What happened to the animal sacrifices?
You're right, I shouldn't equate them. The history of Christianity during the dark ages was much more violent and oppressive than modern day Islam. Even the Jews said that life under Islam was far better than under Christianity during those times.
The dark ages is one of successive conquest and barbarism by non-Christians (Moors, Germanic tribes, Vikings, Avars, Magyars) with various barbaric pagan and tribal religions, after the Roman empire collapsed.
The slow spread of Christianity was actually what civilized Europe over time.
Muslims became notable from about 750 in their various conquest attempts and incredible barbarism, and that didn't stop and remained the great threat to Europe. Muslims refused to stop piracy and stealing vast numbers of European child rape-slaves all the way up until the 18th century, when they were conquered to subdue them after numerous attempts at peace coming from Christian powers and being rejected on religious grounds by Muslims.
That implies and conjures up feelings and images of people actually physically coming in, something that would make nearly anyone recoil.
Why do you feel the need to create this dishonest hyperbole? Is it because your argument has no merit without it? This is just a fraction of what I mean about the gay lobby lying and smearing. Thank you for demonstrating it.
Why do you feel the need to create this dishonest hyperbole? Is it because your argument has no merit without it? This is just a fraction of what I mean about the gay lobby lying and smearing. Thank you for demonstrating it.
Ok, withdrawn.
I don't see what one senator has to do with anything -
all Democrats including you are rape supporters by your standards. Are you really going to be that silly?
If he supported a candidate who wanted homosexuals in jail i would feel responsibility for that also. And speak up loudly against him and that support. If it did not change i would completely pull my support. Personal responsibility for my voting and all.
Quote the post where I said or implied this?
I don't inject myself into anyone's sex life,
or their association choices, or anything really. I'm a far more "live and let live" person than you are.. What people want to do in their lives is there business - whether it's not serve gay people, have sex with men, women, animals, hold up signs saying "god hates ****", I really don't care. Neither do the vast majority of people you hate. We are less of a moralizing busybody than people like you.
Where the point of disagreement comes down to is this:
1. Should we elevate homosexual behavior, as a society, to the same level as male-female lifetime pair bonding, which has developed out of religious institutions and the raising of children in stable homes?
2. Should children be taught that homosexual behavior is equivalent to heterosexual behavior? Should it be encouraged? What about gender dysmorphia? Should the breakdown of gender boundaries be encouraged, and treated as normal?
3. Should religious people be forced to do things they don't want to do, that are deeply against their faith, in order to stamp out "discrimination"?
They're the only points of contention. That you have manufacture other ones rather than talk about the actual points of contention shows a deep cowardice, and a realization that you don't have a strong position.
1. Should we elevate homosexual behavior, as a society, to the same level as male-female lifetime pair bonding, which has developed out of religious institutions and the raising of children in stable homes?
2. Should children be taught that homosexual behavior is equivalent to heterosexual behavior? Should it be encouraged? What about gender dysmorphia? Should the breakdown of gender boundaries be encouraged, and treated as normal?
3. Should religious people be forced to do things they don't want to do, that are deeply against their faith, in order to stamp out "discrimination"?
They're the only points of contention. That you have manufacture other ones rather than talk about the actual points of contention shows a deep cowardice, and a realization that you don't have a strong position.
(1) can be argued convincingly both ways
(2) is a definite no for many of the questions. The responsible position is "Some people are gay and unchangeable, people's private business is their own, but homosexuality comes with mental and physical health risks".
(3) is an absolute no.
I realize why you don't want to discuss the actual points of contention - you have extremist views on these questions and your only way out is to slander your opposition and attribute views to them they don't hold. It's sad and pathetic. But it's your life.
(2) is a definite no for many of the questions. The responsible position is "Some people are gay and unchangeable, people's private business is their own, but homosexuality comes with mental and physical health risks".
(3) is an absolute no.
I realize why you don't want to discuss the actual points of contention - you have extremist views on these questions and your only way out is to slander your opposition and attribute views to them they don't hold. It's sad and pathetic. But it's your life.
lolz, you are such a goofball. I know you do that on purpose, too.
Europe became enlightened despite Christianity.
Is your bullet-point equivalent in meaning to something like "Should people be forced to do things they don't want to do, that are against their beliefs", or do you think there are notable differences?
