Message to 1robin: Do you believe that heterosexual women who are 45 years of age and over should practice abstinence? Consider the following:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/...6A94TK20101110
reuters.com said:
For the few women who manage to get pregnant after age 45, both they and their babies have a higher risk of complications, Israeli researchers have found. For instance, they are about three times more likely than younger women to experience diabetes and high blood pressure during their pregnancies, the researchers report in the American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology.
Older women also have higher rates of preterm births and placenta previa, in which the placenta blocks the opening to the birth canal.
"Increasing age leads to less (healthy) individuals, and less healthy individuals do have higher pregnancy risks," Dr. Maximilian Franz of the Medical University of Vienna, who did not participate in the study, told Reuters Health.
Do you believe that black Americans who live in black American communities should practice abstinence since they are a high risk group?
Do you believe that people who live in poverty should practice abstinence since they are a high risk group?
You have said that practicing long term abstinence is not very difficult. Research shows otherwise, but if you are right, it would not be difficult for the groups of people that I mentioned to practice abstinence, and lot of suffering, and health care costs could be prevented.
Do you believe that people who have preventable cases of heart disease, cancer, and obesity should take better care of their bodies? In 2010, about 15,000 Americans died from AIDS. In the same year, about 600,000 Americans died from heart disease alone, and the vast majority of them were heterosexuals. Heart disease is largely preventable.
Since heterosexuals are far more numerous than homosexuals are, and thus cause far more health care costs than homosexuals do, they are much more able to significantly reduce health care costs than homosexuals are.
If aliens abducted all of the homosexuals from the world, that would only reduce health care costs by less than 5%, and global warming would still be the greatest threat to human life, and well-being in human history by far. If homosexuality did not exist, it is probable that eventually, heterosexuals will eventually destroy most, or all, human life, or make life far more difficult than it is now.
You have claimed that homosexuals increase health care costs for other groups of people. That is true, but statistics show that heterosexuals' greatest health threat by far is themselves, not homosexuals. When heterosexuals get heart disease, cancer, or obesity, that is their own fault, not homosexuals' fault. In addition, there is little, if any risk for heterosexuals who eat harmful foods, and do not get enough exercise, if they change their poor lifestyle habits, unlike homosexuals who have risks if they practice long term abstinence.
It is important to note that a good percentage of homosexuals who are alcoholics are not alcoholics because they are homosexuals, and would have become alcoholics even if they had become heterosexuals.
Even if homosexuals who will never get any STDs (let's call them Group A) practiced abstinence, that would not affect the behavior of homosexuals who get STDs (let's call them Group B), so nothing practical would be gained if Group A practiced abstinence. That is a fact even though Group A do not know who they are.
Over the next 100 years, when Group A die, they will not have caused any more harm per capita than hundreds of millions, or billions of heterosexuals did per capita. If you were alive 100 years from now, what would you say about members of Group A who had died? You could claim that they should not have played the game, but billions of heterosexuals who caused more harm per capita than Group A did would be much more at fault than Group A.
Even if homosexuals who will never get any STDs should not play the game at this time, they will beat the odds, will enjoy many health benefits from having sex, will avoid the health risks of long term abstinence, and their trust in themselves will have been justified. It is certainly reasonable for trustworthy people to trust in themselves.
Few healthy, monogamous homosexuals would be interested in practicing abstinence, but if all of them did practice it, surely many would be far worse off than they were before, and many of them would require expensive medical treatment, which would increase health care costs, not reduce them.
You said that homosexuals have health risks other than STDs. That is true, but the health of an unknown percentage of homosexuals compares favorably with the health of the majority of heterosexuals. Whatever percentage that is, over the next one hundred years, millions of homosexuals will die whose health compared favorably with the majority of heterosexuals. There are not any good reasons why they should practice abstinence, and there a good reasons why the other groups of people who I mentioned should practice abstinence, at least according to your philosophy.
You said that there is no need for heterosexuals who have been monogamous for at least one year to practice abstinence. Why should homosexuals who have been monogamous for at least ten years practice abstinence?
Homosexuals do generally have more health problems than heterosexuals do, but not nearly to the extent that you believe. Your post #304 has lot of lies, misleading claims, and poorly documented claims. You said that you doubt that very many of those claims are wrong, but your are so poorly informed that you are not in a position to make such a claim. I could easily back up what I said, and you cannot back up much of that post.
I have provided lots of documented evidence that reasonably proves that genetics is an important part of sexual identity. What documented evidence do you have that genetics is not an important part of sexual identity?