Homosexuality, Choice or Genetic

[Lorisco]

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

IMO, its a moot point because theres no reason gays just cant be gay; what causes me to speak up on the issue is that so many people only want to “prove” that its a choice so they can use it as rationalization for their bigotry against gays (nevermind that being gay could, reasonably, be both a choice and not wrong).

So, on a legal level, I’d rather it be viewed as intrinsic and innate, as to not open those gates I described earlier.

You continue to spout out words like bigotry, hate, discrimination, etc. And yet I have seen none of that on this form (I haven’t read everything).

Here are a few examples from this thread:

“The point is whether you believe its genetics or choice, if you let homos get married then farmer fred can marry his horse”

[/quote]

Ok, I get your point.

And those are a few of the outright, obvious examples. I’ll skip trying to get into the slightly more subtle kinds (like suggesting that homosexuals need therapy to be cured).

When you see the statistics regarding how many gays die from their behavior or cause others to die, the only compassionate thing to do is advocate for treatment or some kind of behavioral change to reduce their risks.

sigh This is the way it always goes, isn’t it? You somehow overlook all of primalfears use of terms like “fag” and talking about how homosexuals arent normal human beings, you overlook Zebs constant love affair with the idea that homosexuals can be converted, and still dont “see” any bigotry.

Wanting gays to be able to change if they can is not bigotry, it compassion.

[quote]
OhHHHHHHHH, THATS when gays will have your permission! Ok, that makes complete sense because you’re totally in a position to determine if “gays can be gays” or if “gays arent allowed to be gays”.

You know something, though, you do make a good point, many gays lead an irresponsible lifestyle. And that irresponsible lifestyle results in a much higher rate of STDs in the gay community.

So if you have a problem with that, have a problem with that! Have a problem with people having too many sexual partners or not using protection or not getting regularly tested! Its possible to have a problem with an irresponsible lifestyle without having a problem with homosexuality (there are many homosexuals who respect their increased risk and act responsibly).

If you wish to speak out against irresponsibility, great, I’m all for that. But if you are going to pretend that homosexuality and irresponsibility are inexorably linked, or that the problem is homosexuality, or that the problem is only with homosexuals, then you are wrong.

Just letting them be gay is not the same as condoning irresponsibility since the two are not linked.[/quote]

The problem is that if a certain behavior is significantly more prevalent among a certain group you start to see correlations between the group characteristics and that behavior. In other words, statistically speaking, being gay means you higher correlation to inappropriate/risky sexual behavior than others.

So how do you know that that it is an individual issue and not a gay issue? If gays cannot change being gay, how do you know they can change their gay sexual behaviors to be less risky? Maybe that is genetic and cannot be changed as well?

It sounds like you are changing the rules about what can and cannot be changed to fit your perceptions.

[Beowolf]

Lorisco, it sounds to me like you want to save people from themselves.

So I assume you’re all for completely banning all fire arms, drugs, and supplements yes?

[KeepAwaySheeple]

I’m not going to debate with the “gay people are immoral” crowd anymore until they answer my two questions -

1. Do you have any experience in dealing with a gay person who is family or a close friend?

2. Is a man having anal sex with a woman “immoral”?

I will keep posting these questions over and over and over again until I get a response.

[orion]

[quote]BlaKistKneeGrow wrote:
I’m not going to debate with the “gay people are immoral” crowd anymore until they answer my two questions -

1. Do you have any experience in dealing with a gay person who is family or a close friend?

2. Is a man having anal sex with a woman “immoral”?

I will keep posting these questions over and over and over again until I get a response.

[/quote]

What are you hoping to achieve? That would only work with people who weigh different arguments and come to a conclusion that could be changed by further facts.

If someone however already has come to a conclusion and then paddles backwards to find reasons to justify his gut feelings, what sense would it make to consider your questions?

[KeepAwaySheeple]

[quote]orion wrote:
What are you hoping to achieve? That would only work with people who weigh different arguments and come to a conclusion that could be changed by further facts.

If someone however already has come to a conclusion and then paddles backwards to find reasons to justify his gut feelings, what sense would it make to consider your questions?
[/quote]

Two things -

People on here are blabbing out statistics and studies such as ZEB. The problem is they probably have absolutely no personal experience in having a family member or close friend being gay. It’s so easy for people to write things off as whatever they “feel like”. Until they actually go through some real life experience of their own, they don’t fucking get it and it’s frustrating as hell.

