Gay couples will have the right to adopt priests

[Ellestar]

And then what your fixating on on me and homosexual relations means hmm?

[Aeson]

I can site sources, but I don't know how reliable they are. No one really cares about people exaggerating the dangers of smoking, and no PC organization is going to publish accurate statistics and the health risks of sodomy. But it is reported that smoking decreases your life expectancy by 2 to 10 years, and sodomy reduces your life expectancy by 8 to 20 years.

Easy solution to HIV via unprotected anal sex: condoms and being careful about who your partners are. It's not a risk innate to homosexuality. (It's even a risk for heterosexual couples.)

[Aeson]

And then what your fixating on on me and homosexual relations means hmm?

It means it's funny that you're a homophobe who watches gay porn and fixates on dicks in hetero porn.

[Ellestar]

You're stupid, you aren't stopping what you say you want to stop, you're just labelling it somewhat differently to try to pretend it doesn't exist.

Wow finally you got an idea. Took you how many posts?

If a guy (or girl) can attract more than one mate, kudos to them. I don't have a problem with polyamorous relationships so long as they are consensual.

"Harems" as they have been throughout history and in places they actually are called "harems" were always a form of enslavement. You're a sick **** to think that that "makes sense".

So you support polyamorous relationship but not polygamous one? But that's exactly the same difference as between gay relationship and gay marriage

And about "harems", it's just boring to write polygamous whatever because i need to look for that word in a dictionary. Now, harem is a well-known word for any anime fan

[Kidlicious]

Easy solution to HIV via unprotected anal sex: condoms and being careful about who your partners are. It's not a risk innate to homosexuality. (It's even a risk for heterosexual couples.)

Are you actually claiming the being the recipient of anal sex is not more hazardous than smoking a cigarette? Just one time and you can get a tissue tear, which can result in an infection. And that has nothing to do with HIV.

[Ellestar]

It means it's funny that you're a homophobe who watches gay porn and fixates on dicks in hetero porn.

If something like that makes your day, then i think you have a bigger problems with your interests than the ones you falsely claim i have.

[Ming]

And what's with the term "gay propaganda".
Why not "christian propaganda" Why is it OK for parents and society to subject their children to christian propaganda and not gay propaganda. They are both lifestyles.
One might even argue that it's worse to indoctrinate children to the fantasy of religion then to simply inform them about different lifestyles.
When you come down to it, Christians have killed more people in the name of religion than gays have.
So which is worse. Poisoning the minds of little children with the fantasy of some supreme being or telling them about alternative lifestyles?

The use of the term gay "propaganda" is simply wrong. It's like you are trying to equate it to nazi "propaganda".
It's simply education and learning, not propaganda.

[giblets]

But as far as i know humans don't have instinctive protection from homosexual relationships, like we have it for incest (Westermarck effect). So i don't see where exactly a "huge difference" will come from if children will be taught or given examples that it's ok. It's true that Westermarck effect only prevents a sexual attraction (so a forming of a relation), but most people have a friendship relation. So what exactly will stop teenagers from converting a "friends" relation to a "friends with benefits" relation with the friends of the same gender, if they'll be taught and shown examples that it's ok?

In any case, your claim doesn't address practical examples of a much more widespread homosexual relations in certain cultures where it's considered ok.

Cultures that had widespread homosexual relations didn't merely consider homosexuality "ok", society expected people to have those homosexual relationships, so not having them was not "ok". Even then, the vast majority of people who had homosexual relationships also had heterosexual relationships, and for all we know they might have considered themselves primarily heterosexual.

Biologically speaking, you would expect most people to have a preference for members of the opposite sex, since people with such a preference are likely to have more success with passing on their genes. The development of the brain is affected by hormones before birth, so that males are usually biased in favor of being attracted to females, and females are usually biased in favor of being attracted to males. In any environment where people are not pressured to be heterosexual and not pressured to be homosexual, you can expect most people to be heterosexual.

[Kidlicious]

And what's with the term "gay propaganda".
Why not "christian propaganda" Why is it OK for parents and society to subject their children to christian propaganda and not gay propaganda. They are both lifestyles.
One might even argue that it's worse to indoctrinate children to the fantasy of religion then to simply inform them about different lifestyles.
When you come down to it, Christians have killed more people in the name of religion than gays have.
So which is worse. Poisoning the minds of little children with the fantasy of some supreme being or telling them about alternative lifestyles?

The use of the term gay "propaganda" is simply wrong. It's like you are trying to equate it to nazi "propaganda".
It's simply education and learning, not propaganda.

Education isn't political. Your assertion is absurd.

[Aeson]

If something like that makes your day, then i think you have a bigger problems with your interests than the ones you falsely claim i have.

A sense of humor isn't actually a bad thing. Neither is being homosexual.

[Ming]

Education isn't political. Your assertion is absurd.

Huh... you are the one being absurd. Why is a discussion of gay life style any different than Christian or other religion propaganda?
Why is one "political" and the other not. What strange definition are you using for Political?

[giblets]

Are you actually claiming the being the recipient of anal sex is not more hazardous than smoking a cigarette? Just one time and you can get a tissue tear, which can result in an infection. And that has nothing to do with HIV.

When did you become an expert on anal sex?

[Kidlicious]

Huh... you are the one being absurd. Why is a discussion of gay life style any different than Christian or other religion propaganda?
Why is one "political" and the other not. What strange definition are you using for Political?

You're using propaganda right now. No one in this thread said there is no such thing as Christian propaganda.

[Kidlicious]

When did you become an expert on anal sex?

Being smarter and more educated than you doesn't make me an expert.

[Aeson]

Are you actually claiming the being the recipient of anal sex is not more hazardous than smoking a cigarette? Just one time and you can get a tissue tear, which can result in an infection.

Still waiting on numbers of people killed by such things. From such reputable sources as you can find of course ... but definitely not health organizations! Heaven forbid! Please keep your statistics for deaths from sodomy from reputable Christian news websites.

You are ignoring that heterosexuals can also have anal sex, that vaginal sex has many of the same issues, and that most health issues involving sex of either type can be largely avoided through proper use of condoms.

And that has nothing to do with HIV.

The only study you've used to back up your claim of how deadly homosexuality is was entirely about HIV.