Wednesday, December 21, 2005

Dialogue With a Bisexual Agnostic on Homosexuality, Part II

[see Part I]

[warning to readers: if you are squeamish or uncomfortable with descriptions of homosexual acts (or think that any talk of them at all is distasteful or impermissible), do not read this article. Some details had to be included because of the scientific-medical information that I necessarily had to provide in order to adequately answer my friendly opponent's objections]

This is the second part of my response to a letter written as a reply to my paper, Dialogue With a Homosexual. The words of my opponent from that paper will be in blue. My older words from the same paper will be purple, and my present (anonymous) opponent's words will be in green.

As for your comment:


The left always thinks it can overturn the moral consensus of millennia by enough propagandizing, sloganizing, Big Lies (e.g., 10% of the population being homosexual -- Kinsey), fiat court decisions, Ellen shows, Heather Has Two Mommies books for first-graders, etc.

this could just as easily be said of the religious right. Homosexuality can be changed, Homosexuals are Pedophiles, etc...

That it can be changed is a demonstrable clinical and sociological fact. There are thousands of former practicing homosexuals out there (we define that by the cessation of sodomy).

Perhaps, but their orientation cannot be changed. This is why the Catholic Church does not require so-called homosexual reparative therapy of gay Catholics, but only celibacy.

I have no particular beef with that statement. A celibate homosexual who still has some desires that he must control by God's grace is no more sinful than a celibate heterosexual who still has some desires that he must control by God's grace. And a heterosexual having sex outside of a legitimate marriage is as sinful as a homosexual having homosexual sex. Both are mortal sins and can seriously endanger one's soul, according to Catholic theology.

I agree that it is grossly unfair to paint all homosexuals with the pedophilia brush, but there is certainly overlap. I'm sure you have heard of NAMBLA (North American Man-Boy Love Association). But your analogy fails because homosexuality was not the "moral consensus of millennia" -- in terms of Western Civilization.

So what? Persecution of non-whites and non-Christians was widely practiced by so-called Western civilization, and their genetic and religious "inferiority" was part of the "moral consensus of millenia", so your argument backfires.

Not at all, because the presence of such corruption of morality during the course of history does not prove that homosexuality was either usually normative nor that it was or is morally defensible. All it proves is that, well, human beings tend to be sinners and corrupt, and consistently unable to live up to their stated ideals. And of course that is exactly what Christianity predicts: thus, our belief in original sin, actual sin, individual sins like pride, lust, and rebelliousness, and strong tendency to sin (concupiscence).

Therefore we are merely attempting to preserve what is left of that culture. The "Gay" Activists are the ones attempting to undermine it. There is no comparison. Both sides have prejudice. I won't make any argument on that. At the same time, I won't stand for such prejudices being projected onto me simply because I have a traditional Christian opinion on the subject.

This type of rhetoric is remarkably similar to that of Klansmen who spoke of "preserving" what was left of white Western civilization.

Again, this doesn't logically follow at all. You neglect the crucial distinction between a societal ethos or the moral norms of a civilization, and corruptions of the same ideals. You can't have it both ways. All ideals become corrupt in practice, but it doesn't follow that we, therefore, throw out the ideals altogether (like throwing the baby out with the bathwater). I'm not trying to preserve any corruption of this civilization, and that would include slavery, racism, the genocide against the American Indian and all the rest of the hideous scandals that we all know about. Christian ethics are absolutes; societal norms must be spoken of in generalities, because they are variable facts. Sociologically, I can speak of certain widespread moral beliefs, and this doesn't entail a corresponding defense of all the historic sins which were also historically present.

Now, I'm not accusing you of being bigoted. I realize that you oppose the gay rights movement because you believe it is vitiating the moral fabric of our nation. You have a genuine concern for our spiritual welfare, and that's to be commended. But you must understand that we don't share your RELIGIOUS point of view,

No kidding? But how is that relevant to anything? Of course you don't share my view, or we wouldn't be here debating it, would we? I knew you were an agnostic from your e-mail address. The question is whether homosexuality is moral, normal, healthy, and natural (or at least morally neutral) - as in secular unisexual ideology, or whether it is immoral, abnormal, unhealthy, and unnatural, as in traditional Christian moral teaching on sexuality (but also in various non-religiously-based points of view also).

and we are in no way, shape, or form obligated to conform to it.