I’ve been asking the anal sex with women question with absolutely no response whatsoever from them. They are making the claim that homosexuality is “immoral” (not natural, spreads diseases). Staggering percentages of straight men like anal sex. Therefore, by their own standards of what is and isn’t “immoral”, many, many straight men are indeed “immoral”. The hypocrisy and double standard is SICKENING.

[orion]

[quote]BlaKistKneeGrow wrote:
orion wrote:
What are you hoping to achieve? That would only work with people who weigh different arguments and come to a conclusion that could be changed by further facts.

If someone however already has come to a conclusion and then paddles backwards to find reasons to justify his gut feelings, what sense would it make to consider your questions?

Two things -

People on here are blabbing out statistics and studies such as ZEB. The problem is they probably have absolutely no personal experience in having a family member or close friend being gay.

I’ve been asking the anal sex with women question with absolutely no response whatsoever from them. They are making the claim that homosexuality is “immoral” (not natural, spreads diseases). Staggering percentages of straight men like anal sex. Therefore, by their own standards of what is and isn’t “immoral”, many, many straight men are indeed “immoral”.

[/quote]

We are talking about people here that are heavily indoctrinated by a religion of fear.

What do you expect? Almost everything is immoral and to stray from the path of righteousness means eternal damnation.

Should we not try to help them before that happens?

That is Zebs and Loriscos point albeit in the old-school version.

Seen that way your sins are not a private matter, because your heresy could convince other people who would then be condemned to eternal suffering too.

An all powerful psychopath is not an easy master to please.

[KeepAwaySheeple]

[quote]orion wrote:
We are talking about people here that are heavily indoctrinated by a religion of fear.

What do you expect? Almost everything is immoral and to stray from the path of righteousness means eternal damnation.

Should we not try to help them before that happens?

That is Zebs and Loriscos point albeit in the old-school version.

Seen that way your sins are not a private matter, because your heresy could convince other people who would then be condemned to eternal suffering too.

An all powerful psychopath is not an easy master to please.
[/quote]

I also must add, for ZEB and Lorisco -

My gay brother and I were raised by Christian parents. We went to church on Sundays and often had Bible study.

My brother prayed to God/Jesus everyday that he would not be attracted to men. He didn’t want to be gay and hated himself. Through high school, he was insecure and sheltered himself from the rest of the world. When he came out to me, he was terrified and hysterically crying because it was so hard for him to say those words to me - “I’m gay”.

So praying to God and Jesus didn’t help him. He prayed and prayed and prayed and he is still attracted to men. He did this ever since he was a kid and actually knew what was going on and that he was gay.

So ZEB and Lorisco, if you want to play the role of righteous Christians, go ahead. Being born in that environment, I know what the teachings are, but I’ve been through something that you haven’t. And it has changed my life forever.

No matter how hard you try though, I KNOW that my brother is just simply gay and that all the praying in the world won’t change that. It would be facinating to me if you guys found out one of your siblings was gay or a close friend. And after listening to their struggles and after they spill their guts to you, how you would react to it.

That would be the character defining moment. Would you simply tell them they are “sinners”, or would you embrace them with love and support? Considering what he’s been through, if you just painted your little black and white picture and told them “you’re a sinner”, then I’d say fuck you hypocrite, you don’t deserve anything good out of life and the world would be a better place without you.

EVERYONE IS A SINNER, if you want to be a Christian, try looking at your own life and praying for forgivness from enjoying blow jobs and anal sex, or whatever other non-biblical sex you are into. Not to mention whether you lust over other women or men. This way you can cover yourself and not seem so much like a hypocrite.

[CappedAndPlanIt]

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

IMO, its a moot point because theres no reason gays just cant be gay; what causes me to speak up on the issue is that so many people only want to “prove” that its a choice so they can use it as rationalization for their bigotry against gays (nevermind that being gay could, reasonably, be both a choice and not wrong).

So, on a legal level, I’d rather it be viewed as intrinsic and innate, as to not open those gates I described earlier.

You continue to spout out words like bigotry, hate, discrimination, etc. And yet I have seen none of that on this form (I haven’t read everything).