Did the men and boys in these past civilizations with high rates of socially accepted male child pedophilia suffer terrible effects to their minds and health? I don't recall that in Greek and Roman history.
Using your logic, are you now a NAMBLA supporter?
To answer your question in the hypothetical (there was no CDC in ancient Greece that I know of), frequent buttsex is extremely unhealthy on many levels, from the transmission of disease to digestive tract problems. Whether it happened 2000 years ago or now is irrelevant. It's a function of anal trauma and how it creates and transmits disease.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4936006/
MSM are disproportionately affected by a broad range of harmful health behaviours and poor health outcomes.
MSM were also more likely than MSEW to report poor health behaviours and outcomes both within and across the three health domains considered. Of all MSM, 8.4 % had experienced poor health outcomes in all three domains – physical, mental, and sexual health - in contrast to 1.5 % of all MSEW.
There were Christians in Europe. They were attacked by successive waves of pagans and barbarians from all sides - the East, the North, the south - after the collapse of the Roman Empire, which is what caused the dark ages.
This is something we'll have to do a thread on. I had entirely your view of the situation until a few years ago when I became far more knowledgeable of the history of Europe's micro regions by living in them, and read more of the classical literature. I was surprised by how profoundly wrong my view was.
Europe became enlightened despite Christianity.
Guy asks about homosexuality gets asked if he supports NAMBLA. Yup...
What is it with the pro gay lobby and sleazy dishonesty? You're not making your side look good.
Guy made a point about his lack of awareness of knowledge of writings about homosexuality being deleterious for homosexuals in ancient Greece, I provided a reductio ad absurdum using his logic. QED. The point has zero to do with NAMBLA. In fact, it is assumed that he (and I) are hugely against NAMBLA, or the logic or the reductio ad absurdum doesn't even make sense.
All you're doing with this drive-by smearing is gaining sympathy for me and hurting your own cause.
Guy made a point about his lack of awareness of knowledge of writings about homosexuality being deleterious for homosexuals in ancient Greece, I provided a reductio ad absurdum using his logic. QED. The point has zero to do with NAMBLA. In fact, it is assumed that he (and I) are hugely against NAMBLA, or the logic or the reductio ad absurdum doesn't even make sense.
All you're doing with this drive-by smearing is gaining sympathy for me and hurting your own cause.
lol itt you made up positions for me lied about my view and attacked those lies you expected me to defend. What a sad little human you are.
Lucky you just attack AA and homosexuals otherwise your account might get banned for bigotry like your last one.
Lucky you just attack AA and homosexuals otherwise your account might get banned for bigotry like your last one.
I've never been banned for bigotry. I got banned because I questioned a politics mod a long time ago and he got into a petty rage and insta permaed (he's insta permaed tons of reasonable people who disagree with him including good posters without a hint of bigotry, he has personality problems). He was fine for weeks with my commentary until I questioned his political views; there was no trigger except that. I no longer post in politics.
I don't "attack" any group based on race or sexual orientation. Never have, never will. I don't even think like that. Ideology, however can and should be robustly discussed, as can the effects of behavior, religion, lifestyle choices and cultural attitudes.
Religion is fair game and I attack religious ideas and practices. Culture is fair game too as long as it's not a thin cover for a racial attack.
You may want a world where people can only discuss flowers and ponies and heaps superlatives and praise on unhappy lifestyle choices and mental illnesses, but fortunately we're not there yet.
I apologized when I realized I'd misread you regarding the Mike Pence thing. I'll apologize again. Not that your actual position isn't ridiculous, it is.
I don't "attack" any group based on race or sexual orientation. Never have, never will. I don't even think like that. Ideology, however can and should be robustly discussed, as can the effects of behavior, religion, lifestyle choices and cultural attitudes.
Religion is fair game and I attack religious ideas and practices. Culture is fair game too as long as it's not a thin cover for a racial attack.
You may want a world where people can only discuss flowers and ponies and heaps superlatives and praise on unhappy lifestyle choices and mental illnesses, but fortunately we're not there yet.
I apologized when I realized I'd misread you regarding the Mike Pence thing. I'll apologize again. Not that your actual position isn't ridiculous, it is.
I no longer post in politics, like its a choice.
What position is ridiculous? Holding who i vote for accountable with criticism if they support people who want homosexuals in jail? Thats just decency and personal responsibility. I understand those things are ridiculous to you.
