Rebirth of Reason

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadPage 0Page 1Page 2Forward one pageLast Page

Post 0

Friday, May 28, 2004 - 9:16amSanction this postReply
Hey guys,

Awhile back I did a debate in my AP American Gov class on the legalization of homosexuality. That was when I was still following my religious roots, and of course I argued against it. However, I did not take a religious approach.

The basic premise of my partner and myself was one that considered the social and economic potential for disaster, particularly the economic. I won't get into the details, but homosexuality, especially among males, can be a very risky lifestyle. If there are any homosexuals that read these boards, I would like to point out that I don't think homosexuality is morally wrong, in light of my conversion to objectivism. However, from my research I found that there are many in the homosexual community that encourage an uncontrolled sexual lifestyle. Again, if I were to get into the specifics this article would be extremely long, but I will say that the average decrease in life expectancy for a male homosexual is much greater than the average decrease for a cigarette smoker.

What my argument boiled down to what this: homosexuality is a risky lifestyle. It increases a person's chances of disease and health problems, including mental health problems. If we legalize marriage, and start throwing federal tax money at these issues, it's going to make the nation's taxes go way up. Even in the private sector, it could have serious consequences. In any insurance pool, it's about 7% of the people who incur 80% of the damages. If that 7% were to rise to 8%, the cost that insure providers would have to pay would rise exponentially.

Now let me add this disclaimer. I'm not saying that gays shouldn't have the right to be in a meaningful relationship. I don't believe that it's morally wrong, although I don't believe that it's a trait that's innate and immutable. However, I feel that the things I learned while doing my research should be available to the public.

All of that leads up to this question: as a new-found objectivist, I'm having trouble bringing my new beliefs and my previous views on this subject into harmony. On the one hand, I understand that objectivists believe in privacy and personal rights. But on the other hand, I believe that if homosexual marriage were legalized, and nothing was done about the other problems, it would have consequences for me individually. It would increase my taxes, and hurt the economy. And part of my stance is based on my belief that many homosexuals are lied to by the media about the safety of their lifestyle.

So how do I reconcile?

Post 1

Friday, May 28, 2004 - 11:47amSanction this postReply
Hi Nix!

"I believe that if homosexual marriage were legalized, and nothing was done about the other problems, it would have consequences for me individually."

Assuming you are correct about the economic effects, the key in a nutshell is that something should be done about the other problems - consensual relationships, including marriage, should be absolutely none of the government's business.

I hope that doesn't seem too simplistic an answer.


(Edited by Matthew Humphreys on 5/28, 11:48am)

Post 2

Friday, May 28, 2004 - 3:45pmSanction this postReply

Your answer isn't too simplistic. I agree, something should be done about the other problems. I think it's sad that our world pushes only one side of the argument, and slots it entirely as a religious issue.

Thanks for the clarification. I agree, the government should get their nose out of the business of the people.

Jeremy Nix

Sanction: 7, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 7, No Sanction: 0
Post 3

Friday, May 28, 2004 - 4:37pmSanction this postReply
"What my argument boiled down to what this: homosexuality is a risky lifestyle. It increases a person's chances of disease and health problems, including mental health problems."

This is an old argument, and a rather hypocritical one on the part of those who would criminalise homosexuality.

Homosexuality is not, intrinsically, any more risky than any other "lifestyle." Certain activities, like *unprotected* anal sex, are more high risk for transmission of HIV but no more so than *unprotected* vaginal sex, or whatever you call that (most people in the world with HIV/AIDS are heterosexual), in the sense that both activities transmit the virus very easily. In short, the key to safe sex is knowledge: knowledge of the risks and the ways to avoid them (the use of condoms being the biggie). Such knowledge was actually kept out of people's hands because of the *illegality* of practices like gay sex. In a climate of fear of prosecution (and wider, in a climate of homophobia that can and does continue *after* legalisation and is perpetuated predominantly by the religious right) people in at-risk groups will tend to avoid coming forward for education, information, testing etc.. This shows the hypocrisy of the anti-gay right, who by keeping homosexuality illegal in the name of supposedly protecting people's health, are actually responsible for keeping people in the dark about risks and thus, killing them.

