First Darwin and then Homos? Never!

[Ben Kenobi]

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?

Can I have some of what you are smoking?

You need to compare the proportions of homosexuals who engage in anal sex to the corresponding heterosexual proportion.

I would think that almost all, if not all gay couples would engage in anal sex, which is a vastly greater proportion than 1/4.

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!

Interesting. I have no problem seperating the two issues. I agree with you that we should not ban homosexual activity, but I have no problem with restricting marriage to one man and one woman. The first is unenforceable, while the second is most definitely enforceable.

I don't see this as oppressing homosexuality, since to oppress would require one to actively punish homosexuals.

I'm not going to psychoanalyse BK out of the great respect I have for him as a debater,

Then don't, k?

[Whaleboy]

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

I take canonical to mean scientific or terse investigative evidence.

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.

None of my gay friends (of which there are many) see it as a problem . All of my hetero friends that know us don't see it as a problem. There are no health problems among anyone I know of, that I know of. It is most likely a combination of nature and nurture, meaning by determinism that it is a question of individual disposition. Let it be. As for the law, I do concur with the idea that any law against homosexuality in one form or another would be unenforceable. However the law to me is a coherent logical system, a framework that defines what the individual can do. I think a more reasoned distinction should be made in order to have consistency, which leaves something like the Mill Limit, though others that operate on different principles are possible. Such a system is inherently libertarian, and allow fully for homosexuality.

In terms of addressing the "problem" of homosexuality, as I do not think it a problem (and ask you now to show me how I am mistaken in this regard). If you were to do so, you would breed and raise children in tightly controlled laborotory environments so that they cannot learn or know anything beyond a specific curriculum you teach them, lest other knowledge lead them towards homosexuality. I do believe people are born gay but that cause is pre-natal, in which case, you would change those causes. If it is genetic, you use eugenics.

I do not believe any of those solutions are acceptable imo nor particularly workable.

[Whaleboy]

Anal sex is vastly preferred by gay men. Anal sex has a greater risk of HIV transmission

Best solution there is circumcision

Can I have some of what you are smoking?

You need to compare the proportions of homosexuals who engage in anal sex to the corresponding heterosexual proportion.

I would think that almost all, if not all gay couples would engage in anal sex, which is a vastly greater proportion than 1/4.

No no, you misunderstand. Say that out of all couples, 10% are gay couples. 25% of the remaining 90% engage in anal sex. FAIAP all gay male couples have anal sex. 10% < 25%.

Interesting. I have no problem seperating the two issues. I agree with you that we should not ban homosexual activity, but I have no problem with restricting marriage to one man and one woman. The first is unenforceable, while the second is most definately enforceable.

I see no logical barrier to it. If you think marriage is a purely religious thing, then it is surely down to the religion to decide what it does within itself. I have no desire to see religions forced to do something. I, however, see marriage on a contractual basis, with its religious/emotional significance as a matter for individual disposition. Therefore, a necessary equilibrium is to view state-recognised union and marriage as one and the same. In that case, a state marriage should be legal to all, including homosexual couples. Like I said, I don't think the state should control a religious institutions activities. If the state didn't allow it, then that would be oppression.

Then don't, k?

Speculation mon ami!

[Whaleboy]

Can I have some of what you are smoking?

No.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
What other forms are available to gay men?

Uhhh... there are other forms...

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

There is risk in ALL forms of sex no matter how "safe you make it, and the problem will still exist for both heterosexuals and homosexuals... So again... it has NOTHING to do with allowing them to get married or not.

Interesting. I have no problem seperating the two issues. I agree with you that we should not ban homosexual activity, but I have no problem with restricting marriage to one man and one woman. The first is unenforceable, while the second is most definately enforceable.

You still give no solid reason why legal rights provided to heterosexuals shouldn't be provided to homosexuals... only that you have a "problem" with it.

[Ben Kenobi]

I take canonical to mean scientific or terse investigative evidence.

And here I thought you meant something completely different by the term, 'canonical'. Forgive me.

There are no health problems among anyone I know of, that I know of.

Would they show you their problems?

It is most likely a combination of nature and nurture, meaning by determinism that it is a question of individual disposition.

What is it? Sexual preference? Sloppy terminology.

In terms of addressing the "problem" of homosexuality, as I do not think it a problem (and ask you now to show me how I am mistaken in this regard).

