Gays, lesbians, bisexuals

[inked]

Well, let's make it all for one and one for EU:

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/jun/05061304.html

Sovereignty? We don't need no stinking sovereignty! We got EU, Babe!
(or NOT!)

[Earniel]

In other news, adoption by homosexual couples is about to become legal in Belgium. Interestingly, this isn't done in interest for the rights of homosexuals but it is mainly geared at providing the adopted children with a better legal framework.

There is a substantial number of children adopted by homosexual pairs (married or otherwise) in Belgium. For the moment the child is legally adopted by only one parent. With the new regulation the child will be adopted by both parents which should make issues of inheritance and such a lot easier and clearer.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by HOBBIT

ok rian, so answer in this topic.

I"m back after a weekend of celebrations and get-togethers - Meriadoc (our oldest son, who posted here briefly) has graduated from middle school! Yay! Sorry I couldn't get to you sooner, but Meriadoc took precedence

So here's my answer - as usual, it will be long , because I think the topic is complex and deserves it.

To start off, I'll define what I think "tolerance" should be, since I think it is utterly illogical, as well as unfair and oppressive, the way that I often see liberals use it.

The following, IMHO, represents tolerant attitudes, as far as it is applied to homosexual marriage in the US (for a specific example relevant to your question) - Person 1 represents a Christian who thinks the current marriage defs should stay the same, Person 2 represents an atheist who thinks that the current marriage defs should be expanded to include same-sex couples. Of course, not all Christians and atheists agree on this issue! but my point is that I think these 2 statements express a TOLERANT attitude from their respective POVs.

Person 1:
"Y'know, friend, you and I disagree on this issue of whether or not the current, long-standing definition of marriage should be altered. Currently, we have criteria describing who can enter into marriage. These include the following - the applicants must be of a certain age; the applicants must be currently not married; the applicants must be no more closely related than first or second cousins, depending upon which state they live in; there may be no more than 2 applicants; and the applicants must be of opposite sex. I think these are good criteria and should remain; you, however, think that the last criteria should change. That's certainly your right to think that way, and it's my right to think my way, and I hope we both put a lot of thought into our opinions and are motivated by care and love of those involved. I know that I've certainly put lots of careful thought into my opinion, and my motivation is love and care for others.

IMO, the question hinges upon the question of authority. This question of authority hinges on each person's worldview. Personally, from tons of thought and analysis, I believe that Christianity is the most likely representation of the actual, true state of the universe. This means, among other things, that God created us, and designed our bodies, and designed the concept of marriage, and He loves us and wants what He knows is best for us. In the area of homosexuality, this means that all homosexual acts are necessarily harmful and wrong, and homosexual marriage is harmful and wrong. As I carefully consider this view, I can see how it is true, especially in the sense of denying the children involved in a homosexual union the tremendous advantage of a parent of each sex. In addition, I can see how it's harmful to those involved in the union, as IMO it devalues the uniqueness of men and women (which I have a high regard for) and the picture that it represents of Christ and the Church. Also, from a sheer physical POV, it's just so obvious that men and women are wonderfully designed to come together sexually. These are just a few of the considerations involved, I'll elaborate more if you'd like.

But the important thing is that even thought I disagree with you, I respect your right to have your worldview, and your right to express and vote on your opinion what is right. Neither one of our worldviews is "proveable" in a scientific sense, so I think that each of us should be tolerant towards the other, realizing that you might be right and I might be wrong, and encourage each other to think and act on what each of us thinks is right. Let's stay friends even though we disagree on this issue.

Person 2:
"Y'know, friend, you and I disagree on this issue of whether or not the current, long-standing definition of marriage should be altered. Currently, we have criteria describing who can enter into marriage. These include the following - the applicants must be of a certain age; the applicants must be currently not married; the applicants must be no more closely related than first or second cousins, depending upon which state they live in; there may be no more than 2 applicants; and the applicants must be of opposite sex. You think these are good criteria and should remain; I, however, think that the last criteria should change. That's certainly your right to think that way, and it's my right to think my way, and I hope we both put a lot of thought into our opinions and are motivated by care and love of those involved. I know that I've certainly put lots of careful thought into my opinion, and my motivation is love and care for others.

IMO, there is no God or gods, so basically each person is their own highest authority and each person should decide what is right, based on their own methods of evaluation. I strongly feel that it's discrimination to not allow homosexual couples to marry, and I intend to fight as hard as I can to change the marriage laws.

But the important thing is that even thought I disagree with you, I respect your right to have your worldview, and your right to express and vote on your opinion what is right. Neither one of our worldviews is "proveable" in a scientific sense, so I think that each of us should be tolerant towards the other, realizing that you might be right and I might be wrong, and encourage each other to think and act on what each of us thinks is right. Let's stay friends even though we disagree on this issue.