The claim that gay people tend to have greater mental health problems and that therefore homosexuality is an "unhealthy lifestyle" is perhaps even more outrageous. You might say it's an instance of cunning political trickery. Teach people that their sexuality is unethical, sick, depraved, dirty and in need of "cure" and when the subsequent guilt they are taught to have for their feelings results in long-term mental health problems like depression, you can say "homosexuality is an unhealthy lifestyle: just look at all the gay people with depression." Clever, no? Clever, but truly hypocritical. You (that is, homophobes) asked for it.

Gay people are, on the whole, healthy. And this is despite the homophobic environments that surround us (compulsory state schools being one example: *there's* something that ought to be immediately shut down for being a public health risk). That gay people so often get through all of that and are able to live lives true to themselves is an example of enormous courage and self-esteem. In fact, many heterosexual people could learn from the virtues implied by the process of "coming out": honest introspection, a life of integrity and authenticity - in short, a model of psychological health. Chris Sciabarra makes a similar point in his superb monograph, Ayn Rand, Homosexuality and Human Liberation, which demonstrates that it is these *individualist* virtues, so often practised by gays, that all people can embrace.

So much for homosexuality as a risky lifestyle.

Post 4

Friday, May 28, 2004 - 8:21pmSanction this postReply

You said: most people in the world with HIV/AIDS are heterosexual
Not in the West, only in those parts of the world where promiscuous sex and rape are common. It only took me two minutes to find these statistics. All of your other data is wrong also. I'll be glad to supply sources if you wish. Please check your sources.


The following data are summarized from the CDC annual HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report. Unless otherwise noted, numbers are estimated numbers of diagnoses of AIDS in the United States through December 2002.

Cases by Exposure Category
Following is the distribution of the estimated number of diagnoses of AIDS among adults and adolescents by exposure category. A breakdown by sex is provided where appropriate.
Exposure CategoryMaleFemaleTotal
Male-to-male sexual contact420,790-420,790
Injection Drug Use172,35167,917240,268
Male-to-male sexual contact and injection drug use59,719-59,719
Heterosexual contact50,79384,835135,628
* Includes hemophilia, blood transfusion, perinatal,
and risk not reported or not identified.

HIV/AIDS Statistics and Features by World Region

(as of Dec. 2002)

World regionEpidemic
Adults &
living with
Adults &
newly infected
with HIV
Percent of
adults who
are women
Main mode(s) of
for adults2
Sub-Saharan Africalate '70s–
early '80s
29.4 million3.5 million8.8%58%Hetero
North Africa & Middle Eastlate '80s550,00083,0000.3%55%Hetero, IDU
South & Southeast Asialate '80s6.0 million700,0000.6%36%Hetero, IDU
East Asia & Pacificlate '80s1.2 million270,0000.1%24%IDU, Hetero, MSM
Latin Americalate '70s–
early '80s
1.5 milion150,0000.6%30%MSM, IDU, Hetero
Caribbeanlate '70s–
early '80s
440,00060,0002.4%50%Hetero, MSM
Eastern Europe & Central Asiaearly '90s1.2 million250,0000.6%27%IDU
Western Europelate '70s–
early '80s
570,00030,0000.3%25%MSM, IDU
North Americalate '70s–
early '80s
980,00045,0000.6%20%MSM, IDU, Hetero
Australia & New Zealandlate '70s–
early '80s
Total42 million5 million1.2%50%
Source: World Health Organization, UNAID. Web: www.unaids.org .

Post 5

Friday, May 28, 2004 - 8:27pmSanction this postReply
First, I'd like to say that I'm not a homophobe. Never have been, never will be. Nor do I view homosexuality as morally wrong. I don't know if you meant it, but you post came across as a little abrasive. I was asking because I've just recently realized the fallacy of so-called "Christianity," and I'm trying to erase the brainwashing I received under that dogma. In no way did I intend an attack on homosexuals.

Now that that's out of the way...

Let's put religion out of the picture. Forget that it exists. Let talk about homosexuality on purely scientific terms.

The dangers of homosexuality are as follows:

First, the culture that many homosexuals are forced to "come out" into. Many areas in the country place pressure on gays to live a very active lifestyle. Even homosexuals such as social-critic/lesbian Camille Paglia admit that gay sex, especially among gay men, is completely unihibited and the promiscuity rates are staggering. Do I think that all gay men are sleeping with 4-6 partners a month? No, of course not. But I do feel that, after the research I did, assocation with the gay community can pressure gays into an overactive sexual lifestyle, leading to the increased chance of exposure to STD's.

