Gay marriage in minesota

[australopithecus]

As long as one is capable of safetly driving a car, then no.

Right, so if two gay people are capable of safely having sex, what's the problem? Your unconvincing concern about perceived harm, as has been pointed out, does nothing to detract from your obvious dislike of homosexuality. Just so you know.

 

[Inferno]

As long as one is capable of safetly driving a car, then no.

Interesting. So as long as you practice SAFE sex, that is to say with a condom, you'd be OK with homosexual sex?

EDIT: And what about any other form of sex which may increase certain risks? For example, anal sex certainly increases the prevalence of anal tears. Or oral sex. Or hey, sex for that matter. Did you know that nearly 100% of all chlamydia is transmitted during sex? Hey presto, no more sex if you're got a baby coming or a family!

 

[Metalgod]

As long as one is capable of safetly driving a car, then no.

Right, so if two gay people are capable of safely having sex, what's the problem? Your unconvincing concern about perceived harm, as has been pointed out, does nothing to detract from your obvious dislike of homosexuality. Just so you know.

As long as one is capable of safetly driving a car, then no.

Interesting. So as long as you practice SAFE sex, that is to say with a condom, you'd be OK with homosexual sex?

EDIT: And what about any other form of sex which may increase certain risks? For example, anal sex certainly increases the prevalence of anal tears. Or oral sex. Or hey, sex for that matter. Did you know that nearly 100% of all chlamydia is transmitted during sex? Hey presto, no more sex if you're got a baby coming or a family!

I think its odd that the both of you chose to defend the most unhealthy type of sexual behavior rather than affirm the benefits of the most healthy model.

 

[australopithecus]

I think its odd that the both of you chose to defend the most unhealthy type of sexual behavior rather than affirm the benefits of the most healthy model.

I think it's odd that you've not answered the question, but rather evaded it by choosing to attack our motives.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Right, so if two gay people are capable of safely having sex, what's the problem? Your unconvincing concern about perceived harm, as has been pointed out, does nothing to detract from your obvious dislike of homosexuality. Just so you know.

Interesting. So as long as you practice SAFE sex, that is to say with a condom, you'd be OK with homosexual sex?

EDIT: And what about any other form of sex which may increase certain risks? For example, anal sex certainly increases the prevalence of anal tears. Or oral sex. Or hey, sex for that matter. Did you know that nearly 100% of all chlamydia is transmitted during sex? Hey presto, no more sex if you're got a baby coming or a family!

I think its odd that the both of you chose to defend the most unhealthy type of sexual behavior rather than affirm the benefits of the most healthy model.

Metalgod, we've yet to hear what these are - despite your being asked to define them and the differences between them.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[IBSpify]

I think its odd that the both of you chose to defend the most unhealthy type of sexual behavior rather than affirm the benefits of the most healthy model.

You mean the sexual behavior between 2 women? After all you already admitted to the fact that their risks of stds are exceptionally low.

 

[Inferno]

It's interesting to note that both bisexual and heterosexual women are more likely to have STD's than lesbians. (15% and 10% to 6.7%) See Table 1

It's also interesting to note that homosexual men were more likely to have certain STD's, like
gonorrhea (30.31% vs. 19.83%), early syphilis (1.08% vs. 0.34%) and anal warts (2.90% vs. 0.26%)
but were less likely to have others, like
nongonococcal urethritis (NGU) (14.63% vs. 36.40%, p < 0.001), herpes genitalis (0.93% vs. 3.65%, p < 0.001), pediculosis pubis (4.30% vs. 5.35%, p < 0.005), scabies (0.42% vs. 0.76%, p < 0.02), and genital warts (1.68% vs. 6.69%, p < 0.001).
Sauce

Isn't that odd?
I think that supports only two conclusions:
1) The problem isn't sex, it's men. Not homosexual men or heterosexual men, just men in general. Wherever there is a man involved, things get messy. So for the love of Christ, God or Shiva, stop men from having sex.