Here are a few examples from this thread:

“The point is whether you believe its genetics or choice, if you let homos get married then farmer fred can marry his horse”

Ok, I get your point.

And those are a few of the outright, obvious examples. I’ll skip trying to get into the slightly more subtle kinds (like suggesting that homosexuals need therapy to be cured).

When you see the statistics regarding how many gays die from their behavior or cause others to die, the only compassionate thing to do is advocate for treatment or some kind of behavioral change to reduce their risks.
[/quote]

Behavioral changes, sure. Sexuality changes, nope.

sigh This is the way it always goes, isn’t it? You somehow overlook all of primalfears use of terms like “fag” and talking about how homosexuals arent normal human beings, you overlook Zebs constant love affair with the idea that homosexuals can be converted, and still dont “see” any bigotry.

Wanting gays to be able to change if they can is not bigotry, it compassion.

Wanting them to change irresponsible behavior is compassion, wanting them to change their sexuality is bigotry.

OhHHHHHHHH, THATS when gays will have your permission! Ok, that makes complete sense because you’re totally in a position to determine if “gays can be gays” or if “gays arent allowed to be gays”.

You know something, though, you do make a good point, many gays lead an irresponsible lifestyle. And that irresponsible lifestyle results in a much higher rate of STDs in the gay community.

So if you have a problem with that, have a problem with that! Have a problem with people having too many sexual partners or not using protection or not getting regularly tested! Its possible to have a problem with an irresponsible lifestyle without having a problem with homosexuality (there are many homosexuals who respect their increased risk and act responsibly).

If you wish to speak out against irresponsibility, great, I’m all for that. But if you are going to pretend that homosexuality and irresponsibility are inexorably linked, or that the problem is homosexuality, or that the problem is only with homosexuals, then you are wrong.

Just letting them be gay is not the same as condoning irresponsibility since the two are not linked.

The problem is that if a certain behavior is significantly more prevalent among a certain group you start to see correlations between the group characteristics and that behavior. In other words, statistically speaking, being gay means you higher correlation to inappropriate/risky sexual behavior than others.

And being black, statistically speaking, means you have a higher correlation to joining a gang.

What you’re talking about is called a stereotype, if it hasn’t sunk in yet that stereotypes are bad, go back to grade school.

So how do you know that that it is an individual issue and not a gay issue? If gays cannot change being gay, how do you know they can change their gay sexual behaviors to be less risky? Maybe that is genetic and cannot be changed as well?

It sounds like you are changing the rules about what can and cannot be changed to fit your perceptions.

Look, I’ll make it simple:

If you have real compassion for gays, you’ll advocate that they get tested for STDs regularly and practice safe sex (such as wearing condoms/dental dams, limiting partners, making sure their partners get tested, etc, etc). You’ll do this because you actually care about them.

If you are a bigot, you’ll keep up the lie that them being gay is the problem and advocate that they change that.

Its your choice.

[CappedAndPlanIt]

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Lorisco, it sounds to me like you want to save people from themselves.

So I assume you’re all for completely banning all fire arms, drugs, and supplements yes?[/quote]

NO NO NO, dont you get it.

Being gay is wrong because its dangerous and unnatural.

But dont you go bringing up the ENDLESS list of other things that are dangerous and unnatural that they don’t think are immoral.

Like skydiving. Is it natural for human beings to jump from 10000 in the fucking air? Is it not dangerous?

So is skydiving “immoral” since its both dangerous and unnatural? No? Why not? Oh, because…

but I thought dangerous + unnatural = immoral… hmmm.

And cigarettes, lets not even talk about cigarettes. Dangerous, unnatural, and affect the people around you who dont even consent! Why, I wonder, aren’t they so rabidly anti-cigarette?

I said it before in this thread: A good sign someone is trying to cover up bigotry is when all the “logic and reasoning” they use doesn’t apply anywhere else but to the specific situation they want it to.

[Lorisco]

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

Behavioral changes, sure. Sexuality changes, nope.

[/quote]

It is the sexual behavior that is at issue, haven’t you been paying attention?

And being black, statistically speaking, means you have a higher correlation to joining a gang.

What you’re talking about is called a stereotype, if it hasn’t sunk in yet that stereotypes are bad, go back to grade school.

