Gay Rights?

[Sobbastchianno]

IIRC the supreme court ruled in Brown vs. Board of Education that seprate but equal was inherently not equal... and therefore unconstitutional.

You do recall correctly, which is why, if the Vermont Civil Union were to be challenged in the US Supreme Court, it would be struck down. Separate but equal systems tend to give way to Jim Crow type laws. That is what scares me.

Just for the record, IMHO, Domestic Partnership laws and ordinances are special rights meant to appease gays and lesbians. What they actually do is give the fundies ammunition for saying that we want special rights. I personally don't like the whole concept of domestic partnerships, or even insurance benefits for unmarried couples. I believe that if we permit same-sex couples to marry, we won't need either Domestic Partnership ordinances or insurance benefits for unmarried couples, because then it can be said, you want the benefits, take the vows and sign the license.

That is all any same-sex couple seeking marriage wants.

A good friend of mine from grammar school, whom I have known for over 30 years and is, without qualification, the most intelligent and intellectual person I know. This is what she wrote to me in an e-mail that I received today.

"...Restricting marriage by gender is no more sensible than restricting it by race. I have a really hard time understanding what motivates the people who want to restrict it at all. What possible harm do these folks think it would do them to let other people get married? No one's asking them to marry someone of the same gender. (It's a rhetorical question -- I know they just want to drive everyone back into the closet -- or into "therapy.") Still, one of the criticisms that gets levelled at gays and lesbians is "promiscuity", so you'd think expecting them to get married and stay married would be more consistent with that controlling mindset....."

I am tired of fundies saying that homosexuals are anti-family, and then when we go for traditions, such as marriage and adoption, which strengthen families because of the legal (and hopefully eventually social) support that comes with marriage, we are told we can't participate. It is a catch 22, double-standard and thankfully more and more people are starting to recognize such rhetoric for what it is, garbage.

[Darth Wong]

Well, duh. That's true everywhere. However, the fact that there are two ways to get married does not mean that they are separate "levels of marital status". Am I speaking slowly enough for you? There are countless ways to get killed; does this mean there are different levels of death?

Okay then, we'll call it two levels. I don't see the need for three, but then you were the one to first mention such a third level.

Bullshit. You argued that the marital status of "married" should be reserved for those who have gone through the religious ceremony, hence creating another level of MARITAL status. You claim that it doesn't mean anything, yet you openly argue that it's a good idea because it will appease the fundies, because you know perfectly well that it DOES mean something.

Wrong, dumb-ass. You are saying that a civil union should not be referred to as marriage, while a religious one should.

No, I'm saying that I'd just change the word in the laws, then if need be define it to be exactly the same as marriage. I don't give a flying fuck what people call it.

Yes you do, otherwise you wouldn't be arguing that we should change it. Stop lying, asshole. You're starting to seriously piss me off.

If you want to play semantics, then we can play semantics.

This from the guy whose whole argument is based on changing the wording and complicating the situation, just to appease the fundies.

No, apparently not. If a statute is exactly the same save for one word being exchanged for a synonym, does that mean the statute has a whole new meaning?

If it is truly synonymous, then there is no reason to change it. The whole point of changing it is to appease the fundies, hence it is not really synonymous.

I am quite aware of that already, thanks.

No you aren't, since your earlier argument was that the civil union somehow represents a different level of marital status than the religious ceremony, when the ceremony is really just window-dressing on top of legal marriage. In short, you are arguing that the term "marriage" should be attached exclusively to the religious ceremony, when if anything, it is more closely tied to the civil union since that is the only thing which is currently necessary to be married.

Earth to Mike: I know. I already said that. I said that you could get married where I live independant of any ceremony. You sign the contract, the judge signs the contract, and poof! You're married.

Yet you call this a different "level" of marital status for some asinine reason, and argue that it should NOT be referred to as "marriage" unless the religious ceremony is performed. Are you deliberately trying to be an evasive asshole now? If you already understand that marriage is currently exclusive to the civil union but NOT the religious ceremony, then you SHOULD understand that if anything is going to undergo a name-change away from "marriage", it should be the religious ceremony, not the civil union.