When it comes to transfer of STD's, there's a vast different between vaginal and anal sex. The vagina is specifically built for intercourse, the rectum is not. The rectum is composed of small, weak muscles that comprise an exit-only passage. Repeated trauma to the area can lead to bleeding, loss of tone in the muscles, and exchange of bodily fluids, leading to increased risk of STD transfer. Anal sex can also cause side effects such as "gay bowel syndrome."

As far as the mental side-effects go, the argument that the society in America somehow leads to depression is ridiculous. In the Netherlands, which is arguable the most gay-friendly culture in the world, a study was done on the mental affects of homosexuality. In a society where homosexuality is encouraged, and gay marriage is legal, they found over the course of a 12-month study that gays have a significantly increased chance of almost ALL mental diseases than straight people do.

I would quote more facts and such, but I did the debate a couple of months ago and I don't feel like looking up all the little details right this instant. If you want me to I will. I'd like to reinforce, however, the notion that I am NOT a homophobe. I have no problem with two gays or lesbians having a consentual relationship. It doesn't weird me out, gross me out, or seem that abnormal. Besides, it's not really my business anyway. The point I'm trying to make is that there are risks. Risks which can't be negated by slapping a condom on and assuming that will protect you from all the dangers. The biggest danger of homosexuality is this: lack of truth, from both sides. I believe that the religious right skews things to support their cause. I also believe that the other side, GLB rights activists, do the same. Who suffers? Those caught in the crossfire, homosexuals themselves. I also want to reinforce the idea that I in no way believe those side-effects to be generalized to every homosexual in the country. I'm simply pointing out that a problem exists, hoping that it can be corrected, and wondering how to adapt my new-found philosophy.

Jeremy Nix

Post 6

Saturday, May 29, 2004 - 12:28amSanction this postReply
I restate that most people with HIV/AIDS are heterosexuals. The bulk of the cases are not in the west, but in Sub-Saharan Africa, where in some parts up to 20% of people aged 15-49 are infected with the virus. What this data demonstrates is this: there is nothing 'gay' about this virus. Heterosexual sex can and does transmit the virus, as can and does homosexual sex. Of course there has been a higher incidence of the virus among the gay population in the west. Past (and in some cases, present) criminalisation and homophobia are largely responsible for this, not the gay lifestyle.

Anal sex is not the only sexual activity enjoyed by gay men and many gay men don't do it at all. Slapping a condom on *does* protect one against HIV, and if you doubt this I suggest you join with the catholic church which is pretty much the only institution that says condoms don't work, but stay away from suggesting you have scientific evidence on your side. Neither is there anything 'gay' about anal sex, heterosexuals do it too.

Jeremy's data about the Netherlands does not refute my case. He is naive to think that even the Netherlands is free of homophobia and that gays have an easy ride coming out and coming to terms with their sexuality there. The Netherlands has a lot to be proud of, but homophobia is culturally embedded throughout the world including in the Netherlands and that can't be changed overnight. Until we are rid of it and rid of the culture that assumes we are all heterosexual until we come out as being otherwise, those who don't fit the heterosexual mode will continue to be burdened with mental health problems.  

Lastly and perhaps as an aside, I have this thought: mountain climbers regularly engage in a clearly risky activity, and we often hear of the deaths of climbers who haven't taken proper precautions. Such climbers are then lauded as heroes for nothing else than their own irresponsibility. Yet the full weight of puritan moralism falls down upon gay people for having gay sex, who in most cases aren't endangering themselves, but taking sensible precautions and in many cases aren't even doing particularly risky activities. Why the double-standard? My hypothesis: because our culture, on the whole, still thinks sex (of whatever variety) is dirty, depraved and sinful.

Post 7

Saturday, May 29, 2004 - 1:24amSanction this postReply
Look at the number of deaths from HIV/AIDS, compared to the number of deaths from mountain climbing. A slight disparity, perhaps?

Besides, who said this was about HIV/AIDS? I sure didn't.

Furthermore, your attitude reminds me very much of the people you're blasting. Of course, all gay men don't participate in anal sex, but the statistics say that most do. I have loads of statistics, and I'd show them to you, but it's 4:10 am and I would like to go to bed. My point is, people are lying on both sides of the border. If you think that everything the GLB rights activists push as truth is really true, then you're just as naive as the people who believe everything the church pushes on them.