No, what I’m referring to is fact. Gays have a higher occurrence of sexually transmitted disease; FACT! Stereotypes are not based in fact. Look it up sport!

Look, I’ll make it simple:

If you have real compassion for gays, you’ll advocate that they get tested for STDs regularly and practice safe sex (such as wearing condoms/dental dams, limiting partners, making sure their partners get tested, etc, etc). You’ll do this because you actually care about them.

If you are a bigot, you’ll keep up the lie that them being gay is the problem and advocate that they change that.

Its your choice.

I advocate for those things, do you? No! You just like to perpetuate disease, suffering, and early death! Nice! You must be so proud!

And yes, being gay is a problem because most gays do not follow safe sex practices, whether that irresponsibility is genetic or choice is yet to be seen. However, it is ridiculous to think that being gay is genetic and then also believe that the gay behavior is a choice, which is what you are doing. Maybe this is too complex for you to understand; ask someone else to explain it to you.

[orion]

[quote]Lorisco wrote:

I advocate for those things, do you? No! You just like to perpetuate disease, suffering, and early death! Nice! You must be so proud!

And yes, being gay is a problem because most gays do not follow safe sex practices, whether that irresponsibility is genetic or choice is yet to be seen. However, it is ridiculous to think that being gay is genetic and then also believe that the gay behavior is a choice, which is what you are doing. Maybe this is too complex for you to understand; ask someone else to explain it to you.

[/quote]

Aaahhh, if being gay was genetic the question whether or not to use a condom must also be genetic.

Excellent argument, I think I am totally convinced now.

Not.

Plus, the fastest growing group of HIV positives is heterosexual young women.

God knows what unnatural depravities are to be blame.

[CappedAndPlanIt]

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

Behavioral changes, sure. Sexuality changes, nope.

It is the sexual behavior that is at issue, haven’t you been paying attention?
[/quote]

When you can tell the difference between sexual behavior and sexual orientation, get back to me.

And being black, statistically speaking, means you have a higher correlation to joining a gang.

What you’re talking about is called a stereotype, if it hasn’t sunk in yet that stereotypes are bad, go back to grade school.

No, what I’m referring to is fact. Gays have a higher occurrence of sexually transmitted disease; FACT! Stereotypes are not based in fact. Look it up sport!

Do they have a higher occurance of STDs because they’re gay? Or because of sexual behaviors?

Is the problem that they like men (orientation), or is the problem that they have unprotected sex with too many partners (behaviors)?

Look, I’ll make it simple:

If you have real compassion for gays, you’ll advocate that they get tested for STDs regularly and practice safe sex (such as wearing condoms/dental dams, limiting partners, making sure their partners get tested, etc, etc). You’ll do this because you actually care about them.

If you are a bigot, you’ll keep up the lie that them being gay is the problem and advocate that they change that.

Its your choice.

I advocate for those things, do you? No! You just like to perpetuate disease, suffering, and early death! Nice! You must be so proud!

No, you don’t. You advocate that they stop being attracted to men. Thats completely different.

I advocate that homosexuals act responsibly, so, no, I dont like to perpetuate death or suffering or disease, fool.

Your arguments keep getting weaker and weaker.

And yes, being gay is a problem because most gays do not follow safe sex practices, whether that irresponsibility is genetic or choice is yet to be seen. However, it is ridiculous to think that being gay is genetic and then also believe that the gay behavior is a choice, which is what you are doing. Maybe this is too complex for you to understand; ask someone else to explain it to you.

Aw, looks like you’re running away now.

I already said that I dont care if its genetic or not. It doesnt matter to me if people “choose to be gay” or if its “genetic”. All I see is that some people “are gay”, and in actual reality (where I live, unlike you and your ilk) theres nothing wrong with that.

The problem in the gay community is irresponsibility, not homosexuality. They are two different things, irresponsibility is a problem, homosexuality is not. Irresponsible people can learn to be more responsible, homosexuals cannot learn to be straight (no matter how many “THEY FINALLY SAW THE FIFTH LIGHT!!!” studies fools like ZEB throw around).

[KeepAwaySheeple]

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

Behavioral changes, sure. Sexuality changes, nope.

It is the sexual behavior that is at issue, haven’t you been paying attention?

When you can tell the difference between sexual behavior and sexual orientation, get back to me.