Done already, in the health consequences to gay men.

If you were to do so, you would breed and raise children in tightly controlled laborotory environments so that they cannot learn or know anything beyond a specific curriculum you teach them, lest other knowledge lead them towards homosexuality. I do believe people are born gay but that cause is pre-natal, in which case, you would change those causes.

While I have already agreed that there are different methods than a ban. What I have not specified on what I believe ought to be done.

First of all, they should offer treatment to gay men who wish to leave the lifestyle. They should do so of their own accord, since the treatment must be voluntary in order to work.

Secondly, why would I favour eugenics? You know I am opposed to killing people just because they have faulty genes. We all have flaws.

[Ben Kenobi]

Best solution there is circumcision

Right. That's effective.

No no, you misunderstand. Say that out of all couples, 10% are gay couples. 25% of the remaining 90% engage in anal sex. FAIAP all gay male couples have anal sex. 10% < 25%.

I do understand, which is why I said that you have to compare the proportions.

I see no logical barrier to it. If you think marriage is a purely religious thing, then it is surely down to the religion to decide what it does within itself.

So long as the government issues marriage licenses, then marriage is not solely an ecclesiastical institution.

Therefore, a necessary equilibrium is to view state-recognised union and marriage as one and the same. In that case, a state marriage should be legal to all, including homosexual couples.

Why? No one is barred from the law in restricting the law to one man and one woman. You have already admitted that sexual preference can, and does change.

Speculation mon ami!

It's like when your girlfriend says, yes, I love you, but...

or when someone says, I have the greatest respect for you...

Just don't, please?

[Ben Kenobi]

Uhhh... there are other forms...

Like what?

There is risk in ALL forms of sex no matter how "safe you make it, and the problem will still exist for both heterosexuals and homosexuals... So again... it has NOTHING to do with allowing them to get married or not.

No, the two issues are seperate. Still, one cannot ignore the disparity in rates of HIV transmission, in forming a compelling interest in society to resolve the problem. So far, all we see are treatment options, but nothing on the preventation side, of an entirely preventable disease.

You still give no solid reason why legal rights provided to heterosexuals shouldn't be provided to homosexuals... only that you have a "problem" with it.

Which old canard should I dredge up?

How about, society has a vested interest in marriage between one man and one woman, as society accrues many benefits from this form of marriage.

Hardly a 'problem', eh?

[Whaleboy]

Would they show you their problems?

Very long story, but yes. I'm something of a councillor to some people.

What is it? Sexual preference? Sloppy terminology.

Sorry didn't check that sentence. Yes sexual preference. I personally put it all on a sliding scale of bisexuality, where most people are clumped that the homosexual end, a significant number at homosexual end and some in the middle. None at poles or dead centre, no discrete groups. This is a sidetrack of course

Done already, in the health consequences to gay men.

Breathing oxygen has health consequences. Practically everything does. How people use their bodies is their business imo. Why does possible health consequences constitute a reason to impede homosexuals?

First of all, they should offer treatment to gay men who wish to leave the lifestyle. They should do so of their own accord, since the treatment must be voluntary in order to work.

I'm not going to argue, provided similar treatment be offered for heterosexuals who wish to leave their lifestyles. After all, crabs is terribly inconvenient, and it's only fair!

Secondly, why would I favour eugenics? You know I am opposed to killing people just because they have faulty genes. We all have flaws.

Why is it necessarily a faulty gene? If it has survived hundreds of thousands of years of human evolution, and millions of years of mammalian evolution (there is evidence for homosexuality in some higher mammals including many primates, even in the design of the human penis!) why would it be considered "faulty"?

[Whaleboy]

Right. That's effective.

As a matter of fact it is. As a Jew, I stand around a quarter of the risk of catching HIV/AIDS in active sex than I would if I had a foreskin.

I do understand, which is why I said that you have to compare the proportions.

No, in terms of the general population, and a split demographic and how the latter relates to the former, you take the contributers from each and compare them. 100% of gay men vs 25% of heterosexuals. There are 10 times more hetero couples you do the maths.

We here are of course ignoring lesbian couples, a big error that seems to imply some highlight on the act of anal sex for some reason. Maybe heterosexual men have less problem with homosexual women...

