found this great article on homosexuals on a catholic site of all places

[Rabi Mansur]

What defines my morality Br. rabi. is my religion.. science is a gift from God for us to better our lives, not to misuse and go against the intended nature..

And i guess in the end it ultimately is a question of morality and what informs our morality. I'm still trying to understand the homosexual lifestyle. It is definitely not something I condone and alhamdulillah I've never had a child struggle with same sex attraction so I don't know how I would react. I do have a nephew who is gay and his parents did all that they could to try and dissuade him from the lifestyle but he moved away and is living with another guy. I was raised in a religion that is very anti-gay. My nephew is now an atheist because of how our religion treated him. But his partner is a liberal Jewish type and hence doesn't have hang ups about religion like my nephew.

Anyway, it is not a healthy lifestyle. No question.

:wa:

 

[M.A.S.H.]

I have enjoyed your logic or lack thereof.. somehow when marriage is okayed for homosexuals that will curb on their promiscuity because you said so, and because you deemed the data provided unreliable?

The article isn't about beliefs, so it really doesn't matter who thinks what. What matters at the end of the day are the numbers of statistical significance and how they weave into the fabric of society although the moral aspect from a religious standpoint is indisputable, and no amount of lobbying, complaints or backtalk will change that!

all the best

Not because I said so. It's an assumption.
The provided data does not speak about the influence of gay amrriage on promiscuity amongst homosexuals.
Of course it is about beliefs, it is a purely ideological article that admits it takes its inspiration from the Holy Cathecism and it only quotes surveys that fit its agenda.
I agree with the statistics, certain diseases are more prevalent in gay men who do tend to be more prmoscous, but my point is this:
Gay marriage will not increase promiscuity, it will not increase the disease rate, rather it will do the opposite.
The article claims gay marriage will have negative effects on the society, but there are no studies that have been done to confirm or disprve either point.
I can remember, marriage statistics in Sweden actually increased once the country passed same sex partnership laws, so this suggests gay marriage doesnt hurt traditional amrriage after all.

 

[جوري]

Not because I said so. It's an assumption.
The provided data does not speak about the influence of gay amrriage on promiscuity amongst homosexuals.
Of course it is about beliefs, it is a purely ideological article that admits it takes its inspiration from the Holy Cathecism and it only quotes surveys that fit its agenda.
I agree with the statistics, certain diseases are more prevalent in gay men who do tend to be more prmoscous, but my point is this:
Gay marriage will not increase promiscuity, it will not increase the disease rate, rather it will do the opposite.
The article claims gay marriage will have negative effects on the society, but there are no studies that have been done to confirm or disprve either point.
I can remember, marriage statistics in Sweden actually increased once the country passed same sex partnership laws, so this suggests gay marriage doesnt hurt traditional amrriage after all.

Greetings,

Your concept of 'Hurt' is a little too literal.. things don't have to hurt in the traditional sense or whatever your definition is of it for it to be felt by society at large .. simply having billions of health-care dollars shifted to this one area and cut from another is in an of itself a hurt.. the same way when billions are shifted for diseases caused by drugs and alcohol why, simply because it is preventable, this is just an example not the only one.

This topic isn't merely about gay marriages although, it is in and of itself an oddity, it is about the entire act... your concept of not increasing promiscuity is equally odd to me.. If you invent a test that detects prostate cancer early will that curb on the prevalence of prostate cancer? in fact you'll find the number of cases increased, but the conclusion that one reaches is it neither increases the number of cases nor does it increase its prevalence, you have simply made an earlier cut-off point, where folks who would have been diagnosed at 50 are now diagnoses at 48. Follow that same analogy for promiscuity and gay-marriages. It will not suddenly elicit a commitment when the whole life-style is unhealthy!

on a last note:
There many things in modern medicine or science that I don't ethically agree with, it doesn't make me a phobic or a bigot.
for instance, I understand perfectly the need for many to have a child and the painful conventional treatments that they undergo, as I have seen it in my own family, but I don't approve of someone counteracting their own biology and what fate has decreed and getting donated eggs and sperm and a surrogate. Maybe it has become common place that no one understands the long term implications or even the other worldly ones -- but there is something to be said to holding on to ones religious code of ethics!

all the best

 

[M.A.S.H.]