And being black, statistically speaking, means you have a higher correlation to joining a gang.

What you’re talking about is called a stereotype, if it hasn’t sunk in yet that stereotypes are bad, go back to grade school.

No, what I’m referring to is fact. Gays have a higher occurrence of sexually transmitted disease; FACT! Stereotypes are not based in fact. Look it up sport!

Do they have a higher occurance of STDs because they’re gay? Or because of sexual behaviors?

Is the problem that they like men (orientation), or is the problem that they have unprotected sex with too many partners (behaviors)?

Look, I’ll make it simple:

If you have real compassion for gays, you’ll advocate that they get tested for STDs regularly and practice safe sex (such as wearing condoms/dental dams, limiting partners, making sure their partners get tested, etc, etc). You’ll do this because you actually care about them.

If you are a bigot, you’ll keep up the lie that them being gay is the problem and advocate that they change that.

Its your choice.

I advocate for those things, do you? No! You just like to perpetuate disease, suffering, and early death! Nice! You must be so proud!

No, you don’t. You advocate that they stop being attracted to men. Thats completely different.

I advocate that homosexuals act responsibly, so, no, I dont like to perpetuate death or suffering or disease, fool.

Your arguments keep getting weaker and weaker.

And yes, being gay is a problem because most gays do not follow safe sex practices, whether that irresponsibility is genetic or choice is yet to be seen. However, it is ridiculous to think that being gay is genetic and then also believe that the gay behavior is a choice, which is what you are doing. Maybe this is too complex for you to understand; ask someone else to explain it to you.

Aw, looks like you’re running away now.

I already said that I dont care if its genetic or not. It doesnt matter to me if people “choose to be gay” or if its “genetic”. All I see is that some people “are gay”, and in actual reality (where I live, unlike you and your ilk) theres nothing wrong with that.

The problem in the gay community is irresponsibility, not homosexuality. They are two different things, irresponsibility is a problem, homosexuality is not. Irresponsible people can learn to be more responsible, homosexuals cannot learn to be straight (no matter how many “THEY FINALLY SAW THE FIFTH LIGHT!!!” studies fools like ZEB throw around). [/quote]

Wow! You just smoked Lorisco!

Lorisco, you need to just say it man -

Homosexuality is wrong because the Bible says so.

Stop trying to cover up the reason you are against homosexuality, because you know, once you say that, there will pretty much be no more room for discussion because your entire argument is based on religion, not logic.

[BostonBarrister]

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
…

No, what I’m referring to is fact. Gays have a higher occurrence of sexually transmitted disease; FACT! Stereotypes are not based in fact. Look it up sport!

…

CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

…

Do they have a higher occurance of STDs because they’re gay? Or because of sexual behaviors?

Is the problem that they like men (orientation), or is the problem that they have unprotected sex with too many partners (behaviors)?
…

[/quote]

The problem is actually a combination of behaviors. Penetrative anal sex is riskier for transmission of AIDS than penetrative genital sex, irrespective of condom usage. Probably because of the blood and bacteria generally involved - and even if a condom were used, one would assume that the increase friction generally involved would lead to higher failure rates. This is irrespective of the gender of the participants. If gay men only gave each other blow jobs, they would probably have a rate of transmission similar to lesbians (which is lower than that of heterosexuals.

Not wearing condoms just increases that inherent risk. If you have a relatively insular population with an already high infection rate that continues to engage in more risky behaviors, you’re going to continue to have a high infection rate in that population.

For further discussion:
The Volokh Conspiracy - -

which is part of an interesting series of posts found here:

http://volokh.com/posts/chain_1124731507.shtml

This doesn’t lead to the conclusion that gay relationships or gay sexual activity is immoral in and of itself. I could see coming to the conclusion that it constitutes reckless endangerment to be part of that population, avoid testing and engage in high-risk behaviors - though even in those conditions doing so requires a consensual partner, who is taking the risk.

As I said, I generally think that gay men and women should be left alone to pursue their own relationships as they see fit.

