Abstinence is the only way to not spread HIV/Aids though sexual contact. There is no denying that statement.
True and isolation is the only way to not spread the flu. There is no denying that statement. I suspect that your sentiment is that homosexuals should refrain from having sex to not spread AIDS consider though that the primary means of transmission in Africa is through heterosexual sex and that is also becoming more widespread throughout the world even here in America so should we also say that heterosexuals should refrain from sex also?
I believe attraction is genetic. I do not think pedophilia is the same as homosexuality. I believe anal sex between two men is morally wrong. That's all. You have to send me the parody words to Hotel California. I believe any laws either for or against should be crafted very carefully, and I don't think punishment is how I would respond if I found out someone what homosexual. The legal issues do not bother me as much as the moral issue.
The point of my post was only to say that the Pope was right (whether or not one agrees with him is a different issue). As to the spreading of AIDS via sexual contact, it is helpful to be monogamous.
You mean biological, right? (There's an important difference.) Actually, yes, that is in many ways biological as well.
Abstinence is the only 100% effective way to prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS. However, that is not the issue here. The statement was that abstinence was the only way to reduce the spread of AIDS, which is not true. http://www.condoms4life.org/facts/CondomsAndAIDS.htm
'Genetics plays a role in homosexuality' and 'homosexuality is genetic' are not equivalent statements. So... you fail.
Not at all. I never said genetics are the sole determinant of homosexuality. I said it was a fact that genetics plays a significant role. Do you understand the difference?
So the same person that wrote the above also wrote... and So you believe that homosexuality is significantly influenced by genetics but you won't say "homosexuality is genetic" and therefore I fail? Is that really what your saying? Because you can read through my posts and I never accuse you of saying that "genetics are the sole determinant of homosexuality" I just point out that you used a report in reference to the statement "it is a fact that genetics plays a significant role in determining homosexuality" that doesn't even make such a bold statement. Therefore because you have failed to provide anything to support your claim that "homosexuality is genetic is a fact"... I think you fail.
Let's review for the slower kids in the class (i.e. you). I said it is a fact that genetics plays a significant role in determining homosexuality. You said the conclusion of the link I provided doesn't support my claim. I provided a quote from the link, and you kindly provided a broader section of that quote: source So homosexuality has a high component of heritability, but the actual relative influence of genes vs. other factors is not well understood. In other words, we know genes play a significant (i.e. detectable) role; still unclear is what that role is and how it interacts with the other determining factors.
What about a guy and a girl flirting with each other, passing notes or even just making googly eyes at each other?
I will admit I myself feel uncomfortable when I see two men acting romantic to each other and grew up believing homosexuality to be wrong. Even with that though there is so much in this world that everyone universally agrees is immoral that it doesn't seem worth it condemn who consenting adults love and who they choose to have sex with. To me there's been too much pain, too much shame, too many families torn apart and too much blood shed to continue to condemn homosexuality.
You highlight a quote from a study in 1991 that says it suggests homosexuality has a high component of heritability as proof to your statement that "it is a fact"??? Please. Try again.
I have no problem at all with homosexual lifestyles, but I do cringe when I hear its supporters claiming that it is genetic. If it is genetic, does that mean it is a disorder? What if scientists DO in fact identify a gene as the culprit and develop some sort of hormonal treatment for it, would that be OK with you? Are supporters of this claim saying that homosexuality is a genetic disorder? It would have to be, right? If it deviates from the overwhelming norm then what else would you call it? I may be in the minority here, but how is this any different than far people claiming that a genetic issue is the reason why they are so overweight? This can be a dangerous slippery slope, for what you are effectively doing is relating behavior or actions to a genetic predisposition. If I was gay, I think I would much rather have homosexuality treated as a lifestyle choice that I am free to make, I am not so sure I would be thrilled with random people pointing at me and saying, "oh poor gay guy he just cannot help it!" Hopefully I relayed my thoughts
Why would it be considered a genetic disorder though other than cultural norms? The vast majority of people are right handed so should we treat left handed as being a disorder to be treated. In fact in some societies it has been considered a disorder and those left handed were forced to be right handed even though in some cases that causes other problems. There is plenty of evidence that being overweight causes health problems and isn't just a social stigma. Homosexuality of itself doesn't cause health problems. The problem though you are looking at this in terms of it being a problem by looking at it as something to be pitied if it is genetic. Homosexuality isn't a problem except for what we as a culture make it. The issue of whether it is genetic has to do with the argument that somehow people choose to be homosexual. The issue with that is that then homosexuals are looked at as sexual deviants who only seek out homosexuality because they are weak willed hedonists who only engage in it because of a taste for a variety of pleasures. The biological argument though says that this isn't just a matter of hedonism or weak will but that there is a physiological compulsion that drive them to do so. Its the difference between saying that someone eats a lot of sugar because they like candy versus that they are hypoglycemic. You are turning that on its head to say that then its a disorder and should be sought to be cured or pitied. The problem with that is that while it might not be the norm that doesn't mean its a disorder anymore than being left handed. We don't pity people for being left handed or seek to cure them since there isn't something to pity or cure.
I agree with your comments above but it caused me to ask this question. If homosexuality were completely accepted by society would there be a problem with it being a choice and not a physiological compulsion?