If they can just call it a "godly union" or a "happy free-sex act" or whatever the fuck they're going to call it, then its okay? Yet if you change the specific word in the statute, that is evil and forbidden?

Yes, asshole. That's because the legal marriage is marriage. The religious ceremony is a ceremony that is added on top of marriage. A person who undergoes the religious ceremony is still married even if he chooses to call the ceremony something else and declare that it has some special meaning, but under your asshole scheme, people who DON'T undergo the religious ceremony cannot call themselves "married".

I'm not trying to play dumb here: I really don't see what the fuck it matters whether the law says "marriage" or, say, "legal union".

It means that despite a legal definition which is older than any of us have been alive and which has therefore attained special meaning which is highly desirable to people in love, they would suddenly be disallowed from calling themselves "married" unless they have gone through the religious ceremony. Don't play games; you are playing dumb, and quite frankly, you're being an asshole.

I guess my position boils down to this. If it doesn't actually affect life, and if it prevents antagonism so we can all move on to something more important than petty bickering about legal semantics, then I'm all for it.

The only one fighting for semantic bullshit is you, insisting that people who don't go through religious ceremonies should not be allowed to call themselves "married". And as for your "prevents antagonism" argument, that is simply code language for "doesn't offend the fundies", ie- appeasement. What part of this are you too fucking stupid to understand? This is EXACTLY the same argument you used elsewhere to claim that interracial dating is a bad idea: "it might offend the bigots!" Frankly, every time I've met someone who used this "let's just try not to upset the bigots" argument in real life, I eventually managed to draw out of him the confession that on some level, he sort of agreed with them.

[Howedar]

Bullshit. You argued that the marital status of "married" should be reserved for those who have gone through the religious ceremony, hence creating another level of MARITAL status. You claim that it doesn't mean anything, yet you openly argue that it's a good idea because it will appease the fundies, because you know perfectly well that it DOES mean something.

Lets go back to my first post in this thread, and back to the first time this third level of maritial status was mentioned. I said "leave the word "marriage" to the private sector." This has nothing to do with a third level of maritial status, which in fact is a concept that you brought up early on page two. I quote myself again, "I think that the word "marriage" ought to be completely removed from everything government, and replace it with some sort of binding legal union bullshit." Note that I'm not adding a separate kind of marriage for gays or anything like that. Everyone who wants to get married gets legally married (technically under some other name), and then if they want to call themselves married, thats all well and good. The use of the word "married" or "marriage" would be left to the private sector, as I said. If everyone had a ceremony or nobody had a ceremony, that doesn't change. They themselves could refer to their union as a marriage if they want.

Yes you do, otherwise you wouldn't be arguing that we should change it. Stop lying, asshole. You're starting to seriously piss me off.

I ask you to go back to my OP and find where I said I cared what the private sector calls it.

This from the guy whose whole argument is based on changing the wording and complicating the situation, just to appease the fundies.

"Appeasement" usually referrs to the buying off of a group through compromising your own principles. I really don't see how this gives the fundies anything. If anything, it would hurt them because they'd no longer be able to snowball the public with religious arugments for why gays should not be allowed to marry.

If it is truly synonymous, then there is no reason to change it. The whole point of changing it is to appease the fundies, hence it is not really synonymous.

Syonymous in law is not necessarily the same as synonymous in public usage.

No you aren't, since your earlier argument was that the civil union somehow represents a different level of marital status than the religious ceremony, when the ceremony is really just window-dressing on top of legal marriage. In short, you are arguing that the term "marriage" should be attached exclusively to the religious ceremony, when if anything, it is more closely tied to the civil union since that is the only thing which is currently necessary to be married.

Bullshit. Utter bullshit. Go back to my OP and read it again, Mike. I said nothing of the sort.

