Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists

[Agent40]

Ok, here’s how I see it. I submit homosexual acts are immoral. Most of you believe they are not immoral.


Some of you have argued homosexuality is found in nature.

Counter: Irrelevant Guess what else is found in nature? Some animals eat their own young. Some animals kill their partner after mating.

Just because something is found in nature is not always an indication it’s good or bad/right or wrong.



Some of you argue homosexual acts do not hurt anyone and therefore are ok.

Counter: You are making the assumption no one gets hurt from homosexual acts. What are you basing such an assumption on?

Whether something causes harm or not is not based on whether the person intended to cause harm. Also, the person may actually be unaware of harm they are causing. Also, harm may be happening not only to others, but to themselves.

And don’t try to argue that lots of things cause harm and we don’t legislate it, because I would simply say -- I agree. And I am not advocating arresting those who engage in homosexual acts. I am simply arguing they are wrong (immoral). A person is always free to make whatever life choices they wish to make. I’ve never said other wise. My argument is right and wrong exist and my argument is it is always in man’s best interest to do that which is right vs. that which is wrong.



Some argue even if something is wrong – we have the right to do what we want.

Me: I agree. But whether a person has the right to do whatever he chooses has nothing to do with whether it is right or wrong.



Some argue, “you can’t tell a person who they can or cannot love”

Counter: Hogwash! We do it all the time. We tell pedophiles they cannot love children. We tell teachers they cannot love their students. We tell necrophilia’s they cannot love dead people. We tell people they cannot love a person who is already married.



Some argue the only arguments against homosexual acts are religious ones and therefore invalid.

Counter: Wrong. The only arguments against homosexual acts are not religious ones. Homosexual acts are immoral because they violate natural law. The body is being used in a way in which it was not intended. Design and purpose mean something. We all live by these natural laws. We all know necrophilia is wrong. It is disordered. The person is not hurting anyone as you cannot hurt a dead person. Yet we all know such behavior is not right. Some of you have arbitrarily decided to not accept natural law when it comes to homosexual acts. You recognize the disorder in things like pedophilia, necrophilia, and beastiality, yet you choose to not follow the natural order when it comes to homosexual acts. 

Unfortunately, there are often very natural consequences when we use something in a way other then which it was intended. These aren’t always immediate, but often they are. We are all affected by these natural laws whether we want to be or not. It isn’t up to us. I didn’t create them and religion didn’t create them. And nature isn’t making a judgment. It is wise and smart to abide by natural law and it is the only thing that will bring true peace and happiness in life. This isn’t a judgment – it just IS. 



Some argue in therapy, if the client expresses that they are homosexual, or that they are inclined to homosexual desires, then there is nothing wrong with that. 


Me: Well, you’re half right. It may not be something they can help and it may not be something that is their fault, and it may even be something that can never be changed. However, this realization does not mean therefore it is right (ok) to engage in homosexual acts. You are making a huge assumption here. I may have the desire to murder my husband. My desire and “feelings” do not determine morality. Right and wrong exists outside of our “feelings”. Feelings come and go. Feelings change. Truth is constant

It also does not mean anyone should judge or condemn a person who has same-sex feelings or make them feel ashamed to be struggling with this difficulty. You are assuming that telling a person homosexual acts are immoral is harmful and mean. I would say quite the opposite – it would be more harmful to not tell your patient the truth.


Some, continuing to bring religion back into the debate argue . . .  How is it that the church could possibly know that discouraging a homosexual lifestyle would be in the best interest of a person?

First of all it isn’t simply the Church which can know such. Anyone can know such -- through logic, observation, facts, science, and right reason. Male and female were designed to fit together. The body has a purpose/function. If man wants the best out of life – he remains true to these natural laws. Design means something. Quite honestly, it is foolish to argue otherwise. You have every right to deny truth, but it is never in your best interest to do so.

To argue that it makes one happy and does no harm is an opinion that has no basis on facts. Science shows us that when you put a part of the body into another part of the body for which it was not intended – there are negative consequences It is a fact that AIDS is much higher in the homosexual community than heterosexual. If one actually accepted this observation, he or she might then want to look into why that might be? And if the person was smart, he or she would not choose to engage in behavior that has been shown to not be in their best interest.


The fact that the world works in a certain way and has an order is not an opinion, nor is it a judgment. The fact that promiscuous people (whether hetero or homo) are more likely to contract a sexually transmitted disease is not punishment from some “god” nor is it a judgment of them as a person. The truth is the body doesn’t really care if you are the sweetest person in the world. Nor does the body care that you really really like having multiple sex partners and believe monogamy is a silly outdated concept. The body is simply reacting. Do people have the right to sleep around as much as they like? Yes. Is it a smart decision? No. One could certainly make the argument that it is up to the individual to make the choices he makes, but to ignore the facts that promiscuity has very real negative consequences means something. It’s ignorant and delusional to deny these most obvious observations.


One can also observe in life that sexual intercourse has a procreative function. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to make such an astute observation. To deny the procreative purpose of sex again is to not be a very careful observer of life.



Always amazes me when people try to claim a Christian ignores the facts – that a Christian doesn’t listen to science – they simply believe the things they do because their god told them such. HA! I think you might have that a little backwards. Believing it is ok to engage in homosexual acts ignores the message from the world around us. A person who believes such wants to determine his own truth regardless of the facts. It’s irrational and delusional. Atheists are unaware of their own narrow mindedness. Their very worldview is more limiting not less because they are deluded enough to believe they can cheat nature. They are arrogant enough to think they know better and ignorant enough to believe that. 




There you have it folks. Your arguments are arbitrary and pretty much come down to “yeah, well you can’t tell a person what to do – it’s mean!”

But as I pointed out, one can determine things from observing natural cause and effect. I am using a scientific knowledge of action and reaction to discover this truth regarding homosexual acts.

Our love and sense of community leads us to value the life and the welfare of others. If we really valued these things, we would respect the natural moral order that exists. The ramifications of not doing so are not in our own or society’s best interest. 

In other words, religion is not a necessary condition for ethics or morality. Honesty and truth are. Observation is. Science is. Logic is. Reason is.  And even that innate common sense inherent in our very being is. One could argue (and I’m sure some of you atheists agree) morality is an inborn human attribute! This “goodness” is not necessarily a gift of a deity. The standards of conduct, which we accept as right and good, flows naturally from our very being. We innately know it is wrong to steal or take the life of another. In fact, we humans, as a defense mechanism, have to psychologically lie to ourselves about certain things to make it bearable were we to violate the natural moral order we all know to be true. (For example we have to tell ourselves the baby is just a blob of tissue. There is no other way to rationalize such cruelty).