[BostonBarrister]

On the religious front, here is a very good post arguing that even religious people who take Biblical injunctions seriously, but who believe in religious tolerance, should treat tolerance of gays and lesbians as equivalent to tolerance of other religions:

http://volokh.com/2003_08_24_volokh_archive.html#106182323538204170

[BostonBarrister]

And here is a good post critiquing the “non-genital sex is unnatural” argument, focusing on what is “unnatural”:

http://volokh.com/2003_03_23_volokh_archive.html#200055515

Conclusion:

[i]But it seems to me that this argument really has next to nothing to do with nature as such. Killing, stealing, and adultery seem natural under virtually any definition of nature; the religious objection to them may turn on them being contrary to the will of God, but I don’t think it really has anything to do with naturalness. Likewise for homosexuality.

And this is an important point, because when people say “homosexuality is wrong because it’s unnatural,” it seems to me that they are trying to assert more than just “homosexuality is wrong because it’s contrary to my contested interpretation of contested religious texts” – they are trying to call on a more objectively defined, uncontroversial authority called “nature,” which is why they say “unnatural” rather than “ungodly.” (Some do say “ungodly,” but that’s not the argument I’m confronting here.) The trouble is that this call fails: Whatever one’s definition of natural, either homosexuality is natural, or it’s unnaturalness says nothing at all about its propriety.[/i]

[ZEB]

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

Look, Dumbshit, show me ONE of your studies that does not begin with the LIE that being gay is a problem or is wrong in some way.[/quote]

Good job, when the facts don’t line up in your favor start with the name calling, typical tactics of the left.

As to your assumption, it’s totally wrong. The only time it becomes “wrong” in those studies is when the person does not want to have a same sex attraction (ssa).

If someone wants help then they should be entitled to it, or does this not fit your narrow view of homosexuality?

Again: THINK!

Show me ONE study that does not attempt to “cure” gays (because, Dumbshit, if the study is attepting to “cure” gays, then the people running the study must think that being gay is bad,

It has nothing to do with it being “bad” or “wrong” as I stated several times, it has to do with the person seeking help because they want change in their life.

Fuck, Dumbshit,

LOL

I would have thought you’d be smart enough to figure out a biased study (OR FUCKING SIXTY) when incriminating language is used in the goddamn title of nearly every one.

Your assumption that all studies are biased BEFORE reading even one is just LAGUHABLE. But I’m not surprised, I’ve debated your type on this forum many times and when the facts are presented most of you either never post back or resort to name calling.

You have no case, so you claim bias, with no evidence of bias and then name call.

Hey, that’s some argument you have there. Ha ha

Again, all your dumbshit studies, Dumbshit, are based off the blatant, flagrant, ignorant WELL OF BULLSHIT that is homophobia.

Yes, that must be what it is. OR I have some very good facts which you have not read, don’t plan on reading and simply lump it all together as not being true because that’s what you want to believe, that’s what you’ve been fed during your young life.

Okay, I don’t think I have to read anymore of your nonsense, you have no point, no leg to stand on in this debate and at this point you’re not even worth my time. But, as I’ve said you are pretty typical of someone on the left who is confronted with the facts.

If you ever decide to seriously debate this issue, start by actually reading through a few of the studies that I posted, all name calling aside they are real eye openers. If someone does not want to be attracted to the same sex it has been demonstrated over and over again that they may not have to be.

When you pull your fingers out of your ears and your head out of your ass let me know.

Zeb

[ZEB]

Lorisco,

Here are some interesting facts (Cap hates the word “facts”) which speak to the issue of “danger” in same sex relationships, regardless of the millions of dollars poured into education:

"Risky Sexual Behavior on the Rise Among Homosexuals. Despite two decades of intensive efforts to educate homosexuals against the dangers of acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) and other stds, the incidence of unsafe sexual practices that often result in various diseases is on the rise.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), from 1994 to 1997 the proportion of homosexuals reporting having had anal sex increased from 57.6 percent to 61.2 percent, while the percentage of those reporting “always” using condoms declined from 69.6 percent to 60 percent.[2]

The CDC reported that during the same period the proportion of men reporting having multiple sex partners and unprotected anal sex increased from 23.6 percent to 33.3 percent. The largest increase in this category (from 22 percent to 33.3 percent) was reported by homosexuals twenty-five years old or younger.[3]