[Rían]

Hey, Hobbit, I started my answer to you - did you see it?

[Nurvingiel]

How do liberals use tolerance then? (This is coming from a slightly puzzled liberal. )

I think you're thinking of more extreme liberals. Yes, there are extreme liberals. You can be extreme about any belief. I think some people use the word tolerance to defend views which are inclusive but only tolerant of those who agree with them. I'd like to mention that this is a rare breed of liberal. Representing liberals by a few random asshats doesn't capture the gist of liberalism - I think moderate views better represent the whole, for liberals and conservatives alike. I think you are a good ambassador for conservatives Rian (even though I disagree with you ).

As for gay marriage, there are interesting developments in Canada right now. I don't know a lot about it, because I just got back, but it looks like if we pass the current gay marriage bill being discussed, we'll join Belgium and the Netherlands as the only countries to have fully legalized gay marriage, including adoption rights. Needless to say, I'm pretty happy about this. I hope it goes through.

One thing puzzled me in the debate though. The Conservative party doesn't support gay marriage, and represent a lot of Canadians who feel this way. I heard the leader, Stephen Harper, say that (paraphrase) he and the party would stand up for peoples' religious beliefs.

I think he's being a bit sneaky here - people may not believe in gay marriage for religious reasons, but no one's religion is being threatened or challenged. The way he said it (and I wish I could remember the exact quote) he implied that this bill passing would harm people's religious freedom. There's no way the bill would have this much support if that was the case - I wouldn't even support it. It would violate the Charter if Rights and Freedoms.

So I was puzzled by his comments. I hope the people that voted for the Conservatives, and those whose views on gay marriage are represented by the Conservative party don't let Harper lead them astray. People who disagree with gay marriage need representation, but Stephen Harper is being dishonest here. Why didn't he say, "I will stand up for your beliefs that marriage should be between and man and a woman." This would also include the people who don't agree with gay marriage, but not for religious reasons.

Canadians and/or someone who gets Harper's comment respond!

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

How do liberals use tolerance then? (This is coming from a slightly puzzled liberal. )

Thanks for calling me on that one, Nurvs - I generalized *smacks self with smelly trout*. I went back and edited it to make it more accurate.

The way I usually hear it being used is this: those who support less restrictions on behavior (in general) will call those who support more restrictions on behavior (in general) "intolerant". Of course, those in the first group also support restrictions on behavior, and sometimes they support more restrictions on behavior than those they call "intolerant", so it just boils down to each persons' personal and unproveable worldview as to the restrictions they, personally, think are right or wrong. The way the word is usually used, the only ones that would REALLY be "tolerant" would be those that want ALL restrictions on behavior removed. And I think most of the people that call themselves "tolerant" would NOT want all restrictions on behavior removed.

Personally, I think a more accurate definition of "tolerant" would be "I disagree with your opinion on this matter, but I support your right to speak about it and try to get others on your side and even pass legislation, and I will respect your right to do this even if I disagree with you."

I think you are a good ambassador for conservatives Rian (even though I disagree with you ).

Thank you, and ditto for you

[inked]

Health issues! ..... Again!

http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS01B1


Data, too!

[Nurvingiel]

Personally I'm suspicious of a study on the health effects of homosexuality done by a group called "Family Research Council: Defending Family, Faith and Freedom", but I'll grant it's not impossible for them to conduct the study in an unbiased fashion.

Speaking of families, what is a family exactly? Two people in a loving relationship? Or must there be children involved?

If sexuality is somehow important in the definition of family, if a straight couple have a gay child, is he or she not part of their family anymore?

You don't have to answer that heavily-loaded question. But now that we realize that gay people can, in fact, be part of a family, then by extension a gay couple is a family, and a gay couple with (an) adpted child/children is also a family.

So why is it that the idea of defending the family is so often anti-gay? Perhaps it's the defence of the traditional nuclear family. But the nuclear family is not often the family structure in today's society - therefore, why is this the only familial structure worth defending?

I am very pro family. I and very pro gay. These two attitudes are highly compatible.

I'm glad you bumped up this thread Inked. I realize the whole family thing was not what you were posting about, but the title of the group who published the study got me thinking about the issue.

[Insidious Rex]

Ah I see we are up to our old tactics of trolling the internet for carefully worded "health issue" warnings you can use to prove all homosexuals are disease infested sex crazed ignoramuses. And where do we turn? Why the Family Research Council of course...

I note they say nothing about the similar trends among HETEROSEXUALS in regards to ignorance about AIDS and/or the medical status of partners. Conveniently ignored of course...

I note that yet again you provide us with carefully cookie cut one sided data that basically says (by means of bashing homosexuals) that unsafe sex is unsafe. And that guys are sluts and screw all the time. The lesbians will once again be happy with this data since you are affirming that their sexual relationships are by definition safer then heterosexual ones. Shall we let the women only marry now? Although I do note with humor how they feebly try to bring down the lesbians too at the end by saying well some lesbians have had sex with men therefore they are at a greater risk for sexual diseases because of that. So the logic being... if they DONT have sex with MEN... then they are at LESS risk... Once again a great argument FOR lesbianism!

