And how do you feel about Jews who think it wrong to marry outside of their race. And dont tell me it has to do strictly with their religon because we both know that is not true. I personally dont have a problem with someone who does not want to marry outside of their race for cultural reasons. I respect their right to want to preserve family customs, tradition and history.

Whether they are powerless to change should have no bearing on whether I approve or accept.

Afterall, pedophiles are as powerless to change.

Whether they are tolerated, accepted, approved, or castigated, should be dependant on some moral standard of right and wrong.

Here is a concept foreign to many on this forum: the function of sex is pro-creation. Its dictated by nature, just as biology dictates that life begins at conception.

And how does one go about determining what is morally right and wrong? The conscience. Of course, those who choose to drown out their conscience in favor of personal perversions won't understand this concept. And then there are concrete moral truths that exist--unless of course you're a relativist who sees no right or wrong. And I always thought Feel-goodism was a liberal mantra.

The totality of the available evidence has led to the following scientific consensus: “Sexual orientation is most likely determined by an as-yet-undetermined combination of biological and environmental factors.”

Given observations, the more likely explanation is not that some people are genetically predisposed toward homosexuality but that some people are genetically less predisposed toward heterosexuality.

I recall a study in East Germany just prior to unification where brain scans of men, women and homosexuals were compared.

I do believe the hypotheses was that men can be born with a female brain and vice versa.

But I believe there's an even larger number of "made" homosexuals by abuse

I know this to be the case. I'm working with one now, trying to help him out of it. He was heterosexual till age 16, homosexual since, as a result of predatory homosexual abuse. Again, this is developmental/behavioral, not genetic.

Homosexuals recuit. They know it works.

That is why sex with minors is idealized, idolized, and put on such a pedestal in their literature.

Homosexuality is obsessed with pedophilia and ephebophilia because it is sterile. They cannot reproduce their own, its not genetic. They must recruit.

Or is the standard simply "the bible said so"?

Don't have to read the Bible to be repulsed and to know what is sick and what is not. Gays always try to make this into a Bible thing thinking they can demonize people of faith and thereby get people to agree with them.

A very deluded belief. We don't have billions of people on earth because humans like homosexuality.

Yes you should but the left wingers and the Gays wont let you do so unless you give to them the one thing they want from all of us " normal " people, APPROVAL.ACCEPTANCE.

Between school, Boy Scouts, and my Church (Catholic), I know my kids are under attack. It is unacceptable.

Howdy

Hypotheses are a step along the process we call the scientific method.

When a hypothesis is tested experimentally and found to be representative of physical reality, then a truth has been found.

At that point we can start talking about reformulating society to be reflective of the newly discovered truth.

Not before. Welcome to the Age of Reason.

If it is done in private, by consenting adults, what makes it wrong?

Published by Centre Daily Times, Friday, June 2, 2000

Homosexual behavior increases risk of AIDS

by Brian J. Kopp, DPM

Parental warning: The following "My View" contains graphic medical terminology about sexual activities that may not be suitable for younger readers.

In her May 12 "My View," Mina Yindra makes many errors, but I would like to correct her statements regarding AIDS and "bigotry."

Promiscuous heterosexual sex carries with it a much higher risk for AIDS, primarily because of the sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) associated with it, causing a breakdown in the natural barriers of both male and female reproductive tracts. AIDS is primarily concentrated among heterosexuals in Africa because of the high rate of female genital mutilation, leading to much higher than average rates of anal and oral intercourse, and culturally-accepted extramarital sexual activity, including widespread prostitution. Rates of STDs are quite high in these populations.

However, AIDS is by far most common among the homosexual population in the United States, primarily because the type and frequency of sexual contact, combined with STDs, is the perfect method of spreading a body-fluid borne virus.