Yet you call this a different "level" of marital status for some asinine reason,

Actually, YOU started this "different level of maritial status" bullshit. Top of page two.

and argue that it should NOT be referred to as "marriage" unless the religious ceremony is performed.

I say "leave the word marriage to the private sector." As in, not the governmental sector.

Are you deliberately trying to be an evasive asshole now? If you already understand that marriage is currently exclusive to the civil union but NOT the religious ceremony, then you SHOULD understand that if anything is going to undergo a name-change away from "marriage", it should be the religious ceremony, not the civil union.

In an ideal world, yes. That would be what I'd want. But all that would do is piss people off for no tangible gain.

Yes, asshole. That's because the legal marriage is marriage. The religious ceremony is a ceremony that is added on top of marriage. A person who undergoes the religious ceremony is still married even if he chooses to call the ceremony something else and declare that it has some special meaning, but under your asshole scheme, people who DON'T undergo the religious ceremony cannot call themselves "married".

Wrong again. Go back to my OP.

It means that despite a legal definition which is older than any of us have been alive and which has therefore attained special meaning which is highly desirable to people in love, they would suddenly be disallowed from calling themselves "married" unless they have gone through the religious ceremony. Don't play games; you are playing dumb, and quite frankly, you're being an asshole.

Deliberately or not, you are misinterpreting my argument. I reiterate: I would remove the word "marriage" from all things government. I would leave the word to the private sector. This does not mean you have to have a ceremony to call yourself married. All this means is that you can refer to yourself as married if you want, but the government will not.

The only one fighting for semantic bullshit is you, insisting that people who don't go through religious ceremonies should not be allowed to call themselves "married".

I don't think I need to cover this a fourth time.

And as for your "prevents antagonism" argument, that is simply code language for "doesn't offend the fundies", ie- appeasement.

And I've covered this above as well.

What part of this are you too fucking stupid to understand? This is EXACTLY the same argument you used elsewhere to claim that interracial dating is a bad idea: "it might offend the bigots!"

Now you're flat out lying. I said "all other things being equal." If all other things were equal, would you choose to piss people off? I also said that I personally would perfer not to date interracially for this reason, but if I fell in love with someone from another race this wouldnt' stop me. I said nothing about the practice as a whole, or about other people's choics on the matter.

Frankly, every time I've met someone who used this "let's just try not to upset the bigots" argument in real life, I eventually managed to draw out of him the confession that on some level, he sort of agreed with them.

I don't agree with the fundies. I think gays deserve every right that heterosexual couples do.

[Sobbastchianno]

You don't agree with the fundies, gays should have all the same rights, but as long as we don't call it the same thing. THAT is semantics.

[Kitsune]

Two items,
First: Virginia Legislator wanted to pass a law, I don't know it it passed or not, that creates a second form of Marriage called "Covenernt Marriage" which requires double the normal seperation and at least in some states do not allow for no fault divorce. It seems to be strongly Judeo-Christian tied as well.

Second: I have heard on Conservative Talk radio (I used to ride alot with a person who always listened to those guys) and their statement is 'Marriage is only for the raising of children' I have asked several people who stated that "So, sho a couple never get married if one is sterile?" and have never got an answer.

[Gil Hamilton]

Marriage is an legal thing that seems to revolve around spelling out how living together is to be arranged and tax status. If gays are to be equal before the law, then they should be able to sign any legal contract that anyone else should. It's that simple.

[MKSheppard]

We are being marginalize and demonized by a vocal and well funded minority that has taken control through vote buying and extortion, key positions in our government. And this must not be tolerated.

Wow, a minority being oppressed by a minority...nothing to see here,
move along move along.

Come back to me when more than 1% of the american populace likes Joe instead of Lisa.

[Illuminatus Primus]

We are being marginalize and demonized by a vocal and well funded minority that has taken control through vote buying and extortion, key positions in our government. And this must not be tolerated.