Mountain climbing is a completely different analogy than sex. In mountain climbing, there is hardly any bias that tries to obscure facts, whether it concerns the right of the climber to climb or the dangers he or she faces while climbing. But homosexuality is smeared with bias and half-truths, from both sides of the issue. I just wish that we (you and I, the world) could objectively sit down and discover the truth. Some things won't change, no matter how much you may want them to. Anal sex is destructive to the body. So is smoking a cigarette. You don't see me out trying to ban smokers, do you? I'm not trying to ban homosexuals, either.

You are right, however, when you indicate that hetersosexual sex can be just as risky as homosexual sex. Hetersosexuals engage in risky behaviors all the time. However, by the nature of the activity, homosexuality has additional risks. My question is, how come when I try to share information I have objectively collected, I'm made to look like I'm a homophobe? It seems that in today's world, any evidence that says homosexuality has health risks is spit upon, purely for political reasons, regardless of the intentions of the researcher. Saying that homosexuality can lead to increased health risks is no different than saying that unprotected sex can leath to increased health risks, but nobody has a fit about that.

In reference to the Netherlands, of course it doesn't refute your case. It's one study, and studies are always biased somehow. However, it does cast doubt on your case. And I find it hard to believe that homophobia in the Netherlands would be significant enough to lead to a 100% increase in mental diseases. That defies logic.

And I do believe condoms work. I have used them.

Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 8

Saturday, May 29, 2004 - 1:31amSanction this postReply
First of all, I have two points to make about this issue:

1) Look at what a disgusting caricature too many heterosexuals are these days... Many straight males today are childish goons without conscience who will do anything to anyone, for the sense of supposed validation that comes with scoring some easy "trim".  In addition, many straight females today are calculating vamps who love orchestrating that male viciousness, for the insanely perverse rush of flattery that comes as the males compete unscrupulously and shamelessly, over her. 

This whole scenario is all too often, to use a term that I've used before in these forums and which desperately needs to come into essential use in this next century, "sadomasochistic".  I don't think that any truly objective, humane person of either sex could blame a human being who became fed up with all of this needless ugliness and opted out, from sheer exhaustion or want for the preservation of their own dignity.

Mind you, heterosexuality does not have to be this way, and it isn't always, but it too often is.

2) An increasing number of well-reknowned scientists and ordinary people are becoming convinced that HIV does not cause AIDS, but that rather the rampant use of certain illegal drugs and anti-AIDS drugs, cause AIDS.  In other words, it's not the "gay sex", it's drugs that really are the culprit, and have been all along. 

The heretic scientist who has been spearheading the anti-"HIV causes AIDS" propaganda chokehold (and who also has the endorsement of the 1989 Nobel Prize-winning scientist who discovered and developed the mass-quantity nucleotide copying process known as the Polymerase Chain Reaction, or "PCR" for short ) is Dr. Peter Duesberg, of the University of California at Berkeley.  He has written several books on the subject, beginning with Inventing the AIDS Virus

A summary of his argument can be found at his website at http://www.duesberg.com, and also at this link:  http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/pddrdrugaids.htm

At this point, I would say that there are greater evils in this overpopulating, vicious world, than two people who bow out of the reproductive rat-race to enjoy each other's company.  And while I would not choose to abandon the challenge of finding a rational, humane female to have and raise amazing children with (and whoo buddy, is it ever a challenge!), I can totally empathize with those who would, male or female.


(Edited by Orion Reasoner on 5/29, 10:42am)

(Edited by Orion Reasoner on 5/29, 10:45am)

Post 9

Saturday, May 29, 2004 - 1:31amSanction this postReply
One last thing before I hit the sack. I do agree with your last statement. Our culture views all sex as dirty, depraved, and sinful. I think that it's a shame that people spend so much time decrying sex when they could be searching for a cure for the numerous STD's, or at least handing out birth control.

Post 10

Saturday, May 29, 2004 - 1:43amSanction this postReply
So much for bed...!

Orion: I find that information on the HIV distortion to be fascinating. I don't think anyone here was advocating that gay sex "causes" HIV. It's risky sexual behavior that leads to exposure to STD's that causes any sexually transmitted disease.