Again, we are going over the same ground again. All law is coercive, and all law has an implicit moral content. Presently we have laws against homosexual activity. They are now changing. While it was law to refrain from such activities, however, you were bound to that, just as we are all bound by all the laws that our country might pass. If you don't like it, then you lobby and vote and try to change it. Occasionally, one can object in conscience, as I have myself, by blocking abortion clinics in order to save lives that were being taken as a result of an immoral law.

We believe that God's law is higher than man's law, so that there are times when it is moral to disobey it. Martin Luther King disobeyed Jim Crow segregationist laws. Dietrich Bonhoeffer participated in a plot to kill Hitler, etc. So if you decide to dissent against current law, it seems to me that you ought to have some consistent legal/moral rationale behind that decision. Christians (for our part) must oppose homosexual legal activism because it is directly contrary to Christian teaching. We have an entire set of moral teaching that is prior to, and ultimately above, human law.

If two lesbians want to marry, they should have a right to.

Why? I want to hear you make the case for thse things, not simply assert that you have a right, which is not an argument. You need to establish two things, actually: 1) whether such a right exists, and why, and 2) whether the activity which you want legalized is itself moral and thus properly legalized, and why.

You don't have to associate with, talk to, or have them in your house.

I talk to anyone I please. I'm here talking with you, aren't I? What I don't have to do is be coerced into points of view that I am not persuaded by, with either legal penalties for my dissent or social stigmas attached to my dissent (the homophobe and "intolerant" charges, etc., etc., etc.)

Your arguments would warrant merit if our movement was concerned with forcing you to associate with us, talk to us, attend gay weddings, open your house to homosexuals, have your children take school courses on safe gay sex, etc.

But of course that is exactly what is starting to happen, and will increasingly happen. Once it becomes legal, then anyone who opposes that is automatically branded a backward, intolerant bigot, and has to be brainwashed into the new fashionable view. Schoolchildren (in public schools) are certainly being subjected to much propaganda. The same holds for entertainment, which is increasingly pushing these notions. We are what we see, in this culture. This is a deliberate attempt to win over the hearts and minds of those who were formerly of a traditionalist Christian outlook regarding sexuality and marriage. If you can't plainly see that, then I must say that you are quite naive and uninformed.

But that's not what our movement is about, as I've oft-repeated. If it were, I'd be adamantly opposed to it as well.

I'd like to see some actual statements from this "movement," however you define that term with reference to your own cause. You need to provide me with something objective that we can actually argue on the basis of fact, not all this merely subjective stuff.

Your actions, in the public sphere, are what is at issue. I believe you may hold whatever opinion of homosexuality and homosexuals that you like. But that does not mean you should be able to discriminate against someone, or seek to deny them the same EXACT rights that you enjoy, because they do things that make you uncomfortable.

Laws do that all the time. We can't take drugs. We can't kill ourselves. We can't yell "fire" in a crowded building. 5-year-olds can't drive. Teenagers need parental permission to get their ears pierced (but not to kill their preborn child), rape and sexual harassment are considered outrages against women (unless one happens to be the President, and unless one is a feminist defending that President) etc. And in Western Civilization up until very recently, sodomy was considered an objectively disordered, immoral act, contrary to the natural law of normal sexuality (this is arguably evident in the very reproductive anatomy of males and females).

We take drugs all the time, Mr. Armstrong; it's only certain types that the government outlaws (I should note that our present drug policy faces opposition from both sides of the political spectrum).

We all are aware that certain dangerous and unhealthy drugs are illegal. That is not essentially different from believing that certain sexual practices are dangerous and unhealthy and outlawing them. That was the parallel. The question at hand was not whether Aspirin or Dristan or are immoral and impermissible.

Yelling fire in a crowded building when there isn't any endangers people's safety.