2) The problem isn't sex, it's promiscuous and unprotected sex.

You're just masquerading your unfounded homophobia, Metalgod.

 

[Metalgod]

I think its odd that the both of you chose to defend the most unhealthy type of sexual behavior rather than affirm the benefits of the most healthy model.

I think it's odd that you've not answered the question, but rather evaded it by choosing to attack our motives.

What question are you talking about?

 

[australopithecus]

Right, so if two gay people are capable of safely having sex, what's the problem?

Interesting. So as long as you practice SAFE sex, that is to say with a condom, you'd be OK with homosexual sex?

You quoted both of these questions, so I can infer two things:

1) You read them, but decided to ignore them in favour of attacking the motives of myself and Inferno.
2) You're not reading our replies, and are just responding with stock snide remarks, which would make you a troll.

So you can answer the original questions first, then you can elaborate as to which my of inferences is correct.

 

[Inferno]

There is a cure for homophobia: Educate yourself

And furthermore:
"Two gay guys walk into a bar. Nobody's marriage fell apart."
"I believe that marriage isn't between a man and a woman but between love and love."
"I wonder how many people would be so outspokenly anti-gay if it meant they could never again watch lesbian porn?"
"Do we have to know who's gay and who's straight? Can't we just love everybody and judge them by the car they drive?"
"I don't understand why some people think that having a gay child means they failed as a parent. Disowning your child because they are gay is how you FAIL as a parent."
"Homophobia is the fear that gay men are going to treat you the way you treat women and that lesbians will treat your woman better than you." (As apparently they do!)

Show More Hide

{TEXT}

 

[Metalgod]

I think its odd that the both of you chose to defend the most unhealthy type of sexual behavior rather than affirm the benefits of the most healthy model.

You mean the sexual behavior between 2 women? After all you already admitted to the fact that their risks of stds are exceptionally low.

This is smartest thing posted by anyone of you so far.

 

[australopithecus]

I can't help but notice the original 2 questions remain unanswered.

 

[Metalgod]

Right, so if two gay people are capable of safely having sex, what's the problem?

Interesting. So as long as you practice SAFE sex, that is to say with a condom, you'd be OK with homosexual sex?

You quoted both of these questions, so I can infer two things:

1) You read them, but decided to ignore them in favour of attacking the motives of myself and Inferno.
2) You're not reading our replies, and are just responding with stock snide remarks, which would make you a troll.

So you can answer the original questions first, then you can elaborate as to which my of inferences is correct.

Right, so if two gay people are capable of safely having sex, what's the problem?

Austra, since you and other people here have previously been so unwilling to admit that spreading disease is harmful, I think that you can understand why, that before I answer this question, I would like a clear definiton of what is meant by "safely having sex" or "safe sex".

 

[Metalgod]

I can't help but notice the original 2 questions remain unanswered.

See my above post.

 

[Inferno]

Austra, since you and other people here have previously been so unwilling to admit that spreading disease is harmful, I think that you can understand why, that before I answer this question, I would like a clear definiton of what is meant by "safely having sex" or "safe sex".

Not one of us ever said that. What we did was question how much more harmful it is (see my above post), question whether preventing harm is your true motive and questioning whether this was the best-placed point to start a crusade against harmful practices.
I went one step further: I said that no matter how harmful any practice between to consenting adults may be, it should not be prohibited.

To get back to the question we then asked: If there were absolutely 0% chance of people contracting any STD's through any sexual practice whatsoever, would you still object to homosexual couples having sex? If yes, why? And why don't you object to heterosexual couples having sex, even though they clearly have higher rates of STD's than lesbian couples? (See my above post)

 

[Noth]

You are hedging and avoiding answering questions at the same time.

I would like a clear definiton of what is meant by "safely having sex" or "safe sex".

So as long as you practice SAFE sex, that is to say with a condom

Seems Inferno gave you a very specific definition there. We could expand, of course, but you are very, very much hedging.

On top of that, you are not living up to your promises.