Wow, a minority being oppressed by a minority...nothing to see here,
move along move along.

Come back to me when more than 1% of the american populace likes Joe instead of Lisa.

You're being an idiot and using the Appeal to Popularity. A group's size has no relation to whether they deserve basic equal treatment before the law.

[MKSheppard]

You're being an idiot and using the Appeal to Popularity. A group's size has no relation to whether they deserve basic equal treatment before the law.

Maybe, but I remember when federal agencies in town used to host
lavish gay and lesbian pride luncheons with taxpayer money. Of course,
that was during Clinton. What's next, we start spending taxpayer money
on ever more infintemisial groups?

[Darth Wong]

Actually, YOU started this "different level of maritial status" bullshit. Top of page two.

Are you arguing that because I used the word "level" to describe your moronic idea of taking marriage out of the government and leaving it only to the churches, it was somehow MY idea? What kind of drugs are you on?

... but under your asshole scheme, people who DON'T undergo the religious ceremony cannot call themselves "married".

Wrong again. Go back to my OP.

Fine, continue being an asshole and simply lie about the fact that you want marriage taken out of the government's hands and made exclusive property of the church.

Deliberately or not, you are misinterpreting my argument. I reiterate: I would remove the word "marriage" from all things government.

Precisely as I said. Stop being an asshole; marriage belongs to the public, not to the churches. Taking it away and making something vaguely "equivalent" to it is common-law, which already exists. In essence, you're saying that the government should not be allowed to marry people, and that only churches should have this power.

I would leave the word to the private sector. This does not mean you have to have a ceremony to call yourself married. All this means is that you can refer to yourself as married if you want, but the government will not.

So anyone can marry anyone now? Without some form of regulation, I might as well decide that I can marry people. Should we set up Fuzzy's Marriage Service, where people pull into my driveway, give my dog a steak, and get married? Government regulates marriage; if you don't like that, fine. Propose that we abolish the entire concept of marriage as an officially recognized concept. Otherwise, accept that marriage is a legal concept, that government defines it, and that it should therefore be subject to constitutional rights and equalities.

I don't agree with the fundies. I think gays deserve every right that heterosexual couples do.

And when they desire a right that offends the fundies (legal marriage), you desire the total destruction of that right, by eliminating legal marriage entirely. If the fundies can't have it, then NOBODY can! As I said, your plan is to appease them.

[Sobbastchianno]

You're being an idiot and using the Appeal to Popularity. A group's size has no relation to whether they deserve basic equal treatment before the law.

Maybe, but I remember when federal agencies in town used to host
lavish gay and lesbian pride luncheons with taxpayer money. Of course,
that was during Clinton. What's next, we start spending taxpayer money
on ever more infintemisial groups?

The number of homosexuals (male and female combined) in this country outweighs those who are lefthanded. We are not as infinitessimal as you think. Been to a pride parade lately? Houston, TX, a southern city, had 350,000 in attendance at our 25th Annual Pride Parade this past June. At an estimated population of 4 million, that would put us up near 9% of the population right there. Granted there were heterosexual supporters there, but I know more gay people who didn't go to the parade, than who did.

Although, I don't agree that parties should be done on tax payer money, period, I don't care who it is.

Oh, it was also the opinion of our founding fathers, at least in their writings, that the liberties and rights of the minority, should never depend upon the feelings and sensibilities of the majority.

[Alyrium Denryle]

We are being marginalize and demonized by a vocal and well funded minority that has taken control through vote buying and extortion, key positions in our government. And this must not be tolerated.

Wow, a minority being oppressed by a minority...nothing to see here,
move along move along.

Come back to me when more than 1% of the american populace likes Joe instead of Lisa.

6% average you fucking prick...

Being held down by a minority that has their intrests and money in every level of politics....

[Kitsune]

6% average you fucking prick...
Being held down by a minority that has their intrests and money in every level of politics....

I have read ranges from about 3% to about 10%, Even if it is only 1%, that is around 2.5 million people in the US. That is alot of people.