Knowing what we know regarding how the world works and listening to our innate sense of right and wrong, one could only conclude that homosexual acts are immoral. As citizens in a free society we have the freedom and obligation to speak out about ideas and behaviors that are not in the best interest of the individual, or our society. I am exercising this right.

And if you wonder how I can argue our knowledge of right and wrong is innate and yet many of you do not reognize this truth regarding homosexual acts, I would simply say because one of the biggest tragedies of our times has been the erosion of our consciences and the loss of our sense of right and wrong. Although we can all recognize right from wrong/good from bad, it is also possible to decieve ourselves. To buy into the twisted truth that comes at us from the culture today. We can all know right from wrong, but suppress it and choose to ignore it because it may be easier or more comfortable to do so.
Much is justified under the “My body. My right” mantra, even though as I have stated earlier, just because we have a right to do something – doesn’t mean it’s right.


Now I realzie some of you will now try to argue that morality is not innate – it is culturally determined. To that I post from

From www.powertochange.ie/questions/qna6.html


“Surveys tell us that most people in Western society claim to be moral relativists; that is, they claim that what is right for one person is not necessarily right for another. But it is very easy to say there are no objective or absolute moral principles. It is much more difficult, however, to live as if there are none.

The way we live, our behaviour and the way we respond when people treat us, the judgements we make when other people are mistreated-these things reveal what we really believe about right and wrong. For example, we believe it was morally wrong for the Nazis to torture and kill six million Jews during World War II. But we not only think it is wrong, we think everyone should agree that it is wrong. This is not to say that something is wrong just because everyone agrees it is wrong. There is a logical possibility that we are mistaken and it is just our cultural conditioning that tells us these things are wrong. This may be a logical possibility, but is it very likely that our deepest intuitions about this matter could be mistaken? That would mean torturing people is not really wrong; we just think it is. But if this basic intuition is wrong, that is, if it is merely the result of cultural conditioning, could it be possible that our other basic beliefs and intuitions, such as our belief in cultural conditioning, are also the result of this same conditioning process? If so, it seems this line of reasoning is self-refuting. It fails its own test.”

www.powertochange.ie/questions/qna6.html


www.newmediaministries.org/Morality/EthicsSection_S.html


Response to: "All morality is culturally determined
and is therefore relative, not absolute."
by Gary C. Burger, MDiv

Let's play a medley of criticisms we hear from the cultural relativists:

"Who are you to impose your moral values on someone else?"

"Who are you to say another's values are wrong?"

Let's put the cultural relativist on the spot. If the challenger is logically consistent he should agree with the following statements:
·   
Blacks should never have been given civil rights in America because that was imposing the ideals of moral reformers like Martin Luther King, Jr. on the culture.
·   

We should respect other cultures for oppressing women through female circumcision, widow-burning, or the burdensome dowry system.
·   

We should not condemn abortions and infanticide in India and China performed to discriminate against female babies.
·   

We should not have interfered with Hitler's plan to conqueror Europe and kill all the Jews.

I could go on ad nauseum, but hopefully this is all anyone needs to see the hypocrisy and double standard necessary to teach and practice cultural relativism.

Do you still believe that we don't have the right to impose good values on another culture?

www.newmediaministries.org/Morality/EthicsSection_S.html


.   - Johnson : Do Objective Moral Standards Exist in the World Today ...

   www.quodlibet.net/johnson-morality.shtml - Cached




Well, I’m sure I will now be scolded for “preaching” and I doubt there is much left to say anyway. I have a feeling the only think you can come back with is I have no proof that a natural moral order exists. This of course always makes me laugh. No. I have no proof – at least not proof that would suffice most of you. Nor could I prove to you the grass is green or the sky is blue . . .

[subtleinspiration]

Some of you have argued homosexuality is found in nature. Counter: Irrelevant Guess what else is found in nature? Some animals eat their own young. Some animals kill their partner after mating. Just because something is found in nature is not always an indication it’s good or bad/right or wrong.

The bible actually doesn't forbid eating your own young (just don't boil a kid in its own mother's milk) and obviously the who "don't kill" commandment is subjective, so the first is not a sin, and the second depends on the circumstances.

Some of you argue homosexual acts do not hurt anyone and therefore are ok. Counter: You are making the assumption no one gets hurt from homosexual acts. What are you basing such an assumption on? Whether something causes harm or not is not based on whether the person intended to cause harm. Also, the person may actually be unaware of harm they are causing. Also, harm may be happening not only to others, but to themselves.

With that logic, heterosexual sex of any kind should also be considered immoral, because its practice could hurt someone within the right circumstances, not even counting rape.

Some argue, “you can’t tell a person who they can or cannot love”. Counter: Hogwash! We do it all the time. We tell pedophiles they cannot love children. We tell teachers they cannot love their students. We tell necrophilia’s they cannot love dead people. We tell people they cannot love a person who is already married.

First, neither pedophilia or neophilia is actually a sin, strictly speaking. We also don't tell people they cannot love someone who is already married. There are barely any laws against adultery anymore, and even if there are, they are rarely enforced.

Some argue the only arguments against homosexual acts are religious ones and therefore invalid. Counter: Wrong. The only arguments against homosexual acts are not religious ones. Homosexual acts are immoral because they violate natural law. The body is being used in a way in which it was not intended.

And the reason you claim to know in what way the body was intended is strictly from a religious POV. FAIL.

Design and purpose mean something.

They mean nothing because you are using your own biases to see design and purpose. You have no biological education to make an informed decision on this topic, merely relying on the fact that you already have an established bias and that you find the idea of anal sex to be "icky".

We all live by these natural laws.

You invalidated natural law in your first point.

We all know necrophilia is wrong. It is disordered.

Necrophilia has nothing at all with natural law. We find it distasteful because of the whole "being dead" deal that we have a hard time with. I think we should be respectful of the dead, and that necrophilia speaks to emotional/mental issues (i.e. a desire to have sex with something that can never consent), but it's hardly against "natural law".

The person is not hurting anyone as you cannot hurt a dead person. Yet we all know such behavior is not right.

Again, it's not that it's not right, it's just highly distasteful and disrespectful as no consent can be given.

Some of you have arbitrarily decided to not accept natural law when it comes to homosexual acts.