I note that your data contends that anal sex is bad and therefore homosexuality is bad. Now do you really need me to explain the logic flaw in that reasoning? What a miserable example of a simple shell game… Quality data indeed... Charlatans and spin doctors more like.

It EVEN goes so far as to contend that monogamous gay couples who dont have sex with others (thus the whole "monogamous" thing...) can still get AIDS because they are having anal sex all the time! Who do they write this stuff for exactly? Im guessing the choir because if you even think about it for more then three seconds you have to ask yourself what kind of nonsense is that?

Of course the funny thing is in making this statement they quickly admit that homosexuals without partners have a lot less sex. Hmm... doesnt that go against all those fun promiscuity statistics they just brought up earlier? Well I guess when things are convenient to promote ones "agenda" theyll say one thing. When they arent theyll just go ahead and say the opposite. Lends a lot of over all credibility to this "data" doesnt it...

Then they are nice enough to inform us that homosexuals who have certain diseases are almost all sick. Well... um... is that really something that needs to be even mentioned let alone used as propaganda against gays? Of course they are! And so are the HETEROSEXUALS with sexual diseases. But then we need not mention that since it doesnt support the contention of the article...

Why must groups like this continually manipulate studies and data to fit their specific agenda? And why do people swallow it hook line and sinker so easily when all you have to do is think about it and realize how absurd some of it is. Its one sided and selective and paints an incorrect picture. Its simply propaganda. Manipulation, exaggeration, and out of context information and who knows perhaps outright lies…

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Shall we let the women only marry now?

LOL

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Why must groups like this continually manipulate studies and data to fit their specific agenda?

Fascism. They want everyone to all be the same and do as they are told. Oh, and 80% of them are secretly gay, according to empirical studies:

Prof. Adams says his research shows that most homophobes "demonstrate significant sexual arousal to homosexual erotic stimuli", suggesting that homophobia is a form of "latent homosexuality where persons are either unaware of or deny their homosexual urges".

Adams HE, Wright LW, Lohr BA. Is homophobia associated with homosexual arousal? Journal of Abnormal Psychology 1996;105(3):440-445.

[inked]

I notice the reactions are the same. "It's all manipulation of the data." The best new reaction is Gaffer's tar and feather approach. Thanks, Gaffer! At least it was new.

On the other hand the data seem remarkably consistent! Getting HIV from anal inercourse is still bad for your health. Getting HIV from vaginal intercourse is still bad for your health. All around the world!

By the by, you should avoid malaria and hepatitis, too. Where's the data "manipulation" outcry for that?

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by inked

I notice the reactions are the same. "It's all manipulation of the data." The best new reaction is Gaffer's tar and feather approach. Thanks, Gaffer! At least it was new.

On the other hand the data seem remarkably consistent! Getting HIV from anal inercourse is still bad for your health. Getting HIV from vaginal intercourse is still bad for your health. All around the world!

By the by, you should avoid malaria and hepatitis, too. Where's the data "manipulation" outcry for that?

nothing wrong with the data inked... as i've said in the past, it's how you interpret it that matters

not to mention a complete disregard for the real world... some people are homosexual... they've always existed and they always will... and fighting it solves none of the issues you bring up

sickle cell anemia is almost exclusive to those of african american descent... should they not be allowed to breed and pass on the disease in your opinion?

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by inked

On the other hand the data seem remarkably consistent! Getting HIV from anal inercourse is still bad for your health. Getting HIV from vaginal intercourse is still bad for your health. All around the world!

By the by, you should avoid malaria and hepatitis, too. Where's the data "manipulation" outcry for that?

Then why not post just that rather then the garbage you posted above? Unsafe sex is unsafe. AIDS is bad for you. Why the trashing of homosexuals in the process?

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Ah I see we are up to our old tactics of trolling the internet for carefully worded "health issue" warnings you can use to prove all homosexuals are disease infested sex crazed ignoramuses. …

That type of statement will get this discussion nowhere fast. Let's stick to facts, please, esp. in topics like this, which can get v. emotional.

I"ll read the report in the next day or so and comment on the studies. Personally, I would read studies from ANY source - of course, different sources will see if there is data to support their contentions. The important thing, I think, is to be open to data, and evaluate its validity, no matter where it comes from.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

That type of statement will get this discussion nowhere fast. Let's stick to facts, please, esp. in topics like this, which can get v. emotional.

i like inked... but i think IDs description of his "tactics" is dead-on and quite "factual"

i don't think inked will take it personally

[inked]

brownjenkins,

You are of course allowed to think whatever you like about IR's allegations about my tactics......no matter how false his allegations or your perceptions.