Your concept of 'Hurt' is a little too literal.. things don't have to hurt in the traditional sense or whatever your definition is of it for it to be felt by society at large .. simply having billions of health-care dollars shifted to this one area and cut from another is in an of itself a hurt.. the same way when billions are shifted for diseases caused by drugs and alcohol why, simply because it is preventable, this is just an example not the only one.

This topic isn't merely about gay marriages although, it is in and of itself an oddity, it is about the entire act... your concept of not increasing promiscuity is equally odd to me.. If you invent a test that detects prostate cancer early will that curb on the prevalence of prostate cancer? in fact you'll find the number of cases increased, but the conclusion that one reaches is it neither increases the number of cases nor does it increase its prevalence, you have simply made an earlier cut-off point, where folks who would have been diagnosed at 50 are now diagnoses at 48. Follow that same analogy for promiscuity and gay-marriages. It will not suddenly elicit a commitment when the whole life-style is unhealthy

How exactly will allowing gay marriage increase health care expenditure?
I don't see how prostate cancer analogy applies here. What I'm saying is that everything gay marriage will do is enable certain individuals enter a union and benefit from inheritance, hospital visits etc. It will not increase the number of gay men having risky sex, ergo it will not increase health care expenditure. I believe its effect can be opposite actually, a legally committed gay couple is less likely to indulge in promiscuous act, hence gay marriage may even decrease health care expenditures.
Anyway, anal sex, homosexual or heterosexual, is more riskier for acquiring a venereal disease, which is irrelevant in most cases as long as you use a condom and most of all, be able to trust one's partner.
Anal sex in a monogamous non-infected couple poses a minor increase in risk compared to vaginal sex.

 

[جوري]

How exactly will allowing gay marriage increase health care expenditure?
I don't see how prostate cancer analogy applies here. What I'm saying is that everything gay marriage will do is enable certain individuals enter a union and benefit from inheritance, hospital visits etc. It will not increase the number of gay men having risky sex, ergo it will not increase health care expenditure. I believe its effect can be opposite actually, a legally committed gay couple is less likely to indulge in promiscuous act, hence gay marriage may even decrease health care expenditures.
Anyway, anal sex, homosexual or heterosexual, is more riskier for acquiring a venereal disease, which is irrelevant in most cases as long as you use a condom and most of all, be able to trust one's partner.
Anal sex in a monogamous non-infected couple poses a minor increase in risk compared to vaginal sex.

Greetings,

read everything I have written again, as I detest repeating myself.. and put it all under the heading of problems with homosexual relations rather than the distillate of that coming under 'gay marriage' a marriage is the least of our problems when the whole life-style. I don't understand the difficulty many of you have sticking with a topic as a whole rather than making an issue of a particular part. At that point abstract analogies will make better sense!

I think we are done here!

all the best

 

[M.A.S.H.]

All I'm saying is allowing gay marriage may improve the general health condition of the gay population and as studies do not seem to suggest negative effects exist, it should be allowed.

 

[Italianguy]

Gay marriage shouldn't be allowed. It does have an impact on society. 30 years ago you didn't hear much of it, and when you did it wasn't accepted. Now, people in general have becaome acustomed to this practice and feel it is ok because there is no reall way to deal with it...legally. Once society becomes ok with this, as it has, it influences others into thinking it is ok. Over time it will ruin the sanctity of NORMAL marriage (as a reminder; normal marriage is between a man and a woman, for those who have seemed to have forgotten). Now, some states and provinces have legally allowed this mess. Letting gays become legally married does effect society. We shouldn't be accepting of this, well, at least I don't have to.

Wether it be Christians or Muslims is a different subject. We as believers do have to follow Gods commandments. And it is written in all religions books that we aren't to commit a sin such as this. As for Agnostics and atheists...do whatever you please, your the one who has to answer to God for your decisions...not me.

God be with you.