Gay monogamous relationships- are they healthy?

[Formaldehyde]

We certainly shouldn't be satisfied. But as long as homophobia is so rampant in the US and elsewhere, I don't think this will ever get the proper funding. It would have to start to be a major health issue with heterosexual couples before that would likely occur.

 

[Lord Gay]

Seems to me like the real solution to this problem, since human behaviour is so unruly, is to help find a cure for HIV infection.

Seems to me like the real solution would be eliminating the notion that there's something wrong with non-heterosexuality.

 

[El_Machinae]

I don't think that will help those with HIV and who're in relationships

It's the HIV that's the problem being forwarded by the OP, not the relationships. HIV is deserves eradication regardless of people's sexuality

 

[Lord Gay]

HIV does deserve eradication. However, it's just that the "gays are bad 'cause they have diseases" argument has been made a zillion times before when the real argument involved is that homosexuality is bad, not any actual concern over STIs. Though his initial comments (on his second thread attempt) were about STIs, I just skipped right over that smokescreen.

Anti-gay folks have thrown up countless arguments over the years Mac, but they're never legit arguments. These are never people who were neutral on homosexuality but then learned some disturbing thing and are now anti-gay. These are people who were always anti-gay and cast around for any possible argument whatsoever to try to justify their position. The argument they toss out is not one they necessarily agree with, believe in, or even understand. They've rarely thought it through, seen the obvious hypocrisy of the argument they make, or considered its real-world application. It's just a prop, a tool to try to add legitimacy to a conclusion they've already formed.



The OPs concern has nothing to do with HIV Mac.

 

[Askthepizzaguy]

Anti-gay folks have thrown up countless arguments over the years Mac, but they're never legit arguments. These are never people who were neutral on homosexuality but then learned some disturbing thing and are now anti-gay. These are people who were always anti-gay and cast around for any possible argument whatsoever to try to justify their position. The argument they toss out is not one they necessarily agree with, believe in, or even understand. They've rarely thought it through, seen the obvious hypocrisy of the argument they make, or considered its real-world application. It's just a prop, a tool to try to add legitimacy to a conclusion they've already formed.

This kind of thinking allows other conclusions as well.

Examples being Obama being a socialist Muslim from Kenya with a forged birth certificate. Or, abstinence-only education works. Or, how gay people can be cured.

We know all of these things to be true. We just haven't figured out where we can find some facts to back any of it up.

 

[Lord Gay]

We know all of these things to be true. We just haven't figured out where we can find some facts to back any of it up.

The Lord will provide.

 

[El_Machinae]

The OPs concern has nothing to do with HIV Mac.

I know! And you know. And he knows. And all the other anti-gay people know. Now, some of them do think that they care about the health aspect of the story. Those people are being called out. IF the concern is HIV, then they can choose to help that aspect. OR, they can just admit that the concern isn't really HIV

 

[The_Tyrant]

No gay relationship is healthy. Not for the soul, not for the body (see AIDS statistics)

Moderator Action: Inappropriate content. Such hateful statements aren't welcome at CFC.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[The_Tyrant]

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2009/aug/09082609

 

[LucyDuke]

No gay relationship is healthy. Not for the soul, not for the body (see AIDS statistics)

Not even the ones without any risk of HIV! Because you said so. We trust you.

 

[Arwon]

While homosexualists have actively suppressed such statistics in the past and focused on portraying HIV/AIDS as a disease affecting the whole population in an equal fashion, the statistics' increasing undeniability has forced their hand. Rather than admit any inherent problem with homosexual practice itself, however, the apparent prevalence of disease among practicing homosexuals has led them to switch tactics and use these statistics to urge governments and other organizations to increase support to the homosexual communities

Say what now? That's a lot of derp for one little paragraph.

Actually, let's try this:

While Sub-Saharan Africanists have actively suppressed such statistics in the past and focused on portraying HIV/AIDS as a disease affecting the whole population in an equal fashion, the statistics' increasing undeniability has forced their hand. Rather than admit any inherent problem with Sub-Saharan African practice itself, however, the apparent prevalence of disease among practicing Sub-Saharan Africans has led them to switch tactics and use these statistics to urge governments and other organizations to increase support to the Sub-Saharan African communities

Since if "692.2 new HIV cases per 100,000 homosexual men" is "clear evidence of the disorder of homosexual practice" how bloody disordered and deviant must a (Christian!) country like Swaziland be with HIV rates of 31% among women and 20% among men. 18,000 new cases a year in a country of 1.2 million.

Sure must be a lot of queers there, hey Tyrant? Stop posting offensive idiocy.

 

[JollyRoger]

No gay relationship is healthy. Not for the soul, not for the body (see AIDS statistics)

No marriage is healthy. All of them end in divorce or death.

 

[Mango Elephant]

Carrots are lethal, too. Everyone who has eaten a carrot has died. It's Satan's work!

 

[Mr. Dictator]

No gay relationship is healthy. Not for the soul, not for the body (see AIDS statistics)

You don't get to speak for others' soul or body.

 

[Askthepizzaguy]

No gay relationship is healthy. Not for the soul, not for the body

In order to make such a statement with any credibility, you'd have to be an expert on gay relationships. I mean, you'd have to be like, the champion of gayness. Out of curiosity, how many dudes have you performed oral sex on? And how often do others travel up your dusty backwoods road? How many long-term gay relationships have you personally experienced?

Please share your credentials with the rest of the class.

 

[Hygro]

The problem with this stat here is not that gay monogamous relationships are unhealthy. It's that monogamous relationships lead to repeat sex with less protection used. This means that you're more likely to be infected by a given person than if sex was casual.

Not seeing the study, but if they just counted who had HIV and who didn't, and compared who was in a relationship, that's even worse.

Also scanning through the thread it seems these weren't so much monogamous as they were committed. Well hell, that'll really increase HIV rates in the other parter.

Once, I was at the dentist and he spent a good portion of the visit telling me about his father issues while getting a little emotional.

It was odd. Not really gay though.

Actually, I was clearly referring to a lack of close male relationships. The father is the most obvious one, and perhaps a very close relationship with one's mother or a female role model could lead to gender identity confusion. Childhood gender non-conformity is the largest indicator of sexual orientation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environment_and_sexual_orientation

You are getting your cause and effect completely backward. Start with "born gay", go to "feeling out of place in a non-accepting society and household" then go to "male-conforming boys and men not accepting the individual" ending with "therefore less likely to have close male connections."


Furthermore, your link states that it is inborn natural causes. Did you even read your own citation? It undermines your entire argument.

I'm just responding to those who say that orientation is fixed at birth and impossible to change. My morality is based on natural law, btw.

Do you, uhh, vote the whig party and keep your investments in joint stock companies?

I didn't misrepresent anything. If his "theory" is dumb (and inaccurate) for one, it's dumb and inaccurate for all, since I'm sure that most of us here are aware that being gay or lesbian (or straight or whatever else) is not a choice; it's biology.

No, female sexuality works differently. Current research shows that female sexuality is incredibly fluid. That doesn't mean it is at all a choice, but lets not confuse gender equality with symmetricist sex analogy.

 

[holy king]

next on cfc: holding your farts - is it healthy?