HELLO? Hello? Is anyone home? Think, McFly, THINK! You just squashed the idea of natural law in your opening argument! Did you forget already?

You recognize the disorder in things like pedophilia, necrophilia, and beastiality, yet you choose to not follow the natural order when it comes to homosexual acts. 

There is no disorder there. And again, of the three, only bestiality is a sin. And if homosexual acts occur in animals, then how can you saw that we're not following the "natural order" when it comes to allowing homosexuality?

Unfortunately, there are often very natural consequences when we use something in a way other then which it was intended.

Like?

[jedweber]

...you are ignoring that the person’s same-sex attraction could actually be the symptom of a bigger problem (perhaps a sexual identity problem due to childhood abuse or dysfunction).

Fine. Let's concede that some individuals have larger issues involving problems with their sexual identity. Wouldn't you also agree that some homosexual people are happy, healthy, well-adjusted and simply living life in accordance with the way they were created? (Or at least the hand they were dealt, early in life, through no fault or choice of their own?)

What about all the gay people who weren't abused, aren't dysfunctional, don't have deep-rooted sexual identity problems? There would appear to be many of them. Are you denying the existence of such people, or wishing them away, because their existence doesn't jibe with the dogma you adhere to?

By isolating and defining a human being based on his/her sexual orientation, you are not looking at the whole person.

But you seem to be denying that ANY gay person can be a healthy, whole person, simply because they are gay. So YOU are defining these people based solely on their sexual orientation, and doing exactly what you condemn.

[PinkMilk]

Counter: Irrelevant Guess what else is found in nature? Some animals eat their own young. Some animals kill their partner after mating.

Just because something is found in nature is not always an indication it’s good or bad/right or wrong.

You're right.  There are also things we do that aren't found in nature though.  So nature in and of itself isn't the basis of morality.  However when you say things such as "it is unnatural" or "violates the natural moral order" many people take that to mean you are referencing nature.  This is not the first time you've made comments references nature or natural and not really meant nature or natural.  Perhaps you should change the way you word your viewpoints to prevent this confusion.

Counter: You are making the assumption no one gets hurt from homosexual acts. What are you basing such an assumption on?

I base this statement on the fact that it is two consenting adults who have chosen to participate in sexual activity.  It does not cause harm to any one involved, and it does not cause harm to their neighbors, their community, etc.  Sex is sex rather it is heterosexual or homosexual.  And when it is between two consenting adults it does not harm any one.  You do not hold heterosexual sex to this same standard.

Whether something causes harm or not is not based on whether the person intended to cause harm. Also, the person may actually be unaware of harm they are causing. Also, harm may be happening not only to others, but to themselves.

First, how does sex, rather heterosexual or homosexual, cause harm to others?  Second, the sex itself doesn't physically harm people.  Can sex lead to emotional damage? Of course, but this can happen to anyone.  The feelings can be dealt with and eventually people will be able to work past that. 

My argument is right and wrong exist and my argument is it is always in man’s best interest to do that which is right vs. that which is wrong.

You are also assuming that your version of right and wrong is correct and that it is the end all be all to right and wrong.

Counter: Hogwash! We do it all the time. We tell pedophiles they cannot love children. We tell teachers they cannot love their students. We tell necrophilia’s they cannot love dead people. We tell people they cannot love a person who is already married.

That is because there is a difference.  Homosexual sex is between two consenting partners, otherwise it is called rape.  Pedophiles are told they can't love children because children are not a consenting partner either.  Necrophiliacs are also in some ways having sex with an unwilling participant, not to mention that most people would consider it is disrespectful to the loved ones who are left behind grieving.   There are reasons why certain things are wrong and/or frowned upon.

Counter: Wrong. The only arguments against homosexual acts are not religious ones. Homosexual acts are immoral because they violate natural law.

While I know that there are those who are not religious who are against homosexuality, they tend to be homophobic.  How many people outside of the religious community have you ever heard argue for a natural law?

The body is being used in a way in which it was not intended. Design and purpose mean something.

First of all you are assuming that the body is designed for certain things and not for others. You are making several claims in your counter arguments that you are just assuming to be true.  The problem with your counter arguments is that they are based on false assertions, or at least assertions that you have not/can not prove.

We all live by these natural laws. We all know necrophilia is wrong. It is disordered. The person is not hurting anyone as you cannot hurt a dead person.

But you can harm the grieving family members.

Yet we all know such behavior is not right. Some of you have arbitrarily decided to not accept natural law when it comes to homosexual acts. You recognize the disorder in things like pedophilia, necrophilia, and beastiality, yet you choose to not follow the natural order when it comes to homosexual acts. 

I do not accept your natural law though at all.  While there may be certain aspects of it that I can agree with, it does not mean that I agree with the reasonings behind it or other aspects of what you claim to be natural law. 

Unfortunately, there are often very natural consequences when we use something in a way other then which it was intended. These aren’t always immediate, but often they are. We are all affected by these natural laws whether we want to be or not. It isn’t up to us. I didn’t create them and religion didn’t create them. And nature isn’t making a judgment. It is wise and smart to abide by natural law and it is the only thing that will bring true peace and happiness in life. This isn’t a judgment – it just IS. 

So what are the consequences of natural law in regards to homosexual acts? 

Me: Well, you’re half right. It may not be something they can help and it may not be something that is their fault, and it may even be something that can never be changed.

Wow.  The ignorance in this statement actually made my jaw drop. 

However, this realization does not mean therefore it is right (ok) to engage in homosexual acts. You are making a huge assumption here. I may have the desire to murder my husband. My desire and “feelings” do not determine morality. Right and wrong exists outside of our “feelings”. Feelings come and go. Feelings change. Truth is constant

Of course feelings don't determine if something is right or wrong.  The feelings that a homosexual has for their partner at one point in time may change, but the homosexuality still lies under it all.  You have to realize that there is a huge difference between wanting to murder someone and homosexuality.  Murder harms another person and robs them of their most prized possession, life.  You have yet to prove how homosexual acts harm anyone.

It also does not mean anyone should judge or condemn a person who has same-sex feelings or make them feel ashamed to be struggling with this difficulty. You are assuming that telling a person homosexual acts are immoral is harmful and mean. I would say quite the opposite – it would be more harmful to not tell your patient the truth.

It is mean and it can be harmful.  Many homosexuals have to struggle with familial pressure and already struggle with their homosexuality internally because of societal pressures.  The last thing that they need to hear from anyone, especially from the religious and homophobic communities that their sexual orientation is wrong. 