So does unsafe sex. Are you unaware of the AIDS epidemic in Africa? Some countries over there know that the remedy for that problem is celibacy, or refraining from (either homosexual or heterosexual) anal sex (which is what spreads it). Sodomy has always been unhealthy, long before AIDS. So this becomes a public health issue, just as with drugs and crime.

Five year old kids aren't allowed to drive because they too pose a signifanct threat to people's safety.

See the last paragraph. The original question was about laws preventing folks from doing certain things. My opponent seemed to think that was a novel idea. I gave examples as to why it was the normal state of affairs, not some exotic aberration.

There are laws against suicide? I had no idea... so how does the government go about prosecuting a suicide case?

I doubt that they rarely do, but it is important to make it illegal, as a statement against its wrongness and harm to society as well as individuals.

Teenagers need parental permission to get their ears pierced because they are subject to their authority.

We are all subject to governmental authority. For example, every time we drive a car . . .

So yes, parents may even prohobit their children from dating members of their own sex. This, however, changes when the teenager turns 18.

That doesn't mean that society has no interest in promoting certain behaviors and prohibiting others.

He or she is free to do as he or she pleases with his or her body.

No they are not: back to drugs, suicide, etc. . . .

Laws against rape... I've already discussed this, previously.

I'm sure we don't disagree on that one . . .

It is also a known fact that smoking and drinking is extremely unhealthy. It is also a well known fact that second-hand smoke kills 50,000 people a year. It is also a well known fact that kids who go rock climbing run a high risk of being involved in a fatal accident. Your point is moot.

How does any of that somehow render anal sex healthy and natural? It does not. Certain things are unhealthy and unnatural, and merely pointing out that other things are also does not change that fact. You need to make an argument to the contrary. I continue to await one. Lots of folks are abnormal, who think they are normal. Virtually every mentally ill person thinks they are fine. But others know better. Perhaps those who are severely mentally-challenged do not know they are anything but "normal."

I wouldn't accuse you of hate, though I would say you're guilty of advocating discrimination against homosexuals/bisexuals when we, in turn, do not advocate discrimination against Christians. We could care less about what Christians do in the privacy of their own homes.

What I favor is law which is in accord to physical and psychological health, the good of society, the best interest of individuals, and which is also consistent with my Christian beliefs. One can oppose homosexual acts and "marriage" on the first four grounds without ever resorting to the Christian rationale. I haven't cited a single Bible verse have I?

These sames societies burned "heretics", relegated women to second-class status, persecuted non-Christians and non-whites, etc. You could turn to any Western society and justify all sorts of discriminatory practices.

I already dealt with corruption as a non sequitur. Certain things are right and other things are wrong. One has to explain why something is right, and why another is wrong. We have our Christian beliefs; I would like to understand the reasoning for your viewpoint.

The American Psychological Association has labelled homosexuality perfectly natural.

On what grounds? It used to hold otherwise, so on what basis did it change its opinion?

We don't draft legislation per your arguments on what is and isn't natural.

At some point we all make such determinations, and instinctively feel that some things are natural and others aren't. I want to know why homosexuals have this sexual obsession with rectums and human waste, which most of us feel is highly unnatural and revolting. How did this state of affairs come about?

In secular thought, two consenting adults of the same-sex are not harming anybody.

But that is the myth. This simply isn't true. If indeed homosexuality is wrong, then it has significant societal effects, just as any wrong thing does. Illegal drugs (even legal substances like alcohol) affect others. The people ingesting them may drive and get into an accident and kill someone. Heroin addicts go out and steal to support their habit. Folks on drugs make lousy workers and spouses and parents. If one is addicted to multiple (heterosexual) affairs, this is highly destructive of the well-being of individuals and to whatever children come along as a result. Do I really need to explain all this again? You have bought the libertarian and atomistic individualism lies. Our behavior clearly affects others unless we go off alone to live on the north pole or on a remote island, affecting no one else. How can anyone not see this obvious fact?

The only argument against homosexuality is that it's immoral in the eyes of the judeo-christian god, whom you must remember is not everybody's object of worship.