Fact is, as regards malaria, that the sickle cell trait may be protective against malaria which would explain its persistence despite the obvious evolutionary drawbacks to full blown sickle cell disease. Naturally, in the course of the disease, the full blown cases expire without modern medical interventions. So, I guess nature is taking care of the answer to your question in that regard.

Same thing for HIV, I am afraid. Regardless of sexual orientation, the practice of anal intercourse leads to the potential for spread. Since the male homosexual community is the number one practitioner group of this form of sexual contact as a primary mode of sexual activity, well, you do the math! (Hint: 2 + 2 = ?)

Want to better the chances of HIV transmission? Add drugs. Utilize prostitutes of either gender. Engage in vast amounts of unprotected sex with multiple partners. Or, NOT. The choice remains individual but the consequences aren't.

I don't happen to think that all homosexuals are sex-crazed ignoramuses as IR alleges I think. I know from data over the past 50 years that homosexual behaviours among males have not changed and they do involve multiple partners and risky behaviors and not infrequently drugs. The darling of the sexual revolution, Kinsey himself, documented the behaviors. Subsequent studies have confirmed the behaviors. That's why education programs aimed at HIV prevention focus on sexual behaviors of homosexual (and heterosexuals). Also why blood donations from MSM is excluded. Facts of transmission. (By the by you get excluded if you have spent 5 years in England, too. I suspect that has to do with mad cows and Englishmen, but I could just be pararphrasing!)

The attempt to characterize the data as the imaginary figments of homophobic persons won't hold water any better than a ruptured condom.

I did enjoy Gaffer's response though. At least it had the temerity to allege that anyone stating data was a homophobe by that fact (or that seemed his intent) alone. I re-iterate that I am not a homophobe, merely a physician getting out the salient multinational data sources and an analysis not designed for any purpose other than the facts. Take 'em or leave 'em at your risk.

Oh, and have a nice day!

[Rían]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

i like inked... but i think IDs description of his "tactics" is dead-on and quite "factual"

Do you really think that inked wants to "prove all homosexuals are disease infested sex crazed ignoramuses" ??

If so, please provide references

[Rían]

y'know, I keep hearing cries to show that homosexual behavior is risky, and when data is provided to support this, why does the name-calling start?

I think anyone that descends to name-calling just has no other way to support their side.

[Nurvingiel]

I had this intelligent, well-thought out post, but then stupid Acrobat Reader froze Mozilla, because sometimes Acrobat is dumb.

The core of my post was 2004 data on auto accidents in BC from ICBC (BC's insurance company). I think there were 364 deaths in car accidents, and some number of injuries that I forget.
Then, I was going to post the number of people in BC who contracted/died from STDs in BC in 2004, from the BC government's website in the health section. Sadly, it was this data that was in pdf format, causing the Acrobat problems, so I never got to look at it.

It would have been an interesting comparison, since both are objective organizations run by the government. Let's just say, for the sake of argument, that more people died in car accidents than gay people died of STDs in BC in 2004. (It's nice to narrow the scope of the data a bit to avoid to many extraneous factors etc.)
Would you then say it's immoral to drive a car in BC? Why/Why not?


To respond to your last post RÃ*an, what is homosexual behaviour? Do you mean anal sex? Giving straight men advice about home decor? (JK! )


Inked, you may want to sit down for the rest of this post...

I agree with a lot of the points you made in your last post (though I didn't entirely follow what you were saying about sickle cell anemia*). I agree with you that anal sex is more risky than vaginal sex. Where we differ is the conclusions we draw from this.
The conclusions I draw are that we need to stop ostracizing gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgendered people in our society. I also think it's time for Trojan et al to make a condom specifically designed for anal sex.
What conclusions do you draw? (I won't put words in your mouth. ) As a doctor, what advice would you give/have you given a gay man who wished to have anal sex with his partner?

The Gaffer, you have awesome posts.

* Unless you mean that it is genetic, and AIDS is also passed down from a mother with AIDS to her child.
Edited to add: because of the exchange of fluids between the foetus and the mother. I know AIDS isn't genetic.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

That type of statement will get this discussion nowhere fast. Let's stick to facts, please, esp. in topics like this, which can get v. emotional.

Stick to facts? Did you even read that joke of an article that he posted? That "type of statement" was right on the money to what the article was all about thanks.

I"ll read the report in the next day or so and comment on the studies. Personally, I would read studies from ANY source - of course, different sources will see if there is data to support their contentions. The important thing, I think, is to be open to data, and evaluate its validity, no matter where it comes from.

Hey then heres an idea. How about actually reading the STUDIES and not how the family research council has carefully clipped from these studies to support its agenda. sound fair? I can do the same and make the holocust look like it was a good idea. Doesnt make it so.