Homosexuals Failing to Disclose Their HIV Status to Sex Partners
?A study presented July 13, 2000 at the XIII International aids Conference in Durban, South Africa disclosed that a significant number of homosexual and bisexual men with hiv “continue to engage in unprotected sex with people who have no idea they could be contracting HIV.”[4] Researchers from the University of California, San Francisco found that thirty-six percent of homosexuals engaging in unprotected oral, anal, or vaginal sex failed to disclose that they were HIV positive to casual sex partners.[5]

A CDC report revealed that, in 1997, 45 percent of homosexuals reporting having had unprotected anal intercourse during the previous six months did not know the HIV serostatus of all their sex partners. Even more alarming, among those who reported having had unprotected anal intercourse and multiple partners, 68 percent did not know the HIV serostatus of their partners.[6]

Young Homosexuals are at Increased Risk. Following in the footsteps of the generation of homosexuals decimated by AIDS, younger homosexuals are engaging in dangerous sexual practices at an alarming rate.

A Johns Hopkins University School of Public Health study of three-hundred-sixty-one young men who have sex with men (MSM) aged fifteen to twenty-two found that around 40 percent of participants reported having had anal-insertive sex, and around 30 percent said they had had anal-receptive sex. Thirty-seven percent said they had not used a condom for anal sex during their last same-sex encounter. Twenty-one percent of the respondents reported using drugs or alcohol during their last same-sex encounter.[7]

A five-year CDC study of 3,492 homosexual males aged fifteen to twenty-two found that one-quarter had unprotected sex with both men and women. Another cdc study of 1,942 homosexual and bisexual men with HIV found that 19 percent had at least one episode of unprotected anal sex–the riskiest sexual behavior–in 1998 and 1997, a 50 percent increase from the previous two years.[8]

[ZEB]

Caution, the following evidence may cause some to resort to name calling and personal attacks. Facts, are something that those on the left refuse to acknowledge.

It’s much easier to rationalize bad behavior, which kills those who participate in it, and also those who are quite innocent.

There is no group on earth (to my knowledge) that demonstrates riskier sexual behavior than the gay population! PERIOD!

Yes, there are many heterosexual people who use drugs and like anal sex. But according to the statistics this is incredibly prevalent in the gay community:

Just take a look at who is dying of AIDS faster than any other group-And no doubt who is spreading AIDS faster than any group as well by their promiscuity:

And not some right wing crazy propaganda this is from CDC STATISTICS

"Homosexual males, who make up less than 2% of the US population, account for 56% of the adult AIDS cases. As of January 1, 1997, 324,728 men who have sex with men have been diagnosed with AIDS.

HIV/AIDS Among Homosexuals

The human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) is responsible for causing AIDS, for which there exists no cure. Homosexual men are the largest risk category. The CDC reports that homosexuals comprise the single largest exposure category of the more than 600,000 males with AIDS in the United States. As of December 1999, “men who have sex with men” and “men who have sex with men and inject drugs” together accounted for 64 percent of the cumulative total of male AIDS cases.39

There are currently an estimated 900,000 people in the United States that are infected with the HIV virus, or 1 in 300 Americans, and this disease has cost the American taxpayer billions of dollars. Although medical breakthroughs have decreased the rate of AIDS deaths annually, the rate of new infections per year has remained the same, at 40,000, despite the twenty-year “safe-sex” campaign.[6] New infections among homosexual men climbed 17% between 1999 and 2002 ? the largest jump of any exposure category.[7] AIDS remains the fifth leading cause of death among those aged 25-44, and 59.7 % of new cases are contracted by homosexual men. According to the Centers for Disease Control, homosexual men are a thousand times more likely to contract AIDS than heterosexuals.[8]

The list of other contagious diseases that homosexuals are at high-risk of acquiring is as long as your arm. The risk of anal cancer soars to an astounding 4000 % for those engaging in anal intercourse compared to those who don?t, and it doubles again for those who are HIV positive

AND THIS IS ONE REASON WHY AIDS IS SPREADING

"Promiscuity among Homosexual Couples. Even in those homosexual relationships in which the partners consider themselves to be in a committed relationship, the meaning of “committed” typically means something radically different from marriage.

In The Male Couple, authors David P. McWhirter and Andrew M. Mattison reported that in a study of a hundred-fifty-six males in homosexual relationships lasting from one to thirty-seven years,

Only seven couples have a totally exclusive sexual relationship, and these men all have been together for less than five years. Stated another way, all couples with a relationship lasting more than five years have incorporated some provision for outside sexual activity in their relationships.[13]

In Male and Female Homosexuality, M. Saghir and E. Robins found that the average male homosexual live-in relationship lasts between two and three years.[14]

AND THIS:

Studies indicate that the average male homosexual has hundreds of sex partners in his lifetime: A.P. Bell and M.S. Weinberg, in their classic study of male and female homosexuality, found that

43 percent of white male homosexuals had sex with 500 or more partners

with 28 percent having 1,000 or more sex partners.9 In their study of the sexual profiles of 2,583 older homosexuals published in Journal of Sex Research, Paul Van de Ven et al., found that only 2.7 percent claimed to have had sex with one partner only. The most common response, given by 21.6 percent of the respondents, was of having a hundred-one to five hundred lifetime sex partners.10

Even a gay magazine admits the problem

A survey conducted by the homosexual magazine Genre found that 24 percent of the respondents said they had had more than a hundred sexual partners in their lifetime. The magazine noted that several respondents suggested including a category of those who had more than a thousand sexual partners.11 In his study of male homosexuality in Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times, M. Pollak found that "few homosexual relationships last longer than two years, with many men reporting hundreds of lifetime partners.“12”

[CappedAndPlanIt]

[quote]ZEB wrote:
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

Look, Dumbshit, show me ONE of your studies that does not begin with the LIE that being gay is a problem or is wrong in some way.

Good job, when the facts don’t line up in your favor start with the name calling, typical tactics of the left.

As to your assumption, it’s totally wrong. The only time it becomes “wrong” in those studies is when the person does not want to have a same sex attraction (ssa).

If someone wants help then they should be entitled to it, or does this not fit your narrow view of homosexuality?

Again: THINK!

[/quote]

Brainwashing is not help, its brainwashing. Giving in to a bigoted society is not help, its giving in to a bigoted society.

Again, you lose.

Show me ONE study that does not attempt to “cure” gays (because, Dumbshit, if the study is attepting to “cure” gays, then the people running the study must think that being gay is bad,

It has nothing to do with it being “bad” or “wrong” as I stated several times, it has to do with the person seeking help because they want change in their life.

Then why do all the studies use language that suggests homosxuality should be “cured” and not simply “changed”?

Again, you lose.

Fuck, Dumbshit,

LOL

I would have thought you’d be smart enough to figure out a biased study (OR FUCKING SIXTY) when incriminating language is used in the goddamn title of nearly every one.

Your assumption that all studies are biased BEFORE reading even one is just LAGUHABLE. But I’m not surprised, I’ve debated your type on this forum many times and when the facts are presented most of you either never post back or resort to name calling.

How about I post a study titled “Curing Negro Lovers”?.. oh wait, you’d recognize that it was a bullshit study because the idea of “curing” them suggests that an attraction to black people is a problem, which is very obviously a lie.

Yes, all of the studies you posted are biased because they start with the LIE that homosexuality should be “cured”

You have no case, so you claim bias, with no evidence of bias and then name call.

Zeb, everyone with half a brain can see the bias in studies titled “Curing Homosexuality”. You are obviously not part of the group.

Hey, that’s some argument you have there. Ha ha

Again, all your dumbshit studies, Dumbshit, are based off the blatant, flagrant, ignorant WELL OF BULLSHIT that is homophobia.

Yes, that must be what it is. OR I have some very good facts which you have not read, don’t plan on reading and simply lump it all together as not being true because that’s what you want to believe, that’s what you’ve been fed during your young life.

I looked over your studies, and all of them were biased.

I lump it as being bullshit because its bullshit, no matter how many times you stomp your widdle feet and scream.

Okay, I don’t think I have to read anymore of your nonsense, you have no point, no leg to stand on in this debate and at this point you’re not even worth my time. But, as I’ve said you are pretty typical of someone on the left who is confronted with the facts.

Try finding some actual facts and maybe you’ll have a leg to stand on or an ass to fall on.

If you ever decide to seriously debate this issue, start by actually reading through a few of the studies that I posted, all name calling aside they are real eye openers. If someone does not want to be attracted to the same sex it has been demonstrated over and over again that they may not have to be.

Zeb, you are a bigot who desperatly wants backwards “proof” that homosexuality is wrong. Just give it up.