Religion and LGBT people

[Esquilax]

Hi Esquilax,

I will answer the bits where you have posed a coherent and worthwhile question, below:

Hoo boy, this is already turning out great...

I have not used any "vicious stereotypes" to support my arguments.

Except that your argument is nothing but.

I have used only facts, medical data and expert opinion (anything else would be irrelevant) and have supported these statements with references.

We'll see about that.

I know that it is true that homosexual acts are at loggerheads with the physical form and biological functions of all human bodies.

That's certainly your opinion. It means nothing whatsoever- after all, a prostate exam is pretty much regulation for men of a certain age, so it's not like the biological usages of body parts are all we use them for- but you have a right to have it. The problem is that you're asserting it like I should give a damn what you feel the proper use of the body is.

In all big western cities there are places, (often called "saunas" or - ironically - "health clubs"), for homosexual men to congregate and have risky sex with strangers.

Congrats: you did a google search for something specific and found it. Amazing.

I wonder how many straight brothels I could find if I searched for that? Would you suggest the existence of such things indicates a trend toward heterosexual sleeping around?

Additionally, if you care to log-onto the site gaydar.co.uk, or similar, you will find that the majority of men who use these sites openly seek risky sex with strangers from the internet. I did this as a little experience and was quite shocked to see how the reality of homosexuality is markedly different from its sanitised, false public image.

Ever hear of a thing called "confirmation bias?"

I am not here to promote lies or stereotypes, or to defame anyone.

I am here to speak the truth.

Sure you are. That's demonstrably true, and not a falsehood in any way. /sarcasm

You really are full of shit.

Different subject, different thread.

Only if you weren't playing on the stereotype of the promiscuous gay. Since you are, this subject is more of a contradiction in your story.

the highest rates of HIV infection tend to be in countries where homosexuality is criminalized. And why the US is the only western country where the predominant demographic for infection is gay men.

These are lies, Esquilax.

The pathologies associated with homosexuality (HIV etc) increase markedly in line with increased social toleration of homosexuality.

Which is why Uganda's right near the top of the list in terms of adult prevalence for the disease, yet Sweden and Australia are right near the bottom. Who's lying here, asshole?

I have already posted data on this thread showing that in both the USA and the UK, gay men are the demographic worst hit by HIV.

Specious, contextless data. The best kind!

You are - obviously.

Jackass.

I do not have a thing against homosexuals. I know several homosexual people and every last one of them is a kind and decent person. My wifes cousin is a lesbian and you could not meet a nicer young woman.

However, none of this detracts from the reality of homosexual sex.

I am not "full of shit", as the evidence I have posted shows.

Not admitting to it doesn't change anything.

Beyond that, spare me the "I have gay friends" crap, that's the oldest trick in the book.

The Church does not spread misinformation about HIV. I have already presented facts on the thread which show that expert public health opinion says that empirical data supports Catholic sexual morality.

Is it not a fact that the church opposed condom use in AIDS ravaged Africa?

When Pope Benedict XVI commented this month that condom distribution isn't helping, and may be worsening, the spread of HIV/AIDS in Africa, he set off a firestorm of protest. Most non-Catholic commentary has been highly critical of the pope. A cartoon in the Philadelphia Inquirer, reprinted in The Post, showed the pope somewhat ghoulishly praising a throng of sick and dying Africans: "Blessed are the sick, for they have not used condoms."

Yet, in truth, current empirical evidence supports him.

You are making a huge, huge leap here: all this says is the situation isn't getting better. How does that make lying about one of the few things we know works in stopping infection okay?

Empirical evidence is a good thing, yah? It is what rational people base their opinion on.

And when you can't be rational, you just spin it to suit your purposes, huh?

The information I have presented to you here clearly shows that I do.

I am now popping out for a while, however, I will be glad to return to the thread later.

Cheers
GS

Smugly demanding that you're right doesn't affect your position in the slightest. It's interesting that you've done that multiple times in a single post.