What position is ridiculous? Holding who i vote for accountable with criticism if they support people who want homosexuals in jail?
California Proposes Jail Time for Using the Wrong Pronoun for Transgenders
SB 219, titled the "Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Long-Term Care Facility Resident's Bill of Rights," states, "It shall be unlawful for a long-term care facility or facility staff to.... willfully and repeatedly fail to use a resident's preferred name or pronouns after being clearly informed of the preferred name or pronouns." It imposes fines and jail time on any long-term care employee who refuses to use transgender pronouns. Fines for repeat offenders could be as high as $1,000 and a jail term of up to a year.
Also, I looked up Roy Moore. You're exaggerating. He didn't say he wants gays in jail, he said sodomy should remain illegal.
"I think homosexuality should be illegal," Moore said. "Sodomy was declared illegal by the United States Supreme Court in 1987, it said there was no right under the constitution to enlarge the fundamental rights of homosexuals."
Life is competing priorities. There are plenty of old brains full of racism and prejudices. People are good despite that. It is only the zealots who condemn absolutely based on one axis. His views aren't harmful to anyone; if you look at the mental, physical and sexual disease burden that MSM (men who have sex with men) suffer, it is probably a net positive overall to discourage homosexuality. At the very least you can argue that it's a genuinely held position with decent evidence behind it.
It's even more absurd when you consider that Trump is merely endorsing the local senator; to smear him as a homophobe for supporting a man who supports the mainstream Democrat views of 20 years ago is a little silly and uncharitable.
Thats just decency and personal responsibility. I understand those things are ridiculous to you.
The world is full of nasty positions. Take this position:
California Proposes Jail Time for Using the Wrong Pronoun for Transgenders
If the choice in your district is Democrat and Republican, and the Democrat supports a law like this that is basically 1984 crimethink, are you horrible for supporting them over the Republican?
Also, I looked up Roy Moore. You're exaggerating. He didn't say he wants gays in jail, he said sodomy should remain illegal.
This was a mainstream position until recently, so I don't think it's awful that some people cling to these ideals. It's illegal to expose yourself in public too, but no one goes around arresting people who do it in private homes.
Life is competing priorities. There are plenty of old brains full of racism and prejudices. People are good despite that. It is only the zealots who condemn absolutely based on one axis. His views aren't harmful to anyone; if you look at the mental, physical and sexual disease burden that MSM (men who have sex with men) suffer, it is probably a net positive overall to discourage homosexuality. At the very least you can argue that it's a genuinely held position with decent evidence behind it.
It's even more absurd when you consider that Trump is merely endorsing the local senator; to smear him as a homophobe for supporting a man who supports the mainstream Democrat views of 20 years ago is a little silly and uncharitable.
I think decency and personal responsibility involves cultivating a broader view than you're espousing.
California Proposes Jail Time for Using the Wrong Pronoun for Transgenders
If the choice in your district is Democrat and Republican, and the Democrat supports a law like this that is basically 1984 crimethink, are you horrible for supporting them over the Republican?
Also, I looked up Roy Moore. You're exaggerating. He didn't say he wants gays in jail, he said sodomy should remain illegal.
This was a mainstream position until recently, so I don't think it's awful that some people cling to these ideals. It's illegal to expose yourself in public too, but no one goes around arresting people who do it in private homes.
Life is competing priorities. There are plenty of old brains full of racism and prejudices. People are good despite that. It is only the zealots who condemn absolutely based on one axis. His views aren't harmful to anyone; if you look at the mental, physical and sexual disease burden that MSM (men who have sex with men) suffer, it is probably a net positive overall to discourage homosexuality. At the very least you can argue that it's a genuinely held position with decent evidence behind it.
It's even more absurd when you consider that Trump is merely endorsing the local senator; to smear him as a homophobe for supporting a man who supports the mainstream Democrat views of 20 years ago is a little silly and uncharitable.
I think decency and personal responsibility involves cultivating a broader view than you're espousing.
Btw Roy also thinks muslims should not be allowed in the military or serve in their government. Not ugly views at all trump is trying to help put into power.
You said this:
This strongly sarcastically implies that Trump is an extremist, which beyond a homophobe. You can deny that if you want but your words and attitude are plain.