No, the two issues are seperate. Still, one cannot ignore the disparity in rates of HIV transmission, in forming a compelling interest in society to resolve the problem. So far, all we see are treatment options, but nothing on the preventation side, of an entirely preventable disease.

Contraception, and early diagnosis so anyone with HIV/AIDS can be encouraged to use contraception or abstain. Not a means of preventing anal sex! How draconian!

So long as the government issues marriage licenses, then marriage is not solely an ecclesiastical institution.

That's besides the point. I don't think it needs to be solely an ecclesiastical institution (and even if it was, it would not be a logical barrier to religious gay marriages, for example, a gay church ). Why does it have to be a religious instution only that can perform marriage? In terms of the individual, for their religious beliefs etc, where they choose to take their marriage, either privately (religion) or publically (state) is down to them but contractually and legally speaking, they are the same. Seems pretty cut and dry.

Why? No one is barred from the law in restricting the law to one man and one woman. You have already admitted that sexual preference can, and does change.

It is an equilibrium because I assume the state does not discriminate against gay couples.

Just don't, please?

No, and I apologise for any offense. Unlike some others here I do want a clean civil debate .

How about, society has a vested interest in marriage between one man and one woman, as society accrues many benefits from this form of marriage.

Hardly a 'problem', eh?

And there would be no benefits from gay marriage? What is the primary reason for the existence of marriage today; is it the benefit to society or is it the happiness of the couple concerned?

[Ben Kenobi]

I'm not going to argue, provided similar treatment be offered for heterosexuals who wish to leave their lifestyles.

You know what?

I'm going to agree with you here. Surprise myself. Sexual preference has nothing to do with human rights, but everything to do with behaviour and psychology.

Same rules WRT coercion.

As for their problems, of a physical sort, would they consult you rather than their doctor?

Practically everything does. How people use their bodies is their business imo. Why does possible health consequences constitute a reason to impede homosexuals?

That's the argument put forth to ban drugs. Clearly people do not have the right to do what they want to their own bodies.

As for impeding homosexuals, I do not see how any of what I have said impedes them in their sexual habits.

Why is it necessarily a faulty gene? If it has survived hundreds of thousands of years of human evolution, and millions of years of mammalian evolution (there is evidence for homosexuality in some higher mammals including many primates, even in the design of the human penis!) why would it be considered "faulty"?

1. Genes do not control behaviour
2. We do not know of any gene corresponding to homosexuality.
3. Therefore, whether the gene is considered defective or not has no effect on the behavior, or sexual preferences of the individual.

Supposing that I accept all your assumptions,

Faulty because it is not universaliseable.

Your nemesis, Kant, remember?

[Ben Kenobi]

As a matter of fact it is. As a Jew, I stand around a quarter of the risk of catching HIV/AIDS in active sex than I would if I had a foreskin.

Evidence would assist your case in this precise claim.

Secondly, this will not protect you from HIV, merely slow the rate of transmission.

No, in terms of the general population, and a split demographic and how the latter relates to the former, you take the contributers from each and compare them. 100% of gay men vs 25% of heterosexuals. There are 10 times more hetero couples you do the maths.

We here are of course ignoring lesbian couples, a big error that seems to imply some highlight on the act of anal sex for some reason. Maybe heterosexual men have less problem with homosexual women...

To what end do you compare the general population? I am trying to bolster my argument that homosexuality, in particular bears health risks not as prevalent in heterosexuals. Your statistic bears testimony to my claim, in the difference in the ratios.

I focus on anal sex here. I could expand to other health consequences that would also apply to lesbians if desired.

Contraception, and early diagnosis so anyone with HIV/AIDS can be encouraged to use contraception or abstain. Not a means of preventing anal sex! How draconian!

I have no problems with abstention. Contraception on the other hand has nothing to do with stemming HIV transmission, nor with stds. Remember our other thread?

It is an equilibrium because I assume the state does not discriminate against gay couples.

Again, why are individuals discriminated against? No one person is barred from the institution.

And there would be no benefits from gay marriage? What is the primary reason for the existence of marriage today; is it the benefit to society or is it the happiness of the couple concerned?

Benefit to society. I would also argue why should we trap men in a less healthy lifestyle?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by molly bloom


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.