First of all it isn’t simply the Church which can know such. Anyone can know such -- through logic, observation, facts, science, and right reason. Male and female were designed to fit together. The body has a purpose/function. If man wants the best out of life – he remains true to these natural laws. Design means something. Quite honestly, it is foolish to argue otherwise. You have every right to deny truth, but it is never in your best interest to do so.

You're right, the penis and vagina were designed to fit together, however it does not mean that they have only one purpose/function.  There are people who are heterosexual who do not use them for their "intended purpose".  So your argument falls apart.  What observation, facts, science, and reason would lead you to believe that your opinion is correct?

To argue that it makes one happy and does no harm is an opinion that has no basis on facts.

This is actually directly observable.   It has it's basis in reality. 

Science shows us that when you put a part of the body into another part of the body for which it was not intended – there are negative consequences It is a fact that AIDS is much higher in the homosexual community than heterosexual. If one actually accepted this observation, he or she might then want to look into why that might be? And if the person was smart, he or she would not choose to engage in behavior that has been shown to not be in their best interest.

Two things about this.  First an individual must first have HIV/AIDS in order to transmit it to another human being.  The reason it spread higher through the homosexual community was due to two things.  Drug use in the homosexual community, especially during the 80's was higher by population than in the heterosexual community.  Second it is more easily spread through anal sex because it can often lead to ruptured blood vessels that allow it to seep into the blood stream.  This is also the result of not using protection.  So the answer isn't that the homosexual act is bad, it's about taking precautions.  Using protection, knowing if your partner is infected, etc. 

The fact that the world works in a certain way and has an order is not an opinion, nor is it a judgment. The fact that promiscuous people (whether hetero or homo) are more likely to contract a sexually transmitted disease is not punishment from some “god” nor is it a judgment of them as a person. The truth is the body doesn’t really care if you are the sweetest person in the world. Nor does the body care that you really really like having multiple sex partners and believe monogamy is a silly outdated concept. The body is simply reacting.

STD's just don't pop up because someone has sex with multiple partners. STD's are not the body's reaction to sex, they are diseases.  It is the result of carelessness on the participants.

 Do people have the right to sleep around as much as they like? Yes. Is it a smart decision? No. One could certainly make the argument that it is up to the individual to make the choices he makes, but to ignore the facts that promiscuity has very real negative consequences means something. It’s ignorant and delusional to deny these most obvious observations.

Promiscuity in and of itself doesn't have consequences.  Carelessness about taking precautions when participating in sexual acts does.

One can also observe in life that sexual intercourse has a procreative function. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to make such an astute observation. To deny the procreative purpose of sex again is to not be a very careful observer of life.

Of course there is a procreation aspect to sex.  Sex is how we reproduce.  However it is not the sole purpose.  To not acknowledge this is not a careful observation of life.

There you have it folks. Your arguments are arbitrary and pretty much come down to “yeah, well you can’t tell a person what to do – it’s mean!”

Your arguments are all based on assumptions that you can not back up.  You continually reference things as if there is only one purpose for which anything is meant to be used.  Any variation is "wrong".  Your claims are based around things that are easily broken down and you haven't even proven the basis of your assertions to be true before using them.

But as I pointed out, one can determine things from observing natural cause and effect. I am using a scientific knowledge of action and reaction to discover this truth regarding homosexual acts.

You have only listed things that are possible effects.  They do not happen all the time, and are not solely the results of homosexual activities nor are they based on the fact that someone is homosexual and participates in homosexual acts.

[subtleinspiration]

I think the root of Agent40s argument can be simplified to this:

"When I imagine two men having sex, I find it icky!"

[Agent40]

I think the root of Agent40s argument can be simplified to this:

"When I imagine two men having sex, I find it icky!"

Gee, that’s so original. Yeah, all christians are prudes and sexually repressed. I’ve heard it all before – makes me laugh every time. I didn’t once mention that homosexual acts were disgusting or vulgar or gross. I merely stated they violate the natural moral order. Good job, however, in dismissing an argument with a prejudiced stereotype, based on nothing I said. I guess I’m not surprised – obviously, that’s all you got!

[Agent40]

Tell me Pinkmilk, what did you think of the personal testimonies of those homosexuals who sing the praises of getting out of their previous homosexual lifestyle? Are they not considered success stories? Tell me, how does psychology determine successful treatment?

Pinkmilk: success is determined when the desired result of the client is achieved.

Thank you. Nothing further your honor.

There are reasons why certain things are wrong and/or frowned upon.

You’re right -- there are. Thank you.

There are people who are heterosexual who do not use them for their "intended purpose".  So your argument falls apart

Sorry, my argument is still intact, as I believe people who engage in heterosexual acts that do not follow intended purpose are wrong as well.

Promiscuity in and of itself doesn't have consequences.  Carelessness about taking precautions when participating in sexual acts does

.


Huh? This is an ignorant comment. Of course, promiscuity in and of itself has consequences and is always wrong, whether a person takes “precautions” or not. (Your comment is like trying to say . . .  the reason I got pregnant has nothing to do with the fact that I had sex – I got pregnant because I didn’t have a condom. LOL!)

Also, you must not be familiar with this information . . .

From en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_papillomavi

"The researchers concluded that among newly sexually active women, consistent condom use by their partners appears to reduce the risk of cervical and vulvovaginal HPV infection, but the probability of sexually active women contracting HPV, was not reduced to a safe level.[70] If a college woman has at least one different partner per year for four years, the probability that she will leave college with an HPV infection is greater than 85 percent.[70] Condoms do not protect from the virus because the areas around the genitals including the inner thigh area are not covered, thus exposing these areas to the infected person’s skin.[70]"

Huh? What kind of precautions you gonna take for that Pinkmilk?


From health.rutgers.edu/HPV/default.htm

·   HPV infection is extremely common.
- It is estimated that at any given time 20-40 million Americans are infected.
- Over a typical college career approximately 60% of sexually active women will become infected.  While it is assumed that a similar number of men are also infected, there are no good statistics as it is harder to test for HPV in men than women.
·   Cancer of the cervix is almost always caused by HPV infection (high risk strains).
·   Since HPV is transmitted by close genital contact, condoms provide some, but  imperfect, protection against infection.
·   There is no test that can guarantee that anyone (particularly men) are not infected with HPV.
·   HPV infection is particularly serious in those with an immune disorder (e.g. HIV/AIDS)
·   HPV can be contracted by one person, cause absolutely no symptoms, and, months or years later, be transmitted to a new partner.

Second it is more easily spread through anal sex because it can often lead to ruptured blood vessels that allow it to seep into the blood stream.

Exactly.



Oh, Pinkmilk, you believe there is nothing intrinsically wrong about homosexual acts, huh? Just like there is nothing intrinsically wrong about pornography, right? You are blind Pink. You fail to value the human person. You want to support/engage in behavior that is beneath a person’s dignity. And then you insist others (who know better) to call it dignified.

You attempt to argue that homosexual acts must be ok because it is between two consenting adults. This is the only argument your side has and yet it fails. Because whether two consenting adults agree to something or not has nothing to do with whether it is right or wrong.

If two consenting adults were already married, but agreed to have an affair, this would still be immoral. It doesn’t matter if their spouses are jerks. It doesn’t matter if they really “love” each other, or whatever. It would always be wrong.

Also, two consenting adults could be brother and sister and yet no one has a problem telling them it is wrong for them to have sexual relations.

A teacher and a student could both be consenting adults and yet it is wrong (immoral) for them to have sex while they have a student/teacher relationship.


You tell me I have failed in showing that homosexual acts are wrong. But you have failed to show even one valid reason why they are ok.

I realize we have different views, but you have reminded me once again how far away you are from truth. 

I will most likely have to leave it at that – as your side gets very upset when someone presents reasonable, logical arguments and they only have their “feelings” to insist upon.

[subtleinspiration]

Good job, however, in dismissing an argument with a prejudiced stereotype, based on nothing I said. I guess I’m not surprised – obviously, that’s all you got!

The stereotype is based on your ridiculous "natural order" argument. Plus, it's not all I've got, you just haven't bothered to respond to me in my previous substantive post. Mock me all you want, but your personal bias against a particular sexual act is plain to all.

Sorry, my argument is still intact, as I believe people who engage in heterosexual acts that do not follow intended purpose are wrong as well.

That's not an argument. That's a personal issue. You can not prove that homosexual acts don't follow some intended purpose, and the very evidence that this is not the case is that animals engage in it as well. If it's not the intended purpose to have homosexual relations, why do animals engage in it? And what exactly is this intended purpose of which you speak? Procreation? I wouldn't travel down that route if I were you because we've already beaten that horse.

Of course, promiscuity in and of itself has consequences and is always wrong, whether a person takes “precautions” or not.

Wrong again. Promiscuity is not "wrong" outside of the bible, and that's all you have to say it is wrong. If you are promiscuous day in and day out, and never transmit an STD and never get anyone pregnant, then what exactly are your consequences? And please don't bring up "emotional harm" because, not only is that ridiculous, but I was causing that way before I ever had sex when I would break up with a girl who wanted to be with me.

Also, you must not be familiar with this information . . .

"The researchers concluded that among newly sexually active women, consistent condom use by their partners appears to reduce the risk of cervical and vulvovaginal HPV infection, but the probability of sexually active women contracting HPV, was not reduced to a safe level.[70] If a college woman has at least one different partner per year for four years, the probability that she will leave college with an HPV infection is greater than 85 percent.[70] Condoms do not protect from the virus because the areas around the genitals including the inner thigh area are not covered, thus exposing these areas to the infected person’s skin.[70]"

Huh? What kind of precautions you gonna take for that Pinkmilk?

Hey Miss Quoteminer, you should have researched a little further.

If two consenting adults were already married, but agreed to have an affair, this would still be immoral. It doesn’t matter if their spouses are jerks. It doesn’t matter if they really “love” each other, or whatever. It would always be wrong.

How would this be immoral?

Also, two consenting adults could be brother and sister and yet no one has a problem telling them it is wrong for them to have sexual relations.

But not for Abraham and Sarah, huh?

A teacher and a student could both be consenting adults and yet it is wrong (immoral) for them to have sex while they have a student/teacher relationship.

That's a social more as opposed to being "immoral" in a naturalistic sense.

You tell me I have failed in showing that homosexual acts are wrong. But you have failed to show even one valid reason why they are ok.

The burden of proof is on you.

[jedweber]

You tell me I have failed in showing that homosexual acts are wrong. But you have failed to show even one valid reason why they are ok.

"Homosexual acts" are not "good" in and of themselves. They may be a good part of the lives of homosexual people. You are dehumanizing these people when you define them by a sexual act.

You didn't answer my question above. Do you deny that ANY gay person can be a happy, healthy, well-adjusted "whole person"?

[One Above All]

I think the root of Agent40s argument can be simplified to this:

"When I imagine two men having sex, I find it icky!"

Gee, that’s so original. Yeah, all christians are prudes and sexually repressed. I’ve heard it all before – makes me laugh every time. I didn’t once mention that homosexual acts were disgusting or vulgar or gross. I merely stated they violate the natural moral order. Good job, however, in dismissing an argument with a prejudiced stereotype, based on nothing I said. I guess I’m not surprised – obviously, that’s all you got!

what about gay animals? god made them

[Onesimus]

I can't possibly begin to address every single one of Agent40's points; there are just too many and I literally don't have time.  Fortunately, it's not a big deal.  Despite the fact that you'll find nothing but criticism of homosexuality in Agent40's posts, my life isn't suffering from any of the various maladies listed in these impenetrably long posts.  My life isn't a bowl of cherries, and much remains to be done, but my issues are all career-related and have nothing to do with my sexuality.  

But I find this interesting enough to point out...

Male and female were designed to fit together. The body has a purpose/function. If man wants the best out of life – he remains true to these natural laws.

I find this the most dangerous idea, because it would suggest that the best thing for a homosexual man to do is marry a woman.  From decades of observation, I have to say that this rarely works, and only then when the woman doesn't have a strong need for physical affection (and, to my surprise, there seem to be women who fit into this subset).  Otherwise it's a recipe for misery, and is patently unfair to the women involved.  

Marriage isn't a cure for homosexuality; it's more like a magnifying glass for it.

[PinkMilk]

Thank you. Nothing further your honor.

You say that as if what I said proves your point.  When in fact it actually does quite the opposite.

You’re right -- there are. Thank you.

And it's not the reasons that you state. 

Sorry, my argument is still intact, as I believe people who engage in heterosexual acts that do not follow intended purpose are wrong as well.

I bet you yelled at all the children in preschool who tried to put the circle peg through the square hole.  You have to prove an intended purpose first. 

Huh? This is an ignorant comment. Of course, promiscuity in and of itself has consequences and is always wrong, whether a person takes “precautions” or not. (Your comment is like trying to say . . .  the reason I got pregnant has nothing to do with the fact that I had sex – I got pregnant because I didn’t have a condom. LOL!)

Actually it's not.  Obviously it is the act of sex that allows the transmission of disease, but it is not promiscuity that directly leads to it.  It is carelessness while having sex. But I don't expect you to agree as you are against birth control in all it's forms (except NFP, which IS still birth control).  All you have managed to do is to twist my argument to make it say what you want.  If someone knows they have an STD then they have a certain responsibility to their partners.  It's called being mature.  As someone's partner, it is also the mature thing to inquire about such things first.  Naturally taking precautions follows.  Do some promiscuous people not follow safety guidelines, of course, but the majority do.

Also, you must not be familiar with this information . . .

From en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_papillomavi

"The researchers concluded that among newly sexually active women, consistent condom use by their partners appears to reduce the risk of cervical and vulvovaginal HPV infection, but the probability of sexually active women contracting HPV, was not reduced to a safe level.[70] If a college woman has at least one different partner per year for four years, the probability that she will leave college with an HPV infection is greater than 85 percent.[70] Condoms do not protect from the virus because the areas around the genitals including the inner thigh area are not covered, thus exposing these areas to the infected person’s skin.[70]"

Huh? What kind of precautions you gonna take for that Pinkmilk?

HPV can be spread through more than just sex.  It can be spread through sharing a toilet seat with someone who has HPV.  Not to mention that there are dozens of varieties of HPV.  So again, making yourself knowledgeable about those whom you live with, those you sleep with, etc. will help you to take precautions. Plus as a female you can actually vaccinate yourself against HPV.

From health.rutgers.edu/HPV/default.htm

·   HPV infection is extremely common.
- It is estimated that at any given time 20-40 million Americans are infected.
- Over a typical college career approximately 60% of sexually active women will become infected.  While it is assumed that a similar number of men are also infected, there are no good statistics as it is harder to test for HPV in men than women.
·   Cancer of the cervix is almost always caused by HPV infection (high risk strains).
·   Since HPV is transmitted by close genital contact, condoms provide some, but  imperfect, protection against infection.
·   There is no test that can guarantee that anyone (particularly men) are not infected with HPV.
·   HPV infection is particularly serious in those with an immune disorder (e.g. HIV/AIDS)
·   HPV can be contracted by one person, cause absolutely no symptoms, and, months or years later, be transmitted to a new partner.

This is all true, however it leaves out a great deal of the facts.  Also you should probably note that when women are tested for HPV, they are always asked if they are sexually active.  Most women in college are.  This does not mean that the sexual act transmitted the disease to them. 

Oh, Pinkmilk, you believe there is nothing intrinsically wrong about homosexual acts, huh? Just like there is nothing intrinsically wrong about pornography, right? You are blind Pink.

Because there isn't.  You have yet to prove that the basis for all of your arguments is true.  Without that your assertions are based on false principles. 

You fail to value the human person.

I value people a great deal.  I believe that human life is one's ultimate possession.  I also value a person's individual rights.  This is something that you see no problem stomping on in favor of your unproven basis.

You want to support/engage in behavior that is beneath a person’s dignity. And then you insist others (who know better) to call it dignified.

Prey tell, how is sex below a person's dignity?  Sex is part of living. 

You attempt to argue that homosexual acts must be ok because it is between two consenting adults. This is the only argument your side has and yet it fails. Because whether two consenting adults agree to something or not has nothing to do with whether it is right or wrong.

That is not the only argument.  You have claimed that it hurts people.  You have not proven this.  The argument that it is between two consenting adults was a rebuttal to your comparison of homosexual activity with pedophilia, necrophilia, and bestiality. 

If two consenting adults were already married, but agreed to have an affair, this would still be immoral. It doesn’t matter if their spouses are jerks. It doesn’t matter if they really “love” each other, or whatever. It would always be wrong.

Now this situation depends on how you mean.  If there are two couples, A and B, and the man from marriage A agrees to have an affair with the woman from marriage B without the other spouses knowing, then I do think that is wrong.  It will be very hurtful to the spouses who believe they are in a monogamous relationship.  However if you mean that there is a married couple who decides that they want to swing, then there is nothing wrong with that. I personally would never participate in such a thing, but that doesn't make it wrong.

Also, two consenting adults could be brother and sister and yet no one has a problem telling them it is wrong for them to have sexual relations.

The biggest reasons against incest are medical.  When family have children together the medical complications that can occur any offspring produced through sexual activity is exponentially greater than two unrelated individuals.  The list increases greatly the more closely related the two are.  You really have no idea why society says that certain things are bad do you? 

A teacher and a student could both be consenting adults and yet it is wrong (immoral) for them to have sex while they have a student/teacher relationship.

It is not wrong/immoral, it is simply unethical. It is part of the teacher's ethical code that they are not to participate in sexual relations with their students.  It does not make it wrong. 

You tell me I have failed in showing that homosexual acts are wrong. But you have failed to show even one valid reason why they are ok.

My reasons are more than valid.  You fail to see the validity in them because you are so attached to your unfounded belief in "natural moral order".

I realize we have different views, but you have reminded me once again how far away you are from truth. 

Agent40...truth...PinkMilk

I will most likely have to leave it at that – as your side gets very upset when someone presents reasonable, logical arguments and they only have their “feelings” to insist upon.

You will have to leave it at that because you have nothing further to offer, other than misrepresented quotemines, an unfounded basis, and a lack of understanding of how homosexuality is different than other behaviors that are frowned upon, not to mention that you don't even know why those things are frowned upon.  My arguments are not based on feelings at all.  And I personally will not get upset at your attempts to explain why you are right.  However you must first prove that the basis of your argument is true for anything you say to be remotely true.  You must prove that there is in fact a natural moral order, you must prove that things only have one intended purpose, etc. 

[William]

But I find this interesting enough to point out...

Male and female were designed to fit together. The body has a purpose/function. If man wants the best out of life – he remains true to these natural laws.

I find this the most dangerous idea, because it would suggest that the best thing for a homosexual man to do is marry a woman.  From decades of observation, I have to say that this rarely works, and only then when the woman doesn't have a strong need for physical affection (and, to my surprise, there seem to be women who fit into this subset). Otherwise it's a recipe for misery, and is patently unfair to the women involved.  

Marriage isn't a cure for homosexuality; it's more like a magnifying glass for it.

Exactly right Onesimus!!  Dear friends of mine ended their marriage when the husband eventually came to terms with his sexuality.  The husband, despite loving the wife as a companion of many years, has done the right thing and is now at last leading a life that includes sexual honesty and fulfillment.  The wife had her life shattered.  Such a marriage would never have occurred without social/religious pressures to conform.  

Sexual expression is a spectrum, it's complex and multi-factorial, influenced by both hereditary and environmental factors beyond the control of the individual.  There are no black and white answers - no plain vanilla solutions.  So forcing people into heterosexual conformity may work in a few instances but for many it will end in tears.   All people need is acceptance, not judgment.

[Pastafarian]

BM

[Agent40]

Hey Miss Quoteminer, you should have researched a little further.

Perhaps you should have comprehended a little better. It is a fact that HPV’s can be transmitted via skin to skin contact. So unless, you plan to wrap your entire body in latex – your little condom is not full protection. Tell me, do you liberals inform the inquiring teens about that?

what about gay animals? god made them

What about them? We are different than the animals.

P.S. Not that this even matters but, the observation of homosexuality in nature is quite intereresting. Many have gone so far as to claim if same-sex animals pal around – they must be gay. Or they try to say since some male animals are the ones who care for their young – they must be gay. Or if two animals of the same sex rub their feathers against each other – they must be gay. Guess what else? The famous penguins that made all the headlines a few years ago as being “homosexual lovers” have split and are now with females. Go figure. So forgive me if I question the statistics on homosexuality found in the animal kingdom.

Marriage isn't a cure for homosexuality; it's more like a magnifying glass for it.

Couldn’t agree with you more. Not all are meant to marry. I’ve never said otherwise. Living a celibate lifestyle has its rewards.

So forcing people into heterosexual conformity may work in a few instances but for many it will end in tears

I’m sorry, did someone force your friend to marry a woman when he knew he had same-sex feelings?

[Agent40]

I bet you yelled at all the children in preschool who tried to put the circle peg through the square hole.  You have to prove an intended purpose first.

Guess what Pinkmilk, any preschooler who doesn’t eventually learn that a round peg is made for a round hole, will probably have quite a few problems in life. And isn’t it interesting that naturally children would come to discover on their own that it is best to put a square peg in a square hole. So smart those innocent little tykes.

If someone knows they have an STD then they have a certain responsibility to their partners.  It's called being mature

You didn’t read my link regarding HPV’s very well, did you? Most people that have hpv don’t even know they have it. And even when they do condems cannot provide full protection. The disease can be spread via skin to skin contact in the surrounding area. Now what Pinkmilk? Will you concede that the responsible thing to do would be to not engage in sex?

Plus as a female you can actually vaccinate yourself against HPV.

Yet another ignorant comment. HPV vaccines do NOT protect against all strains  -- in fact, not even close. Why not share that important information Pink? You guys never really read the fine print from all your coveted CDC, AMA, and WHO organizations, do you? 

I personally would never participate in such a thing, but that doesn't make it wrong.

Ahh yes, the “I’m personally opposed to ………, but “

Huh? If it’s not wrong, why are you personally opposed to it?

The biggest reasons against incest are medical.  When family have children together the medical complications that can occur any offspring produced through sexual activity is exponentially greater than two unrelated individuals.  The list increases greatly the more closely related the two are.  You really have no idea why society says that certain things are bad do you? 

Tell me Pinkmilk, what is there a greater chance of?   . . .  that if a brother and sister had sex and their child would have some genetic mutation OR the chance that two homosexual men are more likely to contract AIDS? Can you provide me those statistics? Kinda interesting to argue society is concerned about harm from future genetic problems but not the harm from spread of AIDS.

See Pink, I think it is you who really have no idea why society says what it says, do you?

It is not wrong/immoral, it is simply unethical

It’s not wrong to be unethical?

[Agent40]

You tell me I have failed in showing that homosexual acts are wrong. But you have failed to show even one valid reason why they are ok.

The burden of proof is on you

Why? It was believed far longer and by far more that homosexual acts are wrong. Why do I now have to accept your opinion that they are not? You are the one challenging the status quo. On what are you basing your position?


Most of you are simply repeating the same questions and I do not have time or feel like continuing to show the holes in your predictable, illogical arguments. Again, why don’t you really think about why it is homosexual acts are fine and get back to me. I’m still waiting on an argument not based on “feelings.” Thanks. Maybe I’ll check back in a couple of months and see what some of you have come up with. Think I’ll hear the same lame arguments that animals do it? Hmmm??? Survey says . . . .

[pianodwarf]

Why? It was believed far longer and by far more that homosexual acts are wrong.

This is a combination of two logical fallacies: the Appeal to Tradition and the Democratic Fallacy.

Again, why don’t you really think about why it is homosexual acts are fine and get back to me.

Because they are acts performed between consenting adults in private.  Yes, it really is that simple.

[One Above All]

What about them? We are different than the animals.

P.S. Not that this even matters but, the observation of homosexuality in nature is quite intereresting. Many have gone so far as to claim if same-sex animals pal around – they must be gay. Or they try to say since some male animals are the ones who care for their young – they must be gay. Or if two animals of the same sex rub their feathers against each other – they must be gay. Guess what else? The famous penguins that made all the headlines a few years ago as being “homosexual lovers” have split and are now with females. Go figure. So forgive me if I question the statistics on homosexuality found in the animal kingdom.

i actually mean two male animals having sex with each other. like in our species, it's not a choice
we are different but were made by the same "all loving god" so god made homosexuals
btw, where did you read that the penguins have split and are with females? source now

[Zankuu]

What about them? We are different than the animals.

We are animals.

[Agent40]

Because they are acts performed between consenting adults in private.  Yes, it really is that simple.

   

Not really. As I have already posted, there are a great number of things we tell two consenting adults they are not allowed to engage in. I believe your fallacy is that just because two people choose to do something – it must be right. YAre you guilty here of the "democratic fallacy"? – whether something is right or not has nothing to do with if two people agree that it is.

i actually mean two male animals having sex with each other. like in our species, it's not a choice

Perhaps. Perhaps not, but the pedophile may argue his sexual attraction to children is not a choice. IOW, it’s irrelevant.

we are different but were made by the same "all loving god" so god made homosexuals

God made those who might suffer from same-sex attraction – yes. However, it has never been shown that those who have same-sex attraction were in fact born that way. This was not necessarily God's plan and may be a result of environment.

btw, where did you read that the penguins have split and are with females? source now

From www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=2947

"Medved also points out that penguins are also being used in story books for public schools to promote the homosexual agenda to elementary school kids. The book, And Tango Makes Three tells the story of two alleged homosexual penguins in the New York Zoo, who raised a baby penguin as their own. The book, however, doesn’t tell the whole story. Penguins Silo and Roy have turned out not to be homosexuals at all. Silo has mated with a female from San Diego’s Sea World and Roy is currently single at the zoo."

The myth of homosexuality within the animal kingdom is detailed in “The Animal Homosexuality Myth.”


From americansfortruth.com/youth-and-schools/books

"International news stories reported, however, that their partnership proved short-lived: As soon as Scrappy, a sultry, seductive female from San Diego’s Sea World, arrived in their enclosure, Silo instantly took notice, straightened up and mated with the irresistible gal — leaving his guy pal behind (an outcome never described, of course, in the propagandistic story book for kids)."


Gads! Again, I really don’t have time for all this. I really must stop. You guys need to work on your position.  Like I said, I’ll check back in a few months – I think you need a little time.

[Agent40]

Pinkmilk, I wanted to be sure you understood my point regarding incest. You can’t have it both ways. You can’t claim society is opposed to incest for the good of society because genetic problems could arise if related people have a baby together. What if brother and sister wanted to get married and promised to use protection?

If risk to society is a factor, then I am allowed to argue homosexual sex is more dangerous than heterosexual sex.

See? You really don’t even know what you believe or why you believe it. Again your position that homosexual acts are ok doesn’t hold up based on your own logic. Care to try again? Think about for a couple of months. Take all the time you need . . .

[One Above All]

it's not perhaps, perhaps not. its NOT a choice. it's like liking certain kinds of food, you cant CHOOSE to like them

[subtleinspiration]

What if brother and sister wanted to get married and promised to use protection?

No one is predisposed to being sexually attractive to their own sibling. That's like saying you're genetically predisposed to only want to have sex with lounge singers named Laura.

If risk to society is a factor, then I am allowed to argue homosexual sex is more dangerous than heterosexual sex.

Because of the lack of procreation? Please. That would require homosexual numbers far, far greater then we have ever seen.

However, it has never been shown that those who have same-sex attraction were in fact born that way.

It has never been disproven either. But does that even matter? Can't people be allowed to be sexually interested in whoever they will, granted that the object of attraction is able to give consent? Why don't you let people alone and leave them for judgment in your fantasy afterlife?

"Medved also points out that penguins are also being used in story books for public schools to promote the homosexual agenda to elementary school kids. The book, And Tango Makes Three tells the story of two alleged homosexual penguins in the New York Zoo, who raised a baby penguin as their own. The book, however, doesn’t tell the whole story. Penguins Silo and Roy have turned out not to be homosexuals at all. Silo has mated with a female from San Diego’s Sea World and Roy is currently single at the zoo."

Yeah, they were only together for six years.

"International news stories reported, however, that their partnership proved short-lived: As soon as Scrappy, a sultry, seductive female from San Diego’s Sea World, arrived in their enclosure, Silo instantly took notice, straightened up and mated with the irresistible gal — leaving his guy pal behind (an outcome never described, of course, in the propagandistic story book for kids)."

Again, after six years. and Silo left his female after one year.

Gads! Again, I really don’t have time for all this. I really must stop. You guys need to work on your position.

No reason to be smug. You're obviously not as smart as you think you are.

[Azdgari]

Because of the lack of procreation? Please. That would require homosexual numbers far, far greater then we have ever seen.

The same reasoning would also argue against celibacy, an option to which Agent40 has given approval.

[pianodwarf]

Because they are acts performed between consenting adults in private.  Yes, it really is that simple.

   

Not really.

Yes, really.

As I have already posted, there are a great number of things we tell two consenting adults they are not allowed to engage in.

That does not mean that this should be one of them.  That's a non sequitur.  It also used to be illegal for heterosexual couples to engage in oral sex (for that matter, in some states, it still is).  It also used to be illegal for blacks to have sex with whites.  Those laws weren't justifiable by comparison to bans on incest or bestiality, either.  I might also point out, by the way, that homosexual acts are not illegal anymore.

I believe your fallacy is that just because two people choose to do something – it must be right.

No, I believe that if two people choose to do something, it's none of my business.  (Except under highly unusual circumstances that almost never apply.)

YAre you guilty here of the "democratic fallacy"? –

Saying that two people have the right to decide for themselves what to do in their bedroom behind closed doors is not an example of the Democratic Fallacy.  If you believe that, then you might want to read up on what that particular fallacy is.

whether something is right or not has nothing to do with if two people agree that it is.

It does it what they're deciding on is nobody else's business and doesn't affect anyone else.

[jedweber]

You tell me I have failed in showing that homosexual acts are wrong. But you have failed to show even one valid reason why they are ok.

How about as an expression of love between two people in a committed, loving relationship? How is that not ok?

You keep referring to "homosexual acts" as if they exist on their own, in a vacuum, devoid of any context or meaning. A prison rape is a "homosexual act", so is an act of love and affection between two men in Massachusetts who are married to each other. Are you suggesting these are somehow equivalent? Don't you think it's demeaning to gay people to lump these together in the same category?

[Azdgari]

...
Don't you think it's demeaning to gay people to lump these together in the same category?

I think that that's maybe the point, jedweber.

[jedweber]

Something's odd here, Agent 40. Supposedly you're here championing "Christian" values like morality and love. Yet your apparent willingness to demean and disparage gay people belies that.

In your posts, you've likened homosexuality to pedophilia, bestiality, necrophilia, and incest, among other things. You keep referring to gay people in terms of sexually-transmitted diseases and mental disorders. You define them by "homosexual acts," as if these fell into one category with no way to differentiate their worth.

Every single attribute you associate with gay people is negative, you never allow for any positive.

Do you actually know any gay people personally? Did you find them to be disease-ridden, mentally-ill people who subjected you to depraved sexual acts? That's certainly how you seem to be characterizing them.

You cannot bring even yourself to acknowledge the possibility that any gay person can be happy, healthy, well-adjusted or "whole." (I've asked you that several times now.)

Can you not see why your attitude may appear to others to be hateful, even if you try to dress it up as loving?