People are allowed to think and express what they want; it is part of a rich discourse and tapestry of views. You want to ostracize and demonize anyone even slightly associated with this. If we use your criteria on say the Muslim community, given that > 50% of worldwide Muslims are sometimes ok with honor killing women, or that > 60% support governments that have laws where homosexuals are killed or physically flogged and jailed for > 3 years, you get some very very ugly results. Your views and your threshold for smearing by association are far worse and more bigoted than Roy's or most rednecks, if you actually think about them and follow them to their logical conclusion.
Btw Roy also thinks muslims should not be allowed in the military or serve in their government. Not ugly views at all trump is trying to help put into power.
People are allowed to think and express what they want; it is part of a rich discourse and tapestry of views. You want to ostracize and demonize anyone even slightly associated with this. If we use your criteria on say the Muslim community, given that > 50% of worldwide Muslims are sometimes ok with honor killing women, or that > 60% support governments that have laws where homosexuals are killed or physically flogged and jailed for > 3 years, you get some very very ugly results. Your views and your threshold for smearing by association are far worse and more bigoted than Roy's or most rednecks, if you actually think about them and follow them to their logical conclusion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedera...ancient_Greece
Did the men and boys in these past civilizations with high rates of socially accepted male child pedophilia suffer terrible effects to their minds and health? I don't recall that in Greek and Roman history.
Using your logic, are you now a NAMBLA supporter?
Did the men and boys in these past civilizations with high rates of socially accepted male child pedophilia suffer terrible effects to their minds and health? I don't recall that in Greek and Roman history.
Using your logic, are you now a NAMBLA supporter?
To answer your question in the hypothetical (there was no CDC in ancient Greece that I know of), frequent buttsex is extremely unhealthy on many levels, from the transmission of disease to digestive tract problems. Whether it happened 2000 years ago or now is irrelevant. It's a function of anal trauma and how it creates and transmits disease.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4936006/
This is settled fact. Purely from a public health perspective across all domains - mental, physical and sexual - it is very undesirable to promote homosexuality as normal as healthy. That's without getting into child rearing issues and the general breakdown of healthy social norms.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4936006/
This is settled fact. Purely from a public health perspective across all domains - mental, physical and sexual - it is very undesirable to promote homosexuality as normal as healthy. That's without getting into child rearing issues and the general breakdown of healthy social norms.
Homosexual behavior and anal sex are not synonyms. If you mean "frequent anal sex is dangerous" you should say that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anal_sex#Prevalence_2 (warning graphic images)
A 2012 NSSHB sex survey in the U.S. suggests high lifetime participation in anal sex among gay men: 83.3% report ever taking part in anal sex in the insertive position and 90% in the receptive position, even if only between a third and a quarter self-report very recent engagement in the practice, defined as 30 days or less.
Care to remind us, who was ToothSayer previously?
Truthsayer.
How did my NAMBLA point fly right out over your head? Read it again, slowly.
You made a ridiculous assertion, I countered it with an equally ridiculous assertion in a reductio ad absurdum.
I was making a point about the likely available evidence.
Well, there are lots of plausible mechanisms. For one, gay men have about 8x the lifetime sexual partners. So far less long term intimate bonding and less of the development of deep and meaningful relationships. For two, there are multiple mechanisms in male minds which make them enjoy females and dislike the intimate company of males (male brains are geared to find various things about women attractive, to feel sated on the achievement of pussy penetration, etc). It is probable that homosexual minds have some of these mechanisms left as well, just overcome by habit or culture or early experience or a couple of mechanisms missing. This leads to deep feelings that you're doing something not quite right.
Of course there are confounding variables, but the sexual, mental and physical health of gay men hasn't improved much, despite society doing a 180 on general views toward homosexuality in that last 20 years. That's powerful data the stigmatization narrative is mostly bull**** and the causes mostly lie elsewhere.
One of the big confounding variables is not stigmatization but sexual and general child abuse.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3535560/
The data appears to show this to be bidirectional. It certainly strengthens the case that homosexuality is an unhealthy abnormality, as well as the public policy case to avoid this behavior; abuse and neglect of all kinds causes young adults to seek out unhealthy and unnatural relationships that wouldn't be seeking out if not abused. That's tragic when you consider the consequences, which include lack of participation in normal male-female pair bonding and child rearing, and a feeling of being not quite right, independent of social stigmatization, and the disease burden on top of that.
Well that only strengthens my case for the harm of homosexuality. If anal sex is less frequent and gay men still have this massive disease burden across all categories, you're merely making the point.