I've given several arguments against it which weren't based on Christianity at all. Many others have done so also.

But former nation-states that outlawed homosexuality did so based on religious reasons not scientific evidence.

So now you want to talk scientific evidence? Okay, great. Prove to me that anal sex is just as natural and healthy as heterosexual vaginal sex. In the meantime, I will provide some information that it is not. In the article, The Health Risks of Gay Sex, John R. Diggs, Jr., M.D., provided some medical-scientific facts (his words will be in brown):

Prior to the AIDS epidemic, a 1978 study found that 75 percent of white, gay males claimed to have had more than 100 lifetime male sex partners: 15 percent claimed 100-249 sex partners; 17 percent claimed 250-499; 15 percent claimed 500- 999; and 28 percent claimed more than 1,000 lifetime male sex partners.

[see: Alan P. Bell and Martin S. Weinberg, Homosexualities: A study of Diversity Among Men and Women, p. 308, Table 7, New York: Simon and Schuster, 1978]

Levels of promiscuity subsequently declined, but some observers are concerned that promiscuity is again approaching the levels of the 1970s. The medical consequence of this promiscuity is that gays have a greatly increased likelihood of contracting HIV/AIDS, syphilis and other STDs.

Similar extremes of promiscuity have not been documented among lesbians. However, an Australian study found that 93 percent of lesbians reported having had sex with men, and lesbians were 4.5 times more likely than heterosexual women to have had more than 50 lifetime male sex partners.

[see: Katherine Fethers, Caron Marks, et al., "Sexually transmitted infections and risk behaviours in women who have sex with women," Sexually Transmitted Infections, 76(5): 345- 349, p. 347 (October 2000). ]

Any degree of sexual promiscuity carries the risk of contracting STDs.

. . . In more recent years, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control has reported an upswing in promiscuity, at least among young homosexual men in San Francisco. From 1994 to 1997, the percentage of homosexual men reporting multiple partners and unprotected anal sex rose from 23.6 percent to 33.3 percent, with the largest increase among men under 25.

["Increases in Unsafe Sex and Rectal Gonorrhea among Men Who Have Sex with Men — San Francisco, California, 1994-1997," Mortality and Morbidity Weekly Report, CDC, 48(03): 45-48, p. 45 (January 29, 1999). ]

Despite its continuing incurability, AIDS no longer seems to deter individuals from engaging in promiscuous gay sex.

[This was evident by the late 80's and early 90's. Jeffrey A. Kelly, PhD, et al., "Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome/ Human Immunodeficiency Virus Risk Behavior Among Gay Men in Small Cities," Archives of Internal Medicine, 152: 2293-2297, pp. 2295-2296 (November 1992); Donald R. Hoover, et al., "Estimating the 1978-1990 and Future Spread of Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1 in Subgroups of Homosexual Men," American Journal of Epidemiology, 134(10): 1190-1205, p. 1203 (1991). ]

. . . The HIV/AIDS epidemic has remained a predominantly gay issue in the U.S. primarily because of the greater degree of promiscuity among gays.

[Gabriel Rotello {a homosexual}, Sexual Ecology: AIDS and the Destiny of Gay Men, New York: Penguin Group, 1998, 165-172]

. . . As of June 2001, nearly 64 percent of men with AIDS were men who have had sex with men.
["Basic Statistics," CDC — Division of HIV/AIDS Prevention, June 2001. Nearly 8% (50,066) of men with AIDS had sex with men and used intravenous drugs. These men are included in the 64% figure (411,933) of 649,186 men who have been diagnosed with AIDS. ]

Syphilis is also more common among gay men . . . A study done in Baltimore and reported in the Archives of Internal Medicine found that gay men contracted syphilis at three to four times the rate of heterosexuals.

[Catherine Hutchinson, et al., "Characteristics of Patients with Syphilis Attending Baltimore STD Clinics," Archives of Internal Medicine, 151: 511-516, p. 513 (1991). ]

Promiscuity is the factor most responsible for the extreme rates of these and other Sexually Transmitted Diseases cited below, many of which result in a shortened life span for men who have sex with men.

