First Darwin and then Homos? Never!

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

Fair enough. Why should I expect someone to read my posts for what they say, and not for the strawmen they wish to knock down?

Unfortunately the way you word your posts is part and parcel of your propaganda- a campaign of harmful misinformation based on prejudice and wiful misunderstanding.

In case you're too dense to grasp the point-

A.I.D.S. is a syndrome that develops after infection with H.I.V. - the virus which can be transmitted in semen, and in blood products.

I should imagine that even someone without a medical background can grasp the logic in that sentence.

How do you transmit a syndrome through homosexuality (as opposed to unprotected penetrative sex) ?

Oh, you don't. Well, there goes your misinformation in one easy to follow sequence.

Homosexuality therefore, does not 'transmit' A.I.D.S. , nor does it 'transmit' H.I.V. -

UNPROTECTED PENETRATIVE SEX between GAY MEN or HETEROSEXUALS MAY increase the risk of H.I.V. being transmitted, IF the partners have been exposed to H.I.V. - I realise that's a little more complicated than your bigoted, reductionist :

homosexuality= A.I.D.S.

propaganda, but unfortunately for you, accuracy and the truth are the first victims of your religious bigotry.

If two gay men who are virgins when they meet decide to form a monogamous, lifelong relationship, how will they 'transmit' A.I.DS. ?

Oh, that's right, they won't.

Do I recognise that lesbians and gay men are different?

Well I sure hope so- our gardener is a lesbian, and my partner of twenty years is a gay man- If I can't discriminate between the two, then I'm in trouble.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh


Why? Why is it discrimination? Two best friends who are hetrosexual do not have the rights of a married couple - why do they need to be sleeping together to get them?

You mean you cannot distinguish between platonic and romantic relationships??

geez

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Cuz they aren't trying to make a family.

Two gay people don't make a family either. The only good thing about the state recognising marriage was that it tried to make fathers responsible for their children and/or dependent wives. Nowadays that has been eroded somewhat by modern 'morality' - people increasingly have children out of wedlock (imho a bad thing) and women are more independent (a good thing). So in a way state unions are now so eroded that it doesn't make much difference, but there is still no good reason for allowing gay people to marry.

[Gibsie]

Marriage should be for any two consenting adults. To me, yes, that includes incest, if they really want, but I would discriminate against friends getting married. Why? Because that's not what marriage is about. Of course you probably think marriage is dictated by the genitals of the people involved, but that's just you.

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by molly bloom
our gardener is a lesbian, and my partner of twenty years is a gay man

So are you a man, Molly? If you are, why do you imply you are a lesbian? If not, how can your partner be a gay man? (or are you transexual?)

[Ming]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh


So are you a man, Molly? If you are, why do you imply you are a lesbian? If not, how can your partner be a gay man? (or are you transexual?)

Maybe he meant business partner

And while you can talk all you want about how marriage has erroded and it doesn't make much difference... it still makes a BIG difference in terms of legal rights... making decisions for our partner if they are incapacitated... inheritance... taxes.

While people keep saying it's all about raising children... it's not. It begins as a commitment between two people to share their lives, and the law makes that easier to do, and protects their rights to act as a single entity. "IF" they have kids, it proveds additional tax breaks... but having children is not a requirement for heterosexual couples to get married.

So stating that since gays shouldn't be allowed to get married because they won't be having families (totally ignoring adoption) isn't a valid argument. Heterosexual couples can get married without providing ANY proof that they will have children, and can take advantage of the legal rights that marriage provides. Homosexual couples who are willing to make the same commitment, deserve the same rights.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Ben needs an eel up the poopshoot.

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Time for his metamucil, no doubt.

Real life has kept me a bit busy, so I'm out of practice, but a nice double banning would help get me back into the swing of things, doncha think, boys?

You can cut the personal insults and demeaning remarks now.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh


So are you a man, Molly? If you are, why do you imply you are a lesbian? If not, how can your partner be a gay man? (or are you transexual?)

Exactly where do I imply or state I'm a lesbian?


How can my partner be a gay man?

Well, he's a man who is gay. I'm reasonably sure that qualifies him. Should I conduct a 'phone poll on this burning issue?

Can two gay men or lesbians make a family?

If two heterosexuals can make a family, I don't see why not- as I've pointed out countless times before, one definition of family includes servants- do you have any servants?