One of the causes of disease in non-anal-sex MSM is that MSM (men who have sex with men) are rampant disease carriers. I assume it's a combination of 8x the level of promiscuity in the gay community, and anal sex as a highly effective disease transmission vector.
The disease burden in non-anal sex gay men is near certainly a result of interaction with this pool of diseased individuals. You can see this in other subgroups. For example, most of the HIV infections that black women suffer actually come from MSM, despite being a smallish minority of the population. I see no reason the same thing wouldn't be happening in the gay community, perhaps even more strongly. You can see the public health grounds for discouraging this behavior; AIDS for example would not exist without homosexual behavior. Normal intercourse is insufficient to transmit it with sufficient frequency for it to spread. For example, from the CDC:
This graph puts it all into perspective. HIV rates by the most affected group:
Look at the prevalence compared to percentage of the population...heterosexuals outnumber gay 20:1 and yet less than 1/10th of the total infections each year. That's a ratio of > 200:1. And most of those heterosexual infections are from MSM - for example the black female community mostly get infected via black MSM. The disease burden and its ripples are truly incredible and very destructive.
So I hope that answers your questions.
I didn't mean to get on a side track with this, but people ITT are making out like religious people are horrible bigots who should be shut up and ostracized and are harming gay people. The opposite is true; promoting homosexuality is in fact deeply harmful, and discouraging it is good for people who would otherwise not end up in homosexual behavior, which is a large population given the ratio of bisexuality:exclusive homosexuality. Religious people are saints for doing it despite the ostracization and bigotry they receive. We should all be a little more tolerant.
If "[c]hoosing homosexuality is as bad as choosing hard drug use for the effects it has on your mind and health" we should expect the residents of past societies featuring "widespread homosexual... behavior" to show negative effects. The age of consent for both males and females being approximately 13 in ancient Greece (according to your wiki link) isn't evidence of homosexuality inherently causing mental and physical health problems.
You made a ridiculous assertion, I countered it with an equally ridiculous assertion in a reductio ad absurdum.
I was making a point about the likely available evidence.
You're aware some of the difference especially in "mental" is due to negative cultural stigma. I don't see how, separate from that stigma, e.g. two adult men are attracted to one another and engage in oral sex => mental health problems ensue.
Of course there are confounding variables, but the sexual, mental and physical health of gay men hasn't improved much, despite society doing a 180 on general views toward homosexuality in that last 20 years. That's powerful data the stigmatization narrative is mostly bull**** and the causes mostly lie elsewhere.
One of the big confounding variables is not stigmatization but sexual and general child abuse.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3535560/
Epidemiological studies find a positive association between childhood maltreatment and same-sex sexuality in adulthood, with lesbians and gay men reporting 1.6 to 4 times greater prevalence of sexual and physical abuse than heterosexuals
Homosexual behavior and anal sex are not synonyms. If you mean "frequent anal sex is dangerous" you should say that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anal_sex#Prevalence_2 (warning graphic images)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anal_sex#Prevalence_2 (warning graphic images)
One of the causes of disease in non-anal-sex MSM is that MSM (men who have sex with men) are rampant disease carriers. I assume it's a combination of 8x the level of promiscuity in the gay community, and anal sex as a highly effective disease transmission vector.
The disease burden in non-anal sex gay men is near certainly a result of interaction with this pool of diseased individuals. You can see this in other subgroups. For example, most of the HIV infections that black women suffer actually come from MSM, despite being a smallish minority of the population. I see no reason the same thing wouldn't be happening in the gay community, perhaps even more strongly. You can see the public health grounds for discouraging this behavior; AIDS for example would not exist without homosexual behavior. Normal intercourse is insufficient to transmit it with sufficient frequency for it to spread. For example, from the CDC:
HIV Infections
There were an estimated 37,600 new HIV infections in 2014.
26,200 (70%) were among gay and bisexual men.c
8,600 (23%) were among heterosexuals.
2,800 (7%) were among people who inject drugs (PWID) (includes 1,100 infections among gay and bisexual men who inject drugs).d
There were an estimated 37,600 new HIV infections in 2014.
26,200 (70%) were among gay and bisexual men.c
8,600 (23%) were among heterosexuals.
