Religion and LGBT people

[Gabriel Syme]

[Dee Dee Ramone]

The awkward thing of long texts is that I am losing the overview, because my Ipad isn't that comfortable at all.

I just wanted to say that the statistics are;
1 not genuine because they are not representive for the US but represent

21 cities with the highest infection rate

2 do not prove monogamy will solve the HIV infections. A hint is given in the article; most people are not aware they are infected...testing and prevention is the solution.

I don't deny hiv infections are high among gay people, but that doesn't make the catholic monogamy story a solution to this problems. People have sex, if the church likes it or not.

Furthermore, please show me your truth on hiv & catholics in africa.

[Gabriel Syme]

For the moment I'll just address one part of your bullshit

I think you mean:

"As you managed to construct a good argument - supported by impartial references (seperate post) - as to why homosexual people should be chaste, I no longer wish to dispute it and instead I will now conveniently change the subject, whilst muttering erroneously about "bullshit"".

Isnt that right?

So by that reasoning my wife and I, who are both incapable of having children should refrain from sex because it produces no benefit to society?

No.

As per my post to darkstar above, heterosexual intercourse has two inherent aspects:

1) Unifying act of love between partrners
2) Possibility of procreation

Somone who is incapable of having kids is no more to blame for that, than someone who is gay or who has downs syndrome is to blame for their condition. (ie not to blame at all).

A heterosexual couple who have sex but cannot conceive are not defying/misusing their bodies - their sex is still "ordered" (Homosexuality is disordered). Additionally, even if procreation is difficult or impossible, there is still the unifying aspect of the sex. And note that even if considered "infertile", there is always the slight chance the the couple might conceive.

In contrast, homosexuality has neither of these 2 aspects mentioned above.

- it is not genuinely unifying, as their bodies are not physically compatible
- they cannot - and can never -procreate.

And note that, homsoxuality doesnt just "provide no social benefit" - it actively harms public health. Infertile heteorsexual sex does not harm public health.

There is no comparison whatsoever between an infertile heterosexual couple and a homosexual couple.

Cheers
GS

[Zone]

HIV in the west is almost exclusively concentrated among homosexual men.

It's because gay men in the West have or at least had a habbit of not using condoms. Hetereosexuals in the West do tend to use them so that would explain the difference.

[Aegrus]

[Violet]

[festive1]

[Aegrus]

I may seem to, good sir... but the reality is that I embrace reality and make babies with it. You've shown me only jokes, and I will respond in kind until you stop being hilarious

Now if only I could convince you to embrace and make babies with something else. . .




By the way, the link at the bottom of your post doesn't seem to be working.

[Violet]

Now if only I could convince you to embrace and make babies with something else. . .

Respect a lady, and one might find her willing to engage in a number of activities.

She doesn't have a womb though, sorry.

By the way, the link at the bottom of your post doesn't seem to be working.

I linked it metaphysically. It was for the demon's sake, not yours.

[Zen Badger]

For the moment I'll just address one part of your bullshit

I think you mean:

"As you managed to construct a good argument - supported by impartial references (seperate post) - as to why homosexual people should be chaste, I no longer wish to dispute it and instead I will now conveniently change the subject, whilst muttering erroneously about "bullshit"".

Isnt that right?

No, it means I'm heartily sick and tired of arguing with arrogant, self righteous arse holes who think they have the right to impose their bigoted hateful ways on others.

So by that reasoning my wife and I, who are both incapable of having children should refrain from sex because it produces no benefit to society?

No.

As per my post to darkstar above, heterosexual intercourse has two inherent aspects:

1) Unifying act of love between partrners
2) Possibility of procreation

Somone who is incapable of having kids is no more to blame for that, than someone who is gay or who has downs syndrome is to blame for their condition. (ie not to blame at all).

A heterosexual couple who have sex but cannot conceive are not defying/misusing their bodies - their sex is still "ordered" (Homosexuality is disordered). Additionally, even if procreation is difficult or impossible, there is still the unifying aspect of the sex. And note that even if considered "infertile", there is always the slight chance the the couple might conceive.

In contrast, homosexuality has neither of these 2 aspects mentioned above.

- it is not genuinely unifying, as their bodies are not physically compatible
- they cannot - and can never -procreate.

And note that, homsoxuality doesnt just "provide no social benefit" - it actively harms public health. Infertile heteorsexual sex does not harm public health.

There is no comparison whatsoever between an infertile heterosexual couple and a homosexual couple.

Cheers
GS

Hmm, let's look at these two points.....

1) Unifying act of love between partrners
And why should it matter what their gender is.

2) Possibility of procreation

Since there is NO possibility of us EVER having children for medical reasons ( Hysterectomony AND vasestomy) your argument is invalid.

And note that, homsoxuality doesnt just "provide no social benefit" - it actively harms public health. Infertile heteorsexual sex does not harm public health.

And this last bit.... Well, you'd better have some stats to back up your assertion or I'm calling you a fucking liar.