[quote]makkun wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
[…]I see your point, but where is the line for ‘social impairment’? Does behavior like frequent unprotected sex and engaging in known risk factors for disease count as social impairment? It certainly has an overall negative impact on society in the cost of healthcare.
I could follow your view more, if it was supported for example by the CDC, which is responsible for recording and fighting STDs and HIV infections. Interestingly, they do not see homosexuality as the underlying cause for risky behaviour - but a host of other social factors, including ignorance or discriminatory practices wrt homosexuality.
Just because men having sex with men have a higher incidence of certain illnesses does not mean that their homosexuality itself is at the core of the problem. Feel free to go through my postings - I’ve posted extensively on the approach the CDC takes.
And that’s why the CDC for example concentrates its approach on education and strengthening the positive bonds developed within the gay scenes to combat STDs and HIV - it has understood that an inclusive approach which doesn’t disenfranchise MSM from the rest of society actually helps reduce risk behaviours and infections.
In other words, uninformed people who can’t assess the risks of their behaviour are the problem - whether they are gay doesn’t really come into it. People tend to be more uninformed and engage in riskier behaviours when they are isolated from the societal mainstream and its benefits, especially education.
Hence the CDC’s approach. It has nothing to do with political correctness - it’s just what works better.
[/quote]
From the CDC perspective I can understand that position. However, in the context of our discussion the only conclusion we can draw from the CDC approach is that gays can marry, they just can’t have gay sex. From a social perspective it is not realistic to separate being gay from gay sex as the two go hand in hand. So from a social perspective, the risks of gay sex can and should be applied to gay marriage.
[quote]
I know many would like to believe that this distress is caused by those who do not accept the lifestyle, but there is nothing to prove that assumption.
I wouldn’t be so sure - being disenfranchised and isolated from society, being underprivileged or directly discrimintated against are proven and known factors for promoting delinquent and risk behaviours, as well as mental illness.
And let’s clarify - it’s not only the people who openly don’t accept to what your refer to as ‘the lifestyle’. If a society is inherently biased against you, it causes distress.
Just trawl through some of the postings on T-Nation - and I don’t mean PRCalDude who has an open viewpoint and wields an argument - just look at the dumb kids who use the ghey as a put down and have to clarify no homo when they’ve made another man a compliment.
That sets a subtle signal which finds it recipients among their gay peers. The homophobic bully who beats up the gay boy in class is the exeption - the silent majority who doesn’t help or secretly condones it has a far greater effect.
Makkun[/quote]
This is true, but why do we need to model society after special interested that reflect only approx. 1% of its members? When we vote it is consensus rule. When laws are made it is consensus rule. So why do 99% of people need to change for 1% of the population? This is not the model for any political or social approach anywhere.