Besides which, my partner has parents, and brothers, and nephews and nieces and a sister, and I have a brother, and aunts and uncles, so how exactly do we not constitute a 'family' ?

Let me guess- we ain't heteros.

'family, n. Parents, children, servants, &c., forming household

group of related peoples

set of parents & children or of relations'

So my gay friends in Vancouver who have one man's mother living with them are a family, but we're not, until we adopt, or invite some parents or relatives to come and live with us?

Yeah, right.

[Ben Kenobi]

Ok, true, when I normally think of Obi-Wan Kenobi, I think of Alec Guiness from the original.

Maybe it's the use of "Ben" instead of Obi-Wan? I dunno.

I don't know why that would be...

I associate the opposite, since Ben is his nickname from when he lived in a cave in Tatooine.

[Ben Kenobi]

Anal sex has a substantially greater risk associated with transmission of HIV, but both groups engage in anal sex, though gay males are more likely to do so.

Thank you.

That wasn't so difficult, eh?

[Ben Kenobi]

You argument that it is has a higher incidence amoung gays means nothing to this argument. It may mean that it is in the public interest to promote safe sex amoung homosexuals at a higher rate than heterosexual couples... but doesn't mean anything else.

What other forms are available to gay men?

The risk is inherent in this type of sex. No matter how 'safe' you make it, the problem will still exist.

[Ben Kenobi]

Homosexuality is NOT harmful for general society and I do not know of any serious evidence, conceptual or canonical that opposes my view.

Canonical? That's a rather broad swath of investigation. Which books did you consult?

IF it was, I would still allow it because I am not a utilitarian, and believe in the individuals right to subjectively decide how to run their own lives, and furthermore, consequentialism shows ultimately that all is generally good.

Oddly, I agree with you here, but for a different reason. The harm done to all laws by a law unenforced is a far greater compelling interest than a law banning homosexuality.

In order to enforce the law, would not be possible, hence the law does not make much sense. While homosexuality does cause a great deal of harm to the participants, there must be less intrusive ways of addressing the problem.

What makes a doctrine against homosexuality better than one that includes it?

That's a rather good question. Probably the simplest way to answer this question would be to say whomever keeps these laws will live. People do better without homosexuality, even if this means abstinence.

The problem is that our society is based upon the former doctrine, yet it is evolving, so we are left with a conflict of concepts here. I dare say that the weight of evidence is pro-homosexuality. Which is good for my libedo!

Just because people controvert a position does not make the former problem intrinsically controversial. Without a substantive argument in favour of homosexuality, one is left to this rather feeble conclusion.

[Ben Kenobi]

Arrian:

Going to cluster your posts.

Yes, I am showing my true colors.

I get tired of fencing with the tip.

The trouble, young jedi, is that those of us in favor of gay marriage have repeatedly stated our reasons for it, in other threads, and you have read those reasons. I know, because I've seen you reply to them.

Really. In all these threads, all I can see is the argument, there is nothing wrong with homosexuality, or that we should let them do what they want.

I don't find that a credible case to effect change on society.

[Whaleboy]

though gay males are more likely to do so.

Are they? Isn't it something like 1/4 hetero couples engage in anal sex which is higher than the proportion of homosexual male couples?

The risk is inherent in this type of sex. No matter how 'safe' you make it, the problem will still exist.

Not going to dispute that, though I've never had a problem and those occasions were outside of long-term relationships.

I do not think that is sufficient reason to ban or oppress homosexuality, nor any of the consequences such as ban on gay marriage ceremonies. Indeed the Hume gap seems to imply as such!

I'm not going to psychoanalyse BK out of the great respect I have for him as a debater, but it could be speculated that this position is the result of either some emotive phobia, or a religious teaching with no further premise. Sidetracking there of course.

[Ben Kenobi]

How do you transmit a syndrome through homosexuality (as opposed to unprotected penetrative sex) ?

Anal sex is vastly preferred by gay men. Anal sex has a greater risk of HIV transmission. Hence homosexual activity exposes one to a greater risk of HIV transmission. And I conceded the point with lesbians not being affected by this argument. You have to use other ones for them, rather softer ones.

Secondy, I already addressed the point of those who abstain. I rather congratulate them on their courageous stance.