[Xenophobe3691]

I have read ranges from about 3% to about 10%, Even if it is only 1%, that is around 2.5 million people in the US. That is alot of people.

That's more than quite a few states.

[Howedar]

Mike, if thats really how you read my statements, either one or both of us is a piss-poor communicator. Suffice to say what you think I'm saying is not what I think I'm saying.

I'm going to leave it at that.

[Mitth`raw`nuruodo]

this thing won't stop saying it has new posts, I'm hoping posting in it will fix that.

[Alyrium Denryle]

I have no idea what was posted here... and I seemed to have edited it...

[Alyrium Denryle]

*Directed to sheps post below because for some reason the board is puting my replies up here....*

Is that the bes you can do shep? You cant seem to say anything productive, so shut the fuck up.

[Sobbastchianno]

Damien,

You made some absolutely wonderful rebuttals. I would actually like to answer one of her questions (and feel free to e-mail these answers to her if you like).

What benefits is there to anal sex? None that I see for a woman, but for a man, there are a few.

1) Stimulation of the prostrate happens from rubbing up agains it when a man's penis enters the rectal canal of another man. Women, obviously, don't have a prostrate, so I don't know that it is pleasurable for a woman or not.

2) Due to prostrate stimulation, there is actually a DECREASE of prostrate cancer cases among gay men. In fact, gay men are about 7 times less likely to have prostrate cancer than straight men. Tell me THAT isn't a benefit!

3) HIV is also transmitted through vaginal tissue as well as anal tissue (depending upon the strain). This is why WOMEN are the risk group where numbers of cases are increasing, and at a higher rate than even young gay men. HIV is a disease, not a sentence. It knows no gender, no sexual orientation, and is NOT a punishment from anyone. The only reason people think that is because they have this sick concept that if something is sexually transmitted, as opposed to through the air, it is dirty and a punishment. Stop using sex as a judgement.

4) As far as rectal tears go, those are RARE, but vaginal tissue and the cervix are far more likely to be damaged during delivery than rectal/anal tissue are during anal sex.

5) There are two species of animals on the planet known to have sex recreationally, those are humans and dolphins. Neither species responds to a "mating" season. Every season is mating season.

On thing I don't understand from her is the leap that because we are human, "God" expects us to have more control and reason than other animals. How arrogant! It is absurd. Not that I think homosexuality is a lack of control, but where does this control end? Do we start monitoring everyone's sexual behavior to ensure that all sex is in the missionary position and only done when the woman is fertile to ensure procreative results? Otherwise, the sex is purely recreational. This would also ban sterile people from EVER having sex.

I find the entire idea of legislating sexual behavior between consenting, non-biologically related adults assinine. Back to the subject of this string, I also think that if you are going to allow one segment of society to participate in a ritual and system that allows them certain benefits and a certain status for having done so (i.e. marriage), then it is WRONG to deny anohter segment of society that right/benefit/responsibility simply because of the physical sex of the people involved.

[Durandal]

I got an interesting piece of hate mail today. Here it is for everyone to enjoy.

From: Damien Sorresso <dsorres@ilstu.edu>
Date: Sun Jul 13, 2003 2:56:25 PM America/Chicago
To: Elsuzanno@aol.com
Subject: Re: A reply to your homosexuality article

On Sunday, July 13, 2003, at 12:22 PM, Elsuzanno@aol.com wrote:
> Hi Damien. My name is Suzanne and I'm a 19 yr old freshman at Texas
> A&M University. I don't want to engage in a heated debate or anything
> (mainly because I'm a Catholic with a temper, but nevermind...) Well,
> I just wanted to respond to your article on homosexuality. First of
> all, I agree with you when you say that two men having sex in their
> own home is not a violation of anyone else's rights. However, that's
> not the point.