The difference between AIDS and HIV isn't all that important - certainly not enough to make his argument false (it's wrong for other reasons ). Since in virtually all cases someone with HIV develops AIDS, and since people generally (yes, mistakenly, but that's not the point) use AIDS as synonymous with HIV, I think it's forgivable.

[Whaleboy]

I'm going to agree with you here. Surprise myself. Sexual preference has nothing to do with human rights, but everything to do with behaviour and psychology.

Behaviour (and thus its cause in psychology) has everything to do with human rights, since rights have their origin in the effect upon other people by a single persons behaviour, and if that effect is "undesireable" the majority declares it a non-right.

As for their problems, of a physical sort, would they consult you rather than their doctor?

I'm not a consultant but I think that many of my friends would not keep their medical conditions from me. Again, long story, won't go into it here.

That's the argument put forth to ban drugs. Clearly people do not have the right to do what they want to their own bodies.

Inconsistent bans . It's easier to defend a ban on hard drugs for example because the harmful effects are so acute. I don't consider homosexual sex to be anywhere near as harmful as that, indeed, I think it less harmful than smoking cannabis which is heading in the direction of legality .

1. Genes do not control behaviour
2. We do not know of any gene corresponding to homosexuality.
3. Therefore, whether the gene is considered defective or not has no effect on the behavior, or sexual preferences of the individual.

My knowledge of genetics is limited I cannot comment much, except to say that my argument there was in the case of a gene or gene sequence being found that controlled sexual preference.

Faulty because it is not universaliseable.

Your nemesis, Kant, remember?

Kant would fall to pieces because on one hand you have the idea that "I engage in anal sex, thus everyone should" (a nice thought admittedly but alas not the case) vs the idea that "No-one should have anal sex" which clearly isn't good for those that do enjoy it. What we have here is a question of proposition. The proposition for anal sex, accepted as people do it. The proposition against -> no-one should is not accepted since the burden of proof lies upon them to prove objectively why the others shouldn't.

Nonetheless, Kant is very much in error there as he famously does not account for the individual and sometimes conflicting needs, and thus logical necessities of a particularly subjective situation/individual. His view tends to phenomenology imo, which is good as an "advice" but not applicable nor a general logical principle. I'm more analytical so critiquing me with Kant is not going to work.

Evidence would assist your case in this precise claim.

Secondly, this will not protect you from HIV, merely slow the rate of transmission.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/782656.stm There's other stuff, for and against but it seems a reasonable idea and the empiricle evidence seems to support this hypothesis.

Slowing rates of transmission lessens your risk per sexual encounter as seems to be demonstrated here.

To what end do you compare the general population? I am trying to bolster my argument that homosexuality, in particular bears health risks not as prevalent in heterosexuals. Your statistic bears testimony to my claim, in the difference in the ratios.

Oh I do concur there, I can't argue that homosexual men are more at risk than heterosexual men, but firstly that it is not merely heterosexual men that engage in anal sex, and secondly that that which is harmful is not a sufficient condition to consider undesireable.

I focus on anal sex here. I could expand to other health consequences that would also apply to lesbians if desired.

I think for all intents and purposes we can address the anal sex issue here, then go into other areas. I just don't want people to think that maligning 50% of homosexuals in this debate and we are calling the other 50% representative.

I have no problems with abstention. Contraception on the other hand has nothing to do with stemming HIV transmission, nor with stds. Remember our other thread?

Stemming it is exactly what it does! There is always a risk but that is insufficient to justify a reason not, subjectively in many/most cases and most certainly in all cases objectively. I posted a response to the abstinence thread though if you want to continue that particular debate, please PM me since I can't be arsed on the forums. I do enjoy our debates, I'm not trying to be antagonistic.

Again, why are individuals discriminated against? No one person is barred from the institution.

Then you support my point. Homosexual couples should be allowed civil unions and contractually speaking that is the same as marriage. If they decide to call it marriage themselves, then they are legitimate in doing so. Presumably that can be specified in their vows.

Benefit to society. I would also argue why should we trap men in a less healthy lifestyle?

No-one's forcing men to engage in anal sex, nor preventing them from sleeping with women or abstaining, it is their choice. I would argue against placing barriers to homosexuality.

I'm going to bed now, I shall continue this tomorrow!

[Agathon]

Isn't it harder for a guy who doesn't "play the back nine" to catch HIV from a woman?