Thinking over the issue, I find it hard to know where to stand. Even if my research on the health risks of gay sex is correct, I still don't know what it really means when it comes to life application. I have no problem with two people of the same gender being a relationship, getting married, or engaging in sexual relations.

Aside from the health issue, I still have one concern. If gay marriage becomes legal, which it hopefully will, there's the issue of freeh speech. In Canada they've already passed legislation that makes it a hate crime to speak out against homosexuality, even in the pulpit, and they will fine you for it. I hope that does not happen here. Even though they (preachers, religion) are wrong about the issue, I feel that they still have a right to express their opinion, especially in their own church, without fear of impunity, so long as they don't preach initiation of physical force against homosexuals. We can't grant one part of the population a right only to take it away from another part. Free speech must be preserved.

Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 2
Post 11

Saturday, May 29, 2004 - 1:57amSanction this postReply

About HIV and mountain-climbing: yes, there's surely a disparity, but I think the point I make is an interesting one.

About HIV: no, it's not *all* about HIV and I'm not claiming that either. But we both know that HIV/AIDS is a huge issue in our world, and HIV/AIDS tends to be used as the trump card by the anti-gay right. I'm keen to make sure nobody falls for their line, including you.

About anal sex: it just isn't true that anal sex is destructive. Anal sex can be done safely, but the prerequisites really are knowledge and self-acceptance.

This is an issue that gets me quite fired up, not least of all because I am gay. I don't think you're a homophobe, but homophobia and homophobes are real and the target of my invective is them, not you. I read that you're fairly new to Objectivism and SOLO, and I do respect your intelligence and honesty and hope you can continue contributing here but I vehemently disagree with some of the things you say about this issue. There was a time when I was less self-respecting of my sexuality, however much I may have tried to kid myself otherwise (I have been openly gay since I was 18 but not always so accepting of my sexuality), and I used to say some things about these kinds of issues that I would now deplore. I think that these are issues that tend to bring to the fore a whole range of difficult baggage, because we do live in a predominantly anti-sex culture, as you would agree.

Orion, the point you make about heterosexuals is well-made. We *do* live in an anti-sex culture as I say, but as you basically imply we also live in an anti-romance culture. Both aspects of the culture are inter-related, have the same philosophical causes and are as tragic. SOLO is the only part of the culture I know that actively understands this and seeks to change it - witness its credo.

Post 12

Saturday, May 29, 2004 - 7:04amSanction this postReply
Hmmm...when I say "destructive," I wonder if we're talking about the same thing. For example, I do not mean that if you engage in anal sex you will get and STD. I understand that gay sex does not cause STD's. But anal sex, whether it be between two guys, a guy and a girl, or whatever, can damage the muscles of the rectum and sphincter. That is, unless all that research I did was completely false, which is a possibility. I don't feel that it was, however.

A comparison would be between using a keyboard, and anal sex. Both, if done several times over a long period of time, can cause trauma to a certain area of the body. One leads to Carpal's Tunnel Syndrome, the other to things like gay bowel syndrome. But you're absolutely right when you say that knowledge and self-acceptance are the keys to safe sex, no matter what orientation you are. Secretaries know the risks, and are taught how to avoid them. How come gays aren't? At least, not that I've seen. Maybe they are, but I'm not really that active in the gay community, so I wouldn't really know. I guess that what bugs me, is that I do'nt really see any great movement to educate both sides of the issue. It seems like both sides are willing to sit back and let lies and half-truths perpetrate, and part of that is because of our anti-sex culture.

Ultimately, if I'm wrong, it doesn't really matter. I support gay rights, and I want to see the gay marriage legislation passed. Whether or not these health risks exist or were fabricated isn't going to change my views on the main subject, it's simply a peripheral.

I agree with you point about the climbers, I'm just trying to think of a better comparison. Maybe we could say drinking alcohol? I'm not sure if that works well, either. I'll think about it.

This has been a really good discussion, and a great chance for me to try to work out my objectivist ideals with some of my previous baggage. It's helping me shed a lot of my previous misconceptions and learn to think for myself. Thanks!

Jeremy Nix

Sanction: 1, No Sanction: 0
Post 13

Saturday, May 29, 2004 - 8:26pmSanction this postReply
Nix, I agree that the problems you describe exist, but I don't understand why you think they are important. I mean, excessive vaginal sex can result in injury, too. Even oral sex probably causes tooth decay or something.
It's not like gay men have a monopoly on anal sex, anyway. Considering that injury is avoidable, not restricted to gay men, and not a necessary feature of gay relationships, I don't see that it's relevant to debates about gay marriage or any other issue.