Of course that isn't the point for people like you. The point for you
is that homosexuality violates your arcane system of beliefs, which
requires you to run around evangelizing and forcing it down others'
throats. For a secular country making laws, however, the point is human
rights. What two gay men do privately does not affect you in any way,
shape or form.

> Sexual activity shouldn't just be a matter of privacy, personal
> rights, and laws; one should also consider how certain sexual
> behaviors affect one's own self, specifically a person's health,
> mental well being, and soul (which you undoubtably don't believe in).

That's right. I don't believe in souls because there isn't a shred of
evidence to show that they exist. They're not objectively verifiable,
so I see little reason to consider them when asking whether or not
something is immoral or not. Furthermore, homosexuality is not a
"condition" that needs to be cured, the way the Catechism lists it. It
is a sexual preference, and it's never been shown that homosexuals are
less mentally stable or healthy than heterosexuals. Any sociologist or
psychologist will tell you that most of the negative experiences that
homosexuals have are due to societal bigotry from people like you who
think that homosexuals are dirty, evil sinners who are all going to
Hell.

> Now, as far as "is homosexuality unnatural?", I would have to say yes.
> But before you cast a spell on me (or whatever you athiests do...lol),
> hear me out.

Spells and magic are only slightly less absurd than the Catholic belief
system. Homosexuality is found in nature quite frequently, and those
facts are well-documented in biological journals and research. The
Catholic Church has chosen to bury its head in the sand with regards to
this research because otherwise the Pope couldn't come out and blame
homosexuality for priests molesting little boys.

> First of all, you said 'There are three severe flaws in the "natural
> equals moral" line of thinking.'
>
> '1: That man is not a part of nature, and he must gauge his actions
> against what is nature, like how animals behave'
>
> In the "natural equals moral" argument, I think you are incorrect in
> assuming that "anti-homosexual activity people" like myself believe
> man is not part of nature. I do agree with you in saying that man is a
> part of nature. After all, if your definition of "nature" falls along
> the lines of " the world of living things, etc.", then it's obvious
> you would have to include man in that description. Anyhow, although
> man is a part of nature, his free will enables him to rise above the
> base instincts of animals, such as copulating whenever and wherever. I
> think you know that even though man is an animal, he has certain
> endowments (like reason) that force him to be held to a higher
> standard of living.

And you arbitrarily equate this "higher standard of living" to
following your religious beliefs?

> The next "severe flaw" you found was that '2: That natural behaviors
> actually have moral implications.'
>
> Ok, before you can judge the naturalness of homosexuality, we have to
> set something straight. As an athiest, you might think that the laws
> of nature evolved or were somehow always in place throughout time.
> However, as a Christian, I believe the laws of nature were enacted by
> a God who expects humans to behave in a certain way, so a morality
> factor is automatically introduced.

For you, yes. However, your belief system is a subjective pipe dream
with no objective merit. My beliefs are based entirely on observation,
science and reason. Why should anyone care what Catholicism thinks of
homosexuality?

> After saying all this, I don't think we can even begin to debate
> because we would probably end up debating   the origin of natural laws
> and never get to the naturalness of homosexuality. In other words, I'm
> not going to rebut your "number 2 severe flaw" any further because
> it's a lost cause. Moving on...

That's right. In other words, you cannot objectively show that
homosexuality is "unnatural," while I can show that it does occur in
nature.

> You finally stated that you disagree with those who believe ' 3: That
> anything that doesn't happen in nature is wrong.' Well, I admit you're
> right on this one. Heck, why would you even waste your time mentioning
> this point? Cars, radios, and books are all artificial, but are they
> wrong because they are not "of the earth"? Of course not! It's when
> these objects are misused that a morality factor is again entered into
> the equation.

Well I don't know, why would Catholics waste their time demonizing
homosexuality on the basis that it's not natural, therefore implying
that anything that doesn't happen in nature but is done by men is
morally wrong? Don't hold me accountable for the stupidity of
gay-bashing bigots.

So let's review. You've "countered" my arguments by saying the
following.