2,800 (7%) were among people who inject drugs (PWID) (includes 1,100 infections among gay and bisexual men who inject drugs).d
Look at the prevalence compared to percentage of the population...heterosexuals outnumber gay 20:1 and yet less than 1/10th of the total infections each year. That's a ratio of > 200:1. And most of those heterosexual infections are from MSM - for example the black female community mostly get infected via black MSM. The disease burden and its ripples are truly incredible and very destructive.
So I hope that answers your questions.
I didn't mean to get on a side track with this, but people ITT are making out like religious people are horrible bigots who should be shut up and ostracized and are harming gay people. The opposite is true; promoting homosexuality is in fact deeply harmful, and discouraging it is good for people who would otherwise not end up in homosexual behavior, which is a large population given the ratio of bisexuality:exclusive homosexuality. Religious people are saints for doing it despite the ostracization and bigotry they receive. We should all be a little more tolerant.
Is it your position that any minority group that might suffer from mental and physical health problems beyond the 'norm', that the group should be "discouraged as a matter of social policy"? Why not "helped as a matter of social policy"?
Lesbians are by far the lowest health risk group, so should they be encouraged as a matter of social policy? But, or perhaps I should say 'butt' - isn't this all really about gay men rather than homosexuality in general? It always seems to come down to butt sex, and lo and behold there you go bringing it up not once, but at least a couple of times. You must know that same-sex couples also indulge, and it is not mandatory for gay men. So, is it mainly about gay men, as it appears?
(iii) Since Native Americans (or pick another matching group) are also afflicted with serious mental and physical health problems, should they be discouraged as a matter of social policy?
(ii-a) If there were no significant health concerns, would you then consider homosexuality to be morally acceptable?
(ii-b) If not, how do you support your moral position? Just a summary.
Lesbians are by far the lowest health risk group, so should they be encouraged as a matter of social policy? But, or perhaps I should say 'butt' - isn't this all really about gay men rather than homosexuality in general? It always seems to come down to butt sex, and lo and behold there you go bringing it up not once, but at least a couple of times. You must know that same-sex couples also indulge, and it is not mandatory for gay men. So, is it mainly about gay men, as it appears?
(iii) Since Native Americans (or pick another matching group) are also afflicted with serious mental and physical health problems, should they be discouraged as a matter of social policy?
(ii-a) If there were no significant health concerns, would you then consider homosexuality to be morally acceptable?
(ii-b) If not, how do you support your moral position? Just a summary.
I didn't mean to get on a side track with this, but people ITT are making out like religious people are horrible bigots who should be shut up and ostracized and are harming gay people. The opposite is true; promoting homosexuality is in fact deeply harmful, and discouraging it is good for people who would otherwise not end up in homosexual behavior, which is a large population given the ratio of bisexuality:exclusive homosexuality. Religious people are saints for doing it despite the ostracization and bigotry they receive. We should all be a little more tolerant.
I think you are a bigot. But you are an atheist right? So a scummy. Well it was certainly not my intention to make views up for you. Yeah....
I didn't mean to get on a side track with this, but people ITT are making out like religious people are horrible bigots who should be shut up and ostracized and are harming gay people. The opposite is true; promoting homosexuality is in fact deeply harmful, and discouraging it is good for people who would otherwise not end up in homosexual behavior, which is a large population given the ratio of bisexuality:exclusive homosexuality. Religious people are saints for doing it despite the ostracization and bigotry they receive. We should all be a little more tolerant.
I think you are a bigot. But you are an atheist right?
Not your intention to make up views for me to defend. Yeah... So a scummy.
Why not "helped as a matter of social policy"?
Lesbians are by far the lowest health risk group, so should they be encouraged as a matter of social policy?
But, or perhaps I should say 'butt' - isn't this all really about gay men rather than homosexuality in general?
It always seems to come down to butt sex, and lo and behold there you go bringing it up not once, but at least a couple of times. You must know that same-sex couples also indulge, and it is not mandatory for gay men. So, is it mainly about gay men, as it appears?
(iii) Since Native Americans (or pick another matching group) are also afflicted with serious mental and physical health problems, should they be discouraged as a matter of social policy?
(ii-a) If there were no significant health concerns, would you then consider homosexuality to be morally acceptable?
Devout religious people believe that homosexuality is spiritual suicide, hence their attempt to help. They may or may not be wrong, but to smear and ostracize them for it is kind of weird, imo. Particularly when their spiritual views line up with other categories of suffering and harm.
Feedback is used for internal purposes. LEARN MORE