Post 14

Sunday, May 30, 2004 - 12:02amSanction this postReply
"Ultimately, if I'm wrong, it doesn't really matter. I support gay rights, and I want to see the gay marriage legislation passed. Whether or not these health risks exist or were fabricated isn't going to change my views on the main subject, it's simply a peripheral."

Philip, you're absolutely right. That's why I said the above in my last post. I think that discussion was a diversion from the main point of this thread, which has been fulfilled already.

I hope I haven't given my ex-girlfriend tooth decay...

Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 15

Sunday, May 30, 2004 - 8:26amSanction this postReply
Important issue. I'd like to address some of Nix's points.

Matthew poses what I'd consider the traditionalist O'ist response to an issue such as gay marriage. I'm sympathetic to and largely in support of that "government should butt out" argument; however, because I view the moral as the practical, and because I don't see "government butt out" as a currently practical (i.e., achievable) goal, I consider it
insufficient to address the problem at hand.

The government is not going to stop recognizing marriages any time soon, so I suggest we try to make government recognition of marriage as just as possible, flawed though it may be.

In response to Nix -- How just the government recognition of marriage is should not depend on whether it immediately financially burdens a group of people. New laws often cause set-backs, but a worthy cause is worth the cost.

So long as we have anti-discrimination laws (and even if we disagree with them), every group subject to unreasonable discrimination should be protected. Homosexuals are onesuch group. Gay marriage is an expression of legal consistency.

That said, I'd like to return to the question of risk. I consider it largely a side-issue, but because it's politically potent, we still ought to address it. It's dubious that homosexuality is a risky lifestyle. Or if it is, it's probably not significantly riskier than heterosexual lifestyles. I've seen plenty of the stats out there that attempt to suggest otherwise, but these stats have serious flaws, the biggest of which are (1) confusing correlation with causation and (2) using percentages where raw numbers should be used (or at least mentioned) or vice versa, which just confused people. Nix, if you have time, please cite your sources.

I know HIV/AIDS isn't the only risk Nix suggests, but it seems to be a hot button issue. I find the following stats pretty respectable, but feel welcome to challenge them. They are from http://www.niaid.nih.gov/factsheets/aidsstat.htm.

1. About Men: Of new infections among men in the United States, CDC estimates that approximately 60 percent of men were infected through homosexual sex, 25 percent through injection drug use, and 15 percent through heterosexual sex. Of newly infected men, approximately 50 percent are black, 30 percent are white, 20 percent are Hispanic, and a small percentage are members of other racial/ethnic groups.

2. About Women: Of new infections among women in the United States, CDC estimates that approximately 75 percent of women were infected through heterosexual sex and 25 percent through injection drug use. Of newly infected women, approximately 64 percent are black, 18 percent are white, 18 percent are Hispanic, and a small percentage are members of other racial/ethnic groups.

Seems like the group least at-risk are the white or hispanic lesbians. Or something like that. Definitely not straight folks, especially if they're black, especially if they're female.

This suggests that risk should be disregarded (at least when it comes to HIV/AIDS) when considering who is candidate for a marriage license. But even if we should consider risk here, don't marriages in general reduce the risky behavior? I suspect that married couples tend to sleep with fewer people and tend to have less sex when compared to unmarried couples. If we want to reduce risk, shouldn't we allow more marriage?


Now concerning taxes and insurance. I was surprised to find that gay marriage would likely be no tax burden at all. A respectable study suggests that the US Federal Government would gain an extra  $0.3 billion to $1.3 billion from gay marriages. Please see http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2004/05/23/the_gay_marriage_penalty/

Insurance rates are more complex, and I'm still looking for a good source that discusses the nitty-gritty of them (suggestions?), but it's likely that insurance companies will also benefit from gay marriage. This is so because there will likely be (1) a greater market demand for insurance benefits, and (2) the insurance companies will likely adjust rates for gay married couples if indeed there're risks associated with that lifestyle. It would be similar to adjusting rates for smokers. Some sources to confirm my suspicions would be helpful here.