. . . Men having sex with other men leads to greater health risks than men having sex with women19 not only because of promiscuity but also because of the nature of sex among men. A British researcher summarizes the danger as follows:

Male homosexual behaviour is not simply either 'active' or 'passive,' since penile-anal, mouth-penile, and hand-anal sexual contact is usual for both partners, and mouth-anal contact is not infrequent. . . . Mouth-anal contact is the reason for the relatively high incidence of diseases caused by bowel pathogens in male homosexuals. Trauma may encourage the entry of micro-organisms and thus lead to primary syphilitic lesions occurring in the anogenital area. . . . In addition to sodomy, trauma may be caused by foreign bodies, including stimulators of various kinds, penile adornments, and prostheses.
[R. R. Wilcox, "Sexual Behaviour and Sexually Transmitted Disease Patterns in Male Homosexuals," British Journal of Venereal Diseases, 57(3): 167-169, 167 (1981). ]
. . . a. Anal-genital

Anal intercourse is the sine qua non of sex for many gay men.

[Rotello, ibid., 92]

Yet human physiology makes it clear that the body was not designed to accommodate this activity. The rectum is significantly different from the vagina with regard to suitability for penetration by a penis. The vagina has natural lubricants and is supported by a network of muscles. It is composed of a mucus membrane with a multi-layer stratified squamous epithelium that allows it to endure friction without damage and to resist the immunological actions caused by semen and sperm. In comparison, the anus is a delicate mechanism of small muscles that comprise an "exit-only" passage. With repeated trauma, friction and stretching, the sphincter loses its tone and its ability to maintain a tight seal. Consequently, anal intercourse leads to leakage of fecal material that can easily become chronic.

The potential for injury is exacerbated by the fact that the intestine has only a single layer of cells separating it from highly vascular tissue, that is, blood. Therefore, any organisms that are introduced into the rectum have a much easier time establishing a foothold for infection than they would in a vagina. The single layer tissue cannot withstand the friction associated with penile penetration, resulting in traumas that expose both participants to blood, organisms in feces, and a mixing of bodily fluids.
Furthermore, ejaculate has components that are immunosuppressive. In the course of ordinary reproductive physiology, this allows the sperm to evade the immune defenses of the female. Rectal insemination of rabbits has shown that sperm impaired the immune defenses of the recipient.

[Jon M. Richards, J. Michael Bedford, and Steven S. Witkin, "Rectal Insemination Modifies Immune Responses in Rabbits," Science, 27(224): 390-392 (1984). ]

Semen may have a similar impact on humans.

[S. S. Witkin and J. Sonnabend, "Immune Responses to Spermatozoa in Homosexual Men," Fertility and Sterility, 39(3): 337-342, pp. 340-341 (1983). ]
The end result is that the fragility of the anus and rectum, along with the immunosuppressive effect of ejaculate, make anal-genital intercourse a most efficient manner of transmitting HIV and other infections. The list of diseases found with extraordinary frequency among male homosexual practitioners as a result of anal intercourse is alarming:
Anal Cancer
Chlamydia trachomatis
Cryptosporidium
Giardia lamblia
Herpes simplex virus
Human immunodeficiency virus
Human papilloma virus
Isospora belli
Microsporidia
Gonorrhea
Viral hepatitis types B & C
Syphilis

[Anne Rompalo, "Sexually Transmitted Causes of Gastrointestinal Symptoms in Homosexual Men," Medical Clinics of North America, 74(6): 1633-1645 (November 1990); "Anal Health for Men and Women," LGBT Health Channel; "Safer Sex (MSM) for Men who Have Sex with Men".]

Sexual transmission of some of these diseases is so rare in the exclusively heterosexual population as to be virtually unknown. Others, while found among heterosexual and homosexual practitioners, are clearly predominated by those involved in homosexual activity. Syphilis, for example is found among heterosexual and homosexual practitioners. But in 1999, King County, Washington (Seattle), reported that 85 percent of syphilis cases were among self-identified homosexual practitioners.


