Ok, that's it. You do not have the self discipline to carry on a debate in even an online format. Maybe I should report you but I have never reported anyone for anything and I have enough discipline not to let things get too person so you don't have to worry about me reporting you but we are done discussing anything in this thread. Take a nap or something.
Sigh! I will give this one, final try. I shall try to keep it in as simple terms as possible, so that you do not get confused.
You continually try to make the argument that, in your very own words, “homosexuality’s costs can’t be justified by its “merits.” And to make that argument, you stress repeatedly that are “judging homosexual sex, which is a choice,” because, as you put it, homosexual sex comes with “costs.” Those costs you have used real and bogus stats to equate to HIV/AIDS.
That is your “secular argument” against “homosexual acts.”
Now, let me demonstrate why you are simply wrong.
- I have been having homosexual acts with my partner for 25 years, and we have experienced no negative costs, nor diseases, as a consequence, nor have we cost anybody else anything at all. And the merits, worth the world to both of us, is a strong, loving, fulfilling relationship. That he needs me as caregiver more than lover at the moment is part of the deal.
- A very large majority of the active homosexuals alive in the US and Canada have never contracted HIV/AIDS, and yet they are engaging in homosexual acts.
- When a heterosexual woman meets a needle-using heterosexual man, and in their lust they forget to practice safe sex, her chances of acquiring HIV/AIDS soar. Thus, heterosexual acts can also come with costs. The benefit, in this case, was not to increase the population (she’s on the pill, you know) but mutual pleasure. So this cost does not justify the “merits” of the encounter.
- When two gay guys meet and get all hot and bothered that they forget to practice safe sex, their likely of negative consequences goes way up, too.
- The vast majority of HIV/AIDS cases in Sub-Saharan Africa are among heterosexuals, through heterosexual sex.
What does this mean? It means that neither homosexual or heterosexual (or any other kind of orientation) sex is the cause of the “costs” you refer to. The cause is doing it without being safe. Therefore, as I’ve said, if you had argued that “promiscuous, unsafe sex has costs that cannot be justified by its merits” I would have agreed with you.
Now, it is true that gay men often engage in more promiscuous, unsafe sex than heterosexual men and women, but I explained in another post that there are historical reasons for that. Still, not to use those historical reasons as an excuse, is there anything that we can learn from them about what might help to reduce that? Yes! And this is exactly what we have been learning – rather than shunning and excluding homosexuals, accept them as part of your community, and then expect them to share the community's standards. That is exactly what nations have been doing in legalizing same-sex marriage. More to the point, religious groups are starting to catch on, and several in Canada had Amicus status before the Supreme Court of Canada in the early 2000’s arguing exactly that. The United Church of Canada, Reform Jews and others. I believe that Reform Jews in the US are also of the opinion that gays should be welcomed into the community, but perhaps
@RabbiO is better positioned to speak on that than I am.
Throughout this debate, you have opted to stick to your original “homosexual acts” rather than “unsafe acts” of a homosexual or any other nature, and I can only suppose you do so because you have an agenda, or a hatred, or are basically ignorant. It has to be one of those. But the plain fact of the matter is that the orientation is not the deciding factor in the transmission of HIV, it is whether one partner (or your needle) has been exposed to the virus, and whether any precautions are taken to ensure non-transmission from one partner to the other.
I am sorry if this is unacceptable to you and doesn't support your agenda, but it is the truth, unlike what you have been attempting to do. As a gay man, in a long-term, faithful relationship, well-accepted and integrated into my community (which is almost entirely straight) I refuse to be painted with your “homosexual sex” whatever brush. And you should have the good sense not to use it.