1. We shouldn't judge homosexuality based on whether or not it violates
anyone's rights, but on the effects it has on the mental health and
spirituality of homosexuals. You simply make this assertion, probably
assuming that I would be forced to admit that homosexuality is mentally
and spiritually damaging, even though there is no research to show that
homosexuals are less mentally stable than anyone else, and I don't
believe in a soul.

2. Humans have free will and the ability to reason. Therefore, we
should all be held accountable to the Bible's moral standards. You give
no justification for this leap in logic.

3. You offered no rebuttal to my second point because you admitted that
you couldn't demonstrate the validity of your basis of "God created
natural laws and expects humans to mindlessly do what he says."

4. You agreed with my assertion that nature shouldn't be used as a
moral guideline.

So your rebuttal consists entirely of concessions and massive leaps in
logic. Color me unimpressed.

> A few final words:
>
> Now that I've touched on misusing artificial objects, I have to
> expound on the proper function of natural things. But come to think of
> it, in order to even discuss a thing's "proper function", one would
> have to accept that the thing has a certain design, or intended
> purpose. Or am I wrong when I say that one cannot even consider
> function without the idea of a design?

Things which function don't necessarily have to be designed. Humans
function, but you'd have to be brain-dead to say that we were designed
by some conscious entity. There are simply too many obvious flaws.

> Great, now we getting into the whole "proof of God" question. How can
> I explain...Our body parts have certain functions, but who is to say
> how each part should work?

Apparently the Catholic Church and people like you, since you insist on
demonizing homosexuals and condemning them to eternal torment for a
victimless crime. What makes you and your church any more of an
authority on how body parts should be used than me?

> I mean, we can't voluntarily control every bodily function of ours,
> but what about the functions of our private parts as pertaining to
> sexual activity? (yes, I'm a prude so I'm afraid to say "genitalia")
> Anyway, common sense tells us that homosexual activity must not be
> part of God's plan, (or evolution, as you might see it) because it is
> not procreative.

Neither are blow jobs, hand jobs, anal sex between a man and a woman,
tit-fucking, dry humping and fucking a hole in the wall. Are all of
these activities every bit as horrible as two gay men having anal sex?
They all involve using sexual organs in purely recreational ways with
no procreative purpose intended.

> If everyone was a homosexual, the human species would die out.

And if everyone was a woman, the human species would die out, as well.
Does this mean that being a woman is evil? More to the point, if
everyone was a Catholic priest, the human species would die out, as
well.

> How is this "natural?" Just looking at homosexuality from an entirely
> medical perspective speaks volumes of how dangerous it is to one's
> health.

What "volumes"? Paul Cameron's bullshit research? The idea that gay men
are at higher risk for AIDS and have a shorter lifespan is a myth,
invented by people like you to maintain the delusion that your beliefs
have some sort of scientific credibility.

> Exactly what benefits are there to anal sex? Does the fleeting
> pleasure (?) and the zero-chance of pregnancy really outweigh the
> risks of tearing a person's rectal lining and inviting the spread of
> disease (AIDS) through contact with feces? Come on, Damien!

Obviously you've never heard of a lube. If two gay men have anal sex
without a lube, it'll be exactly the same as a man plugging a woman
from behind without a lube. With lube, there is no tearing.
Furthermore, do you honestly think that your anus is constantly filled
with significant amounts of feces? They'd be constantly infected if
that was the case. Ask someone who's actually had anal sex if the penis
was covered in shit after pulling out, or just watch a porno sometime.

> The average homosexual male has a life span of about 45 years. Well,
> this was good fun, maybe we can philosophize another time. God Bless
> (I couldn't resist, sorry!) -Suzanne

Paul Cameron's research (which is the basis for the myth that
homosexuals have shorter lifespans) was widely condemned by his peers
for holding an obvious bias, making absurd conclusions and using sample
methodology which was extremely flawed. It is regarded as meaningless
in the psychological and sociological communities. Learn more here.

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/h ... meron.html