the germs and bacteria of outsiders.

Except we are talking about marriage.

My contention is that a same sex relationship cannot be defined as a marriage.

So all this talk of deviant behaviour, sexual health, the type of sex, what causes homosexuality, children’s sex education etc etc has been a waste of time. If that is your only contention, then make the statement and leave it at thyat. People can then decide whether you are right or wrong. Pretty simply really.

Your problem is…the majority of people disagree with you, hence all the other non-relevant points you feel obliged to bring up in hope to bolster your position. Excpet that it does just the opposite.

Even your casting aspersions on my motives for using the word “sheeple” is designed to get the herd on your side by making it appear that I have some kind of aversion to sheeplike behaviour.

That isn’t it at all. I think human beings have been domesticated for far too long and the mind molders and social engineers have become very effective at using the fact that human beings imprint on each other rather than on the truth to the detriment of all us sheep. (There, see how inclusive I can be?)

I am just pointing out that fact – I have nothing, in principle, against being part a herd, provided the herd isn’t headed for its demise headlong over a Garasene embankment or being gnawed on by carnivores. There is safety in numbers only if the numbers are safe, no?

Ah, I see. Sheeple is not to taken as a derogatory term because you consider yourself a sheep as well. That’s like calling someone a complete moron and when they take offence, you tell them: ‘Oh, no. Let’s face it – we’re all complete morons after all. Myself included’.

I’m giving that a fail.

Furthermore, I did NOT call you or the people of Spain Bolsheviks. I was describing how social engineering gets pushed onto an unsuspecting populace by Bolshevik methods.

Lots of back-peddling going on today. Whatever happened to: Sorry – didn’t mean to cause offence.

If anything, these kinds of arguments will probably backfire and will be seen as mean spirited and judgmental and even contrary to the Catechism of the Catholic Church which says that homosexual persons “must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity.” Even if you think that their sexual orientation is disordered, there is nothing respectful, compassionate or sensitive in constantly equating LGB people with “spreaders of disease”. A kinder approach would be more successful.

Fortunately, I think your advice will fall on deaf ears, Thorolf.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

You might have a big problem with homosexuality, but your disease based arguments don’t seem to be having much impact among most young people, including most young Catholics. According to a Pew Research Survey from last year, “Fully 85% of self-identified Catholics ages 18-29 said in a 2014 Pew Research Center survey that homosexuality should be accepted by society, compared with just 13% who said it should be discouraged.” In addition, “Three-quarters of Catholic adults under 30 support legal same-sex marriage.”

pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/10/16/young-u-s-catholics-overwhelmingly-accepting-of-homosexuality/

If anything, these kinds of arguments will probably backfire and will be seen as mean spirited and judgmental and even contrary to the Catechism of the Catholic Church which says that homosexual persons “must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity.” Even if you think that their sexual orientation is disordered, there is nothing respectful, compassionate or sensitive in constantly equating LGB people with “spreaders of disease”. A kinder approach would be more successful.

Did we not have a discussion about this PEW poll on one of the the other homosexual threads recently? I’m pretty sure you brought it up. Need I and copy & paste the entire refutation here again?

I have no problem with homosexuality per se. I have a problem with the PROMOTION of homosexuality as an acceptable, normal and natural form of sexual activity. I also do not accept the premise that homosexuality in innate. It is a choice or condition that can be rejected if the person desires such. I am on record on many other threads as promoting the danger of homosexual activity as a serious health risk. These facts are available on the Center for Disease Control’s website. Or simply Google “STDs at epidemic level in gay community”

Frankly I think it is the epitome of compassion to alert the gay community as to the danger of their activity. They should know and others should be fully aware that people are dying because they engage in unhealthful sexual practices.

It frustrates me to no end to have gay sympathizers and gay supporters who are fully aware of the spread of disease within the gay community…make excuses, promote the lifestyle and expect Catholics to accept a same sex relationship as a marriage.

I think it should be required that anyone who is pro gay should spend the last few hours with a dying AIDS victim.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

So all this talk of deviant behaviour, sexual health, the type of sex, what causes homosexuality, children’s sex education etc etc has been a waste of time.

Not really. The responses give me a pretty good idea of where people are really coming from. For instance, you picked up on the word “deviant” and used it several times. You did not take me to task for using a word that some consider inconsiderate or hurtful. I found that interesting. So do you agree that homosexual activity is, in fact, a deviant form of behavior?

If that is your only contention, then make the statement and leave it at thyat. People can then decide whether you are right or wrong. Pretty simply really.

Your problem is…the majority of people disagree with you, hence all the other non-relevant points you feel obliged to bring up in hope to bolster your position. Excpet that it does just the opposite…

Public opinion changes like the wind. It has no affect on the truth.

 

[Bradski]

Not really. The responses give me a pretty good idea of where people are really coming from. For instance, you picked up on the word “deviant” and used it several times. You did not take me to task for using a word that some consider inconsiderate or hurtful. I found that interesting.

Good grief. You really don’t get it, do you.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Good grief. You really don’t get it, do you.

Get what, Brad?

All I get is that you ask me obtuse questions and then answer them yourself…but you won’t answer my one little question…