In sum: Gay marriage is an expression of legal consistency. Legal consistency is a worthy cause. A worthy cause is worth the cost. The costs associated with risks, tax, and insurance are immaterial. Gay marriage should be legalized.


P.S. You might've seen some of this on another O'ist list serve.
P.P.S. Much of my argument is limited to the US, but in my view, the essentials apply worldwide.

Post 16

Sunday, May 30, 2004 - 7:11pmSanction this postReply
Jordan and Cameron,

I was able to track down the PDF file of the paper that I got most of my research from. Understand, it was written by a Christian, so the research is probably biased to some extent. However, it's hard to dismiss everything he says offhand when you check his references, which are vast.

Here's the paper:

Health Risks of Gay Sex

In case my HTML coding absolutely sucks....here it is in copy-paste format.


Post 17

Saturday, June 5, 2004 - 3:14pmSanction this postReply





I was reading through that paper, and I realized that the angle of the paper takes an ambiguous approach to cause and effect.  Does homosexual behaviour lead to promiscuity, or does promiscuity lead to homosexual behaviour? 


The argument seems to lean toward homosexual behaviour leading to promiscuity, but Catholics argue that no person is born gay.  If this is true (that no person is born gay), then what is being said is that men, who can’t get enough heterosexual sex, participate in homosexual behaviour because they (as people) cannot satisfy their heterosexual desires for sex, by implication.


This suggests that promiscuity leads to homosexual behaviour, and not the other way round, as they would have us believe.


Which is it?!


Of course, both are false.


Just how does homosexuality lead to promiscuity?  Well, according to the paper, and a cited author, homosexuality leads to promiscuity by indoctrination, not natural tendencies (as the paper would like us to believe), leaving the homosexual incapable of wanting to experience romantic love and be part of a committed, monogamous relationship via brainwashing.  But this is also not true, as many homosexuals want just that—a monogamous relationship. And many parcitipate in such relatioships.


The below quote, from the paper, suggests indoctrination, and thus contradicts its own (the paper's) position that it’s the natural behaviour of a homosexual which leads promiscuity:


Gay author Gabriel Rotello notes the perspective of many gays that “gay liberation was founded…on a ‘sexual brotherhood of promiscuity,’ and any abandonment of that promiscuity would amount to ‘communal betrayal of gargantuan proportions’”

It is promiscuity that leads to increasing one’s chances of acquiring disease, damaging one’s mental health, shortening one’s life-span, and distorting the definition of monogamy, NOT homosexuality.  

Post 18

Wednesday, September 29, 2004 - 10:07pmSanction this postReply
The more homosexual men there are, the more heterosexual women are left for the rest of us heterosexual males.  Let 'em swordfight!
Joking aside, I'm a firm supporter of an individual's right to practice homosexuality, as well as bestiality.  In nature, such as when a pet dog penetrates a pet cat, one can observe that it's not unnatural for a member of one species to have sex with a member of another species.  I don't personally go for it, but if a sheep looks sexy to you, jump on it!  haha
I guess the joking wasn't aside, like my previous paragraph emptily promised.  Sorry about that.
Anyway, it's ultimately nature, and not reason which leads a man or woman to homosexuality.  In the same way that a heterosexual man is by nature attracted to women and women to men, I believe that homosexual men are attracted to men and women to women.  That's the "nature" of homosexuality.  It's not as if homosexuals wake up each morning and say "I'm gonna be gay today," and then go shopping.  They just wake up and go shopping.
I'm just teasing.  When one cannot appreciate a joke, he is out of touch with reality.

Post 19

Thursday, September 30, 2004 - 11:00amSanction this postReply
I disagree with that whole supposition.

There is newer -- and to me, more compelling -- evidence to suggest that homosexuality is not inborn, but rather a result of an inborn temperament towards overarousal, whereby the child is overstimulated by conflict and finds it aversive. 

Conflict -- or hunger for conflict -- being, of course, inherently a part of the mechanism by which males relentlessly jockey and compete to impress nearby females, who then select their favorite male and show both "groupie behavior" and an "oooh Daddy" demeanor. 

Those males with a propensity towards overarousal don't make it that far, nor do they particularly want to.  Thus, homosexuality... or perhaps heterosexuality through less stressful routes, if such are possible.
(Edited by Orion Reasoner on 9/30, 11:05am)

Post to this threadPage 0Page 1Page 2Forward one pageLast Page

User ID Password or create a free account.