For the sake of clarity I will only respond to the posts made by the next 2 people who reply.

You've made a number of comments after I (others as well btw) posted a rather lengthy reply which already dealt with all the concerns you raised in your subsequent posts. This leads me to suspect you have not really - at least not thoughtfully - read this reply, or you would not have had an excuse for posting some of the things you did afterwards.
I would like to think you're serious in your claims, but you're not treating rebuttals honestly and you cherry pick comments to which you only reply with witticisms and claims for clarification that you - quite frankly - really do not need; and you know it.

 

[australopithecus]

Austra, since you and other people here have previously been so unwilling to admit that spreading disease is harmful

Incorrect. No one is contesting that spreading disease is harmful, what we're dismissing is your assertion that spreading disease and homosexuality are mutually inclusive, and it's been shown that heterosexual sex is equally effective at spreading disease.

I think that you can understand why, that before I answer this question, I would like a clear definiton of what is meant by "safely having sex" or "safe sex".

If you need this defined then you have no business discussing this topic. You're stalling. You know exactly what safe sex is and what it entails, so answer the question.

 

[Metalgod]

2) You're not reading our replies, and are just responding with stock snide remarks, which would make you a troll.

Actually, Austra. If you are going to resort to such an uncalled for tactic, I see no reason to continue. I have tried as best as I can to address all questions brought up in this thread.

 

[australopithecus]

2) You're not reading our replies, and are just responding with stock snide remarks, which would make you a troll.

Actually, Austra. If you are going to resort to such an uncalled for tactic, I see no reason to continue. I have tried as best as I can to address all questions brought up in this thread.

You haven't tried at all, you routinely quoted posts and ignored the questions you just quoted. I posted two options as to why I believed this to be the case, you quote mined in order to provide a nice little escape route because you cannot defend your position. You can add a third option now; proactively dishonest.

 

[Metalgod]

Here's my incomplete and unformated response to Noths 2nd post which I did not post because I havent had a chance to finish it yet.





Metalgod, I'll try to answer as many of your claims as possible, even though they will have been covered by other people before me. In that case, think of it as repetition for the sake of understanding.[

I'm against any attempt to normalize homosexuality. It's just something to distract us from reality. Its not like any mother or father ever holds their newborn son and thinks "Oh I hope one day he grows up and marries another man.."
So, why pretend?

Also, it seems to me that homosexual men tend to die young from horrible diseases.

The first point is largely irrelevant. If you're a sane parent you'll at least love your gay son or daughter equally if they turn out to be gay, no matter your preconceived notions about who they'll share their bed with once they grow up. Your "normalize" comment came up more frequently, so we'll get back to that later.[/quote]

Im not so sure its irrelevant. It's normal for a mom and a dad to hold there newborn son and hope that for instance, he might become a doctor some day. It's normal for them to hope that one day he marries a nice girl and has his children one day.

But how many people ever hold there newborn baby and think to themselves "I hope hes gay."? Probably next to none.


The second point might have been true in the eighties and early nineties. This is no longer so. While it is true that homosexual men have a higher risk of being infected with HIV, the treatment has improved so enormously that people are able to grow old despite having aids. It is as of yet too early to judge just how long a lifespan a HIV infected person can generally live because the treatment has not been this refined long enough for people to reach senior age after being infected in, for instance, their early twenties.[/quote]






Generally, the average lifespan of homosexuals is shorter than that of heterosexuals. Yet this has numerous other reasons, one very sadly being the teen suicide rate amongst young homosexuals.[/quote]

This does not even address the issue of hate crimes against lgbt people.[/quote] I would suspect that, when a homosexual is murdered, he has most likely been murdered by another homosexual. Hate crimes against homosexuals in the US are virtually non existant, to the extent that when a homosexual goes to a bakery shop in some hill-jack town in the middle of the dust bowl and cant find the type of wedding cake he wants, it makes the national news!



I

Other than this I do not know how you came by "horrible diseases"

... Im against any attempt to make homosexual behavior seem normal or ok.

There is a difference, I do not think has been pointed out, between "normal" meaning "the norm" and, conversely, "abnormal" meaning "deviant". In the case of not normal indicating homosexuality is not "the norm," yes, you're absolutely right. Homosexuality is as minor a part of humanity as left-handedness is. left handedness is mor predominate nowThis, of course, says nothing of its values or lack thereof.[/quote]

If we must define the term "normal" as "anything which occurs", then just give me a new word signifiy the old meaning term and I'll try to use it from now on.

Has left handedness ever been a predominate factor when calculating whether or not an individual will transmit disease?



In the case of abnormal meaning "deviant," though, there is less merit. You see, here "normal" is what some part of the population (they are usually religious, btw) deem to be conforming to some set ideal standard. I challenge your contention that homosexuality (let's for the moment ignore that you try to separate behaviour from being) is not normal. I say it is.

What are your secular accounts for homosexuality not being normal?

Statistics. And genetics.

I see no reason here to consider the behavior of animals.

'cause you see, you should, really, take this point into consideration.
No matter that you never made the contention that homosexuality was "unnatural," 1) you implied as such through using a rather shaky definition of "normal" (i.e. you did not define it at all except for a remark on a nuclear family model) and 2) you've missed the point of this particular argument.

When you make the claim that something is "not normal" you need to define what that means to you. You'd say a homosexual relationship is not normal; a homosexual couple adopting/ raising a child is not normal; homosexual "activities" (do you mean: sex?) are not normal.
Your justification for this is that they do not fit the mould of what you feel a family model should be like.

Since you cannot, as shown above, claim that it is not normal because it goes against the norm - after all, this would be humongously irrelevant, as you're well aware.

Noth, you have not shown this at all. And the outcome of your idealogy has become counterproductive to society as a whole.


- you must contend it on some other grounds. This other ground, then, boils down to homosexuality being - you've guessed it - unnatural. How else, secularly, would you define "not normal." And you must be able to show this from a secular viewpoint, or you'd show your religious bias which, as I'm sure you'd agree, should not have any impact on the lives of homosexuals (separation of church and state/ government and all that).

Now then, I'll refer you back to mine and other people's posts that dealt with the unnaturalness (a.k.a. your "not normal-ness") of homosexuality/ "homosexual behaviour."


Let's look at a few facts:
- homosexuality is something you are born with, akin to left-handedness.
- you cannot cure people's homosexuality. It is not a disease.
- homosexuality is not something contagious. You cannot "catch the gay" so to say. Either you're gay (or bi, or etc.) or you're not/ you're straight.
- while nurture plays a part in what kind of a person you'll end up being, it is nature that determines your orientation, which leaves you with no actual choice in the matter.

- there are numerous health risks involved with homosexuality that have to do with outside influences, such as trying to lead a heterosexual lifestyle and other issues. It is safe to say, therefore, that not leading a homosexual lifestyle is, as a homosexual person, damaging to you.

In other words, if you are born gay, society may want you to conform and hide your sexuality, but this is detrimental to your mental and physical health. The only viable option then is to lead a lifestyle that is (here she comes again!) normal in respect to your sexual orientation.


Noth, everybody knows that when a man stops engaging in homosexual behavior and starts behaving normal and even marries a girl and has children, the people on your side would proclaim "He's just a homosexual living in denial" or something to that affect.

But when a man who has been married for 15 years and has children suddenly comes out and says hes gay you would say "Well he must have been born that way!"

So your above "facts" must be taken with a grain of salt.



Now "promoting" homosexuality according to you will include things like
1) children being taught to accept homosexuality as a normal thing that can occur in people
2) homosexual people/ characters being depicted on e.g. TV without their homosexuality being made an issue of/ with their homosexuality being depicted as something OK
3) organisations for equality asking for said equality in education, employment, etc.

Correct? Of course, you would frame it differently. You would contend that
1) children are "forced to accept" homosexuality ...
2) the media "forces a one-sided view of homosexuality down your throats"
3) equality groups are just a cover to push the "homosexual agenda"

Too generalising? If so, let me assure you that so far your arguments have come across as in line with this frame of reference. If this is not you, then you'll need to reexamine what your position is.

Now as has been pointed out, this "promoting" is nothing more than showing two equal parties require equal representation. Homosexuality exists. To pretend that it does not by effectively banning any propaganda would result in unspeakable attrocities as are going on across the world right now in countries that argue from that same framework.
Or perhaps you feel that heterosexuals and homosexuals are not/ should not be equal?

But of course, I'm forgetting your posistion altogether. You see, should you have kids, you may have to, one day, explain to them why uncle Tom and uncle Mark are living together. That would be uncomfortable for you, would it not? Just like it would be uncomfortable for you to explain to them why her teacher says she loves her wife. [sarcasm]Think of the children![/sarcasm]
You know what will happen if you choose to let them make up their own minds about it? They may grow into respectable citizens that do not discriminate people on the basis of their sexual orientation. You, currently, do.

Of course, you'll come back at me, as you did with others, and say that homosexuals engage in

self destructive or sexually immoral behavior.

And this brings us to the crux of your argument. You essentially make two claims here. In reverse order, the first is that
1) any homosexual behaviour is immoral behaviour. This is a faith-based claim. You believe this to be true. You have no actual empirical evidence that suggests homosexuals are inherently immoral. So let me dispel this for you: other than adhering to a religious code - one, mind you, littered with other bigoted, racist and downright harmful ideas - you have no basis for claiming homosexuality is immoral. You'll understand why, especially here, this claim holds no weight whatsoever.
The second claim is that
2) homosexiality (since we've already established you cannot split being from behaviour in this case) is self destructive. To back this up you've cited a CDC report that shows how men that have sex with men are more likely to contract HIV/AIDS. This is true. Yet, as I've already highlighted earlier in my post, there are reasons for this that are not intrinsic to homosexual behaviour itself. From the same report, here are two citations that are particularly relevant:

Firstly, the report shows that

HIV prevalence increased with increasing age and decreased with increasing education and income. Men aged 40 years and older had higher rates of HIV infection than men aged 18 to 39.

In other words, many of the older MSM may have contracted the disease at an earlier point in history when knowledge about the disease was sparser, awareness in general minimal and medication that may have prevented aids not yet readily available. Converesly, it shows that with time awareness has grown and HIV contractions have decreased. There is a good reason for this, of course. With increased awareness and increased communication about the realities of this disease the instances of infection decrease.

Secondly,

Homophobia, stigma, and discrimination can put MSM at risk for multiple physical and mental health problems and affect whether MSM seek and are able to obtain high-quality health services.

So "promoting homosexuality" can and does have positive effects on people's health, young lgbt in particular.

Of course, the CDC data, while showing a troubling trend, still does not prove that homosexuality is self-destructive or immoral. To prove this, let me pose the following: let's assume that the situation today was that HIV/AIDS had never been brought to the western world - a situation similar to the one before HIV/AIDS got here, but then set in the present day. You would, I assume, agree that homosexual "behaviour" would not be so self-destructive? After all, there would not be some crippling disease attached to the orientation. From that, we can, I gather, agree that the prevalence of HIV/AIDS today has nothing intrinsically to do with homosexuality?

So rather than something inherently amiss with the sexual orientation, it seems to me that there's a combination of harmful bigotry towards homosexuals that has a real negative effect on their health as well as a fear of a disease which has been traditionally perceived as the "gay disease" simply because that is where it is most prevalent. Stifling the lgbt cause would effectively set back the clock to a time where lack of information and anti-gay sentiments forced an entire community into their own kind of seclusion that was ripe for this new disease to come a knockin'.

Increasing awareness of HIV/AIDS and showing people that homosexuality is not something intrinsically nasty goes a long way to increasing overal health and wellbeing.

I'm sure I've missed some minor issues, but I guess this post is long enough as it is. Enjoy.