["Resurgent Bacterial Sexually Transmitted Disease Among Men Who Have Sex With Men — King County, Washington, 1997-1999," Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, CDC, 48(35): 773-777 (September 10, 1999). ]

And as noted above, syphilis among homosexual men is now at epidemic levels in San Francisco.

A 1988 CDC survey identified 21 percent of all Hepatitis B cases as being homosexually transmitted while 18 percent were heterosexually transmitted.

["Changing Patterns of Groups at High Risk for Hepatitis B in the United States," Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, CDC, 37(28): 429-432, p. 437 (July 22, 1988). Hepatitis B and C are viral diseases of the liver. ]

Since homosexuals comprise such a small percent of the population (only 1-3 percent), they have a significantly higher rate of infection than heterosexuals.

[Mads Melbye, Charles Rabkin, et al., "Changing patterns of anal cancer incidence in the United States, 1940-1989," American Journal of Epidemiology, 139: 772-780, p. 779, Table 2 (1994). ]
Anal intercourse also puts men at significant risk for anal cancer. Anal cancer is the result of infection with some subtypes of human papilloma virus (HPV), which are known viral carcinogens. Data as of 1989 showed the rates of anal cancer in male homosexual practitioners to be 10 times that of heterosexual males, and growing.

[Ibid.]

Thus, the prevalence of anal cancer among gay men is of great concern. For those with AIDS, the rates are doubled.

[James Goedert, et al., for the AIDS-Cancer Match Study Group, "Spectrum of AIDS-associated malignant disorders," The Lancet, 351: 1833-1839, p. 1836 (June 20, 1998). ]

Other physical problems associated with anal intercourse are:

hemorrhoids
anal fissures
anorectal trauma
retained foreign bodies.

[ "Anal Health for Men and Women," LGBTHealthChannel; J. E. Barone, et al., "Management of Foreign Bodies and Trauma of the Rectum," Surgery, Gynecology and Obstetrics, 156(4): 453-457 (April 1983). ]

I couldn't bring myself to recount and cite the subsequent sections of this article. Here are the titles:

b. Oral-anal
c. Human Waste
d. Fisting
e. Sadism


Anyone interested in further details and similar medical-scientific documentation of the host of diseases caused by such practices, please consult the article itself.

The author then discusses lesbianism in particular:

Bacterial vaginosis, Hepatitis B, Hepatitis C, heavy cigarette smoking, alcohol abuse, intravenous drug use, and prostitution were present in much higher proportions among female homosexual practitioners.

[Fethers et al, ibid., p. 347, Table 1; Susan D. Cochran, et al., "Cancer- Related Risk Indicators and Preventive Screening Behaviors Among Lesbians and Bisexual Women," American Journal of Public Health, 91(4): 591-597 (April 2001); Juliet Richters, Sara Lubowitz, et al., "HIV risks among women in contact with Sydney's gay and lesbian community," Venereology, 11(3): 35-38 (1998); Juliet Richters, Sarah Bergin, et al., "Women in Contact with the Gay and Lesbian Community: Sydney Women and Sexual Health Survey 1996 and 1998," National Centre in HIV Social Research, University of New South Wales, 1999. ]

Intravenous drug abuse was nearly six times as common in this group.

[Fethers, et al., ibid., p. 347 and Table 1.]

In one study of women who had sex only with women in the prior 12 months, 30 percent had bacterial vaginosis.

[Barbara Berger, Shelley Kolton, et al., "Bacterial vaginosis in lesbians: a sexually transmitted disease," Clinical Infectious Diseases, 21: 1402-1405 (1995).]

Bacterial vaginosis is associated with higher risk for pelvic inflammatory disease and other sexually transmitted infections.

[E. H. Koumans, et al., "Preventing adverse sequelae of Bacterial Vaginosis: a Public Health Program and Research Agenda," Sexually Transmitted Diseases, 28(5): 292-297 (May 2001); R. L. Sweet, "Gynecologic Conditions and Bacterial Vaginosis: Implications for the Non-Pregnant Patient," Infectious Diseases in Obstetrics and Gynecology, 8(3): 184-190 (2000). ]

In view of the record of lesbians having sex with many men, including gay men, and the increased incidence of intravenous drug use among lesbians, lesbians are not low risk for disease. Although researchers have only recently begun studying the transmission of STDs among lesbians, diseases such as "crabs," genital warts, chlamydia and herpes have been reported.