Public health records demonstrate that homosexuals, representing 2 percent of America's population, suffer vastly disproportionate percentages of several of America's most serious STDs, with incidences among homosexuals of diseases like gonorrhea, syphilis, hepatitis A and B, cytomegalovirus, shigellosis, giardiasis, amoebic bowel disease and herpes far exceeding their presence in the general population. These are due to common homosexual practices that include fellatio, anilingus, digital stimulation of the rectum and ingestion of urine and feces.

An exhaustive study in The New England Journal of Medicine, medical literature's only study reporting on homosexuals who kept sexual "diaries," indicated the average homosexual ingests the fecal material of 23 different men each year. The same study indicated the number of annual sexual partners averaged nearly 100. Homosexuals averaged, per year, fellating 106 different men and swallowing 50 of their seminal ejaculations, and 72 penile penetrations of the anus. (Corey, L, and Holmes, K.K., "Sexual Transmission of Hepatitis A in Homosexual Men," New England Journal of Medicine, 1980, vol 302: 435-438; as quoted in "Homosexuality and Civil Rights," Tony Marco, 1992).

A study by McKusick, et al., of 655 San Francisco homosexuals reported that only 24 percent of the sample claimed to have been "monogamous" during the past year, and of this 24 percent, 5 percent drank urine, 7 percent engag-ed in sex involving insertion of a fist in their rectums, 33 percent ingested feces, 53 percent swallowed semen and 59 percent received semen in their rectums in the month just previous to the survey ("AIDS and Sexual Behavior Reported by Homosexual Men in San Francisco," American Journal of Public Health, December 1985, 75: 493-496; quoted in "Homosexuality and Civil Rights," Tony Marco, 1992).

Lesbians show similar patterns of high venereal disease incidence relative to the general population. They are 19 times more likely to have had syphilis, twice as likely to have had genital warts, four times as likely to have had scabies, seven times more likely to have had infection from vaginal contact, 29 times more likely to have had oral infection from vaginal contact and 12 times more likely to have had an oral infection from penile contact ("Medical Aspects of Homosexuality," Institute for the Scientific Investigation of Sexuality, 1985, Jaffe and Keewhan, et al.; quoted in "Homosexuality and Civil Rights," Tony Marco, 1992).

AIDS research by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control reported that the typical homosexual interviewed claimed to have had more than 500 different sexual partners in a lifetime. Considered by themselves, the AIDS victims in this study averaged more than 1,100 lifetime sexual partners. Some reported as many as 20,000. Studies reported by A-P. Bell, M.S. Weinberg and S.K. Hammersmith in the book "Sexual Preference" (Bloomington, Indiana University Press, 1981) indicated that only 3 percent of homosexuals had fewer than 10 lifetime sexual partners. Only about 2 percent could be classified as either monogamous or semi-monogamous (from "Homosexuality and Civil Rights," Tony Marco, 1992).

To the present time, 75 to 85 percent of AIDS cases reported are related to homosexual activity, promiscuous heterosexual sex and IV drug abuse. AIDS stubbornly refuses to spread into the population in general, even 20 years after its discovery, despite dire warnings to the contrary.

These diseases are acquired directly through the sexual behavior homosexual activists are asking Americans to legally endorse and protect. Yet, as professor Jerome Lejeune of Descartes University, Paris, says of AIDS: "Only God can truly pardon the one who violates His laws; man pardons at times; Nature never pardons at all: She is not a person." The brutal consequences of attempting to break the natural law are not bigoted or hateful, nor are those, like Dr. Laura, Cal Thomas or Gary Morella, who try to point out the dangers and simple truths.

We are seeing the natural consequences of violating nature's laws now. They are also a warning to prevent the ultimate eternal consequences. How many will ignore that warning and continue to call the messenger a bigot and continue to shake their fist at God? How many will heed that warning of a loving Father, ready to forgive and reconcile His prodigal children?

So the standard is what is "sick"? I'm not criticizing Christians, I have great respect for (the great majority of) them. But what is the coherent argument for the the immorality of the consensual, private, and adult, homosexual (or any other type of deviant sexual) act.

As for sex for procreation argument. So does that mean any sexual behavior not for the purpose of procreation is morally wrong? Which would include all sex with contraceptives?

What about women past menopause? People who are sterile? Is it immoral for them to have sex?

Yes, homosexual behavior carries with it a health risk. As does promiscous heterosexual behavior, smoking, eating fatty food, and a litany of other things. It doesn't make them all immoral acts.

Yes, the people who are tempted to engage in such behavior should be make aware of the risks, and the gay activist agenda of covering up and shouting down the risks of AIDS is IMO very much immoral.

This is a hard wiring issue. No one's mind will be changed here. Most just keep asserting their opinions and preferecnes, and asserting matters as "fact" that clearly aren't, and even if they were are not always relevant to anything. But be patient. The attitude here on FR is close to a minority one, and fading fast. This is one issue where there is a huge generational difference, as well as a class difference which I won't elaborate on.

Having said that, I suppose the one area of "legitimate" inquiry for those who are past personal revulsion, biblical nostrums, etc, is that of public health matters.

That gay lisp is something that a straight man could never recreate.

Years ago, when I was stupid and immature, I used to listen to Howard Stern. I distinctly remember hearing him interview Richard Simmons and trying to get him to talk in a normal voice. Simmons refused for about 10 minutes and then all of the sudden, started talking in a normal man's voice for several minutes. And it was not put-on at all.

I remember thinking... "Wow, so all that gay crap is an act after all." That was my first inkling that ALL the gay crap might be an act. And the more individuals with SSAD I came into contact with, the more convinced I got.

Yes, homosexual behavior carries with it a health risk. As does promiscous heterosexual behavior, smoking, eating fatty food, and a litany of other things. It doesn't make them all immoral acts.

The Natural Law ain't yur strong point, huh? Most reasonable folk know the basics of right and wrong, and that there are different degrees of evil.

I love how some justify their perverse sexual preferences by assuming that the positions of morality and standards above that of base sex is outdated and irrelevant because everyone else thinks it perfectly okay for men two engage in anal intercourse. Of course, they delude only themselves.

So does that mean any sexual behavior not for the purpose of procreation is morally wrong? Which would include all sex with contraceptives?

That is simple, standard Christian moral theology 101.

What about women past menopause? People who are sterile? Is it immoral for them to have sex?

My 10 year old knows the difference between acts deliberately illicit and those for whom the acts carry no negative connotation whatsoever.

Only the simplest or those building straw men would pose that the Church fails to differentiate between acts deliberately made infecund and those acts that are infecund through no fault of those performing them.

its hard to believe you even ask such.

I have two brothers, one older and one younger. The younger is a half brother, same mother but different father. From the time my younger brother was about 6 years old, we knew the boy was a fruiter. NO DOUBT in any ones mind. My older brother and I are as normal as can be but on my stepfathers side of the family there are numerous cases of homosexuality. Some of them are outright flamers, like my younger brother. There was never a question of choice with him, he was ALWAYS a drag queen!

Did you actually read the article above? Allow me to quote:

"I have not had one yet whom I would say had a normative childhood or normative adolescent development in the sexual arena."

Sadly, what you describe briefly above for your brother does not sound like a normative childhood to me.

Serial killers dont CHOOSE to be serial killers.

That may be the stupidest thing I've heard all day. Of course they do. Do you honestly think that some people are genetically predisposed to commit mass murder? Give me a break!

Hmm. Perhaps Rock Hudson was not bothered playing a heterosexual love scene because he was secure in his sexuality.

Secure, eh? Nah, I suspect that ol' Rock was just an omnisexal, and quite secure in that, no doubt. He probably would have had little trouble playing a love scene with a horse either.

Homosexual Researchers Debunk ‘Born Gay’ Urban Legend

Homosexual behavior increases risk of AIDS