[Kathleen M. Morrow, Ph.D., et al., "Sexual Risk in Lesbians and Bisexual Women," Journal of the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association, 4(4): 159-165, p. 161 (2000). ]

Even women who have never had sex with men have been found to have HPV, trichomoniasis and anogenital warts.

[Ibid., p. 159. ]

. . .
D. Shortened Life Span

An epidemiological study from Vancouver, Canada of data tabulated between 1987 and 1992 for AIDS-related deaths reveals that male homosexual or bisexual practitioners lost up to 20 years of life expectancy. The study concluded that if 3 percent of the population studied were gay or bisexual, the probability of a 20-year-old gay or bisexual man living to 65 years was only 32 percent, compared to 78 percent for men in general.

[R. S. Hogg, S. A. Strathdee, et al., "Modeling the Impact of HIV Disease on Mortality in Gay and Bisexual Men," International Journal of Epidemiology, 26(3): 657-661, p. 659 (1997). ]

The damaging effects of cigarette smoking pale in comparison -cigarette smokers lose on average about 13.5 years of life expectancy.

[Press Release,
Smoking costs nation $150 billion each year in health costs, lost productivity, CDC, Office of Communication, April 12, 2002]

I will point out to you that homosexuality is fundamentally identical to heterosexuality. A person's sexual identity is part of who they are. What they do is a reflection of that, and as such, their public actions should be subject to the same standards of conduct.

So if someone wants to engage in bestia lity, would you acknowledge that as a valid form of "sexual identity"?

It's natural for humans to be attracted to other humans... it's not natural to be sexually attracted to animals. And even if it were, it should still be outlawed because it does hurt someone: it hurts animals. In our society, we have laws protecting animals against abuse.

Given all the above medical information, homosexuality obviously harms humans, too.

Sodomy should be outlawed on health grounds alone, if not moral, religious, and philosophical. These abnormal acts are what Christians oppose. I don't care if two men love each other as long as they are chaste and abstain from immorality.

Then we might as well outlaw being sexually promiscous too... and while we're at it, let's outlaw tobacco, alcohol, ice cream, mcdonalds, burger king, wendy's, non-alternative-fuel cars... all these are detrimental to our health.

One can take whatever position they like on all these issues; it doesn't change the fact that homosexual sexual activity is extremely harmful to health (and thus to society, the more it spreads and receives the sanction of societal norm and law). If you want to act in irrational ways and put yourself at great risk and kill yourself or subtract 20 years from your life, I can't stop you, it's true. But I can give you facts and try to persuade and warn you (and others who read this), as I am doing. And if you are interested in Christianity at all, I can tell you that that religion forbids these things as immoral and quite possibly mortally dangerous to your eternal soul.

Prove to me, e.g., that sodomy is a healthy thing (the moral and health equivalent to vaginal sexual intercourse), and that no one has to worry about it harming them. I would love to see you attempt that.

This doesn't have to be proven. Sex itself is potentially a health risk, yet there are many methods one can use to significantly decrease sexually transmitted diseases. Are they 100% safe? No. Based on your moral, philosophical, and "logical" reasoning, we should outlaw all sex that isn't between a married Christian couple.

As noted above, the risks involved in homosexual activity is far FAR greater. And that is because one activity is natural and according to how the human body was designed to work in a healthy fashion (whether you think God was involved in that or that it was a result of adaptation in evolution, or both). The other is a violation of same, and so we see the deleterious results. I would absolutely love to see any homosexual grapple with the sort of objective medical evidence from reputable journals that I have provided above. I won't hold my breath.

This concludes my response. As you might have noticed, I didn't respond to paragraphs I didn't feel merited my response.

I have skipped a few of yours too, but not many. Thanks again for your critique, and I hope you will take it a step further and develop a positive case for your perspective, and deal with some of the many objections I raised.

No comments: