Giardia an STD? Wait until my wife hears about this! I had a run-in with Giardia when we were in the Peace Corps, though it was aquired through contaminated food like all of the other intestinal parasites we picked up.

Incedentally, giardia is not uncommon among backpackers who drink from "pure" mountain streams and lakes, and is known colloquially as the beaver fever. This article rather changes the connotation.

You are correct-- it used to be that to get giardia, you had to drink contaminated water. Giarida is listed after the statement "sexually transmitted infections that are not generally spread through sexual contact." Which means that it is becoming an STD due to certain behaviors. Notice also that they list good ol' salmonella, too. I guess you can no longer assume it was bad mayonaise any more.

We are told that it is of utmost importatnce that smoking should be banned because of "second-hand smoke", despite privacy and private property rights, because of health concerns. Articles like this are indictments of "second-hand sex", and an argument against the sanctitiy of the bedroom that Leftists are so concerned about.

WC Fields' great line comes to mind:

"Water? Never touch the stuff: fish [expletive] in it."

If the behavior is the result of natural processes, it is natural, regardless of the consequences.

Depending, of course, on what the meaning of the word "is" is.

Yes, everything is natural in that sense, because we're part of nature and nothing we do can be unnatural up to and including destroying the planet and our own species along with it. That would seem an overbroad definition of what is Natural to Man, no?

Murder, rape, robbery, incest, bestiality... If it happens, must be "natural".

Tom:

Which is why morality can not be derived from beliefs like those of Jeff and Harry.

From the tone of all Orrin's posts on this subject, you would think that no heterosexual couples ever resort to anal sex as a form of birth control.

They do, and it is notably common among certain Catholic groups; but for some reason, that does not attract his wrath.

You can get giardia here in paradise; or, better yet, from the public water supply in St. Petersburg, Russia, which was blown up by the Germans and never quite fixed.

I've never differentiated based on the sex of couple. And, in fact, find lesbianism relatively harmless because it does not involve such.

Jeff:

I don't believe for one minute you believe what you posted above.

Harry:

"you would think that no heterosexual couples ever resort to anal sex as a form of birth control. They do, and it is notably common among certain Catholic groups; but for some reason, that does not attract his wrath."

Do I dare, repeat dare, ask for your authority here? I guess my grandmother's dark warnings about those Catholics were spot on.

Harry-

If you're implying anal intercourse is a method of avoiding the sin of condom use among "certain Catholic groups" you have got to supply your sources. What you are saying sounds a bit far-fetched and I would characterize it as symptomatic of old fashioned, fever swamp, red-neck, anti-catholic silliness. If you cite the habits of some third-world, animal sacrificing, voodoo influenced "Catholic" cult as some sort of "proof" it is a revealing comment.

Peter:

Having a gay brother, and, through him, having met many gay men, I am absolutely certain of one thing:

They were born that way.

Just like you, and OJ, and Tom C, were born with the orientation you have.

It is no more a matter of choice than cleft palate, meaning it is every bit as natural as cleft palate. Of course, at least one religion in the world treats cleft palate sufferers as if they are the Devil's serpents. Why not gays, too?

That you are so willing to deny the humanity of people who have done absolutely nothing to hurt you, whose activities don't involve you in the least, gives me all the reason I need to put your lectures about morality on complete disregard.

It's telling that the first place some of you go is bestiality. Which isn't a crime, is practiced by heterosexual men, and isn't a barrier to marriage. It may not even be grounds for divorce.

One of the finest moral statements ever made was "... all men are created equal...endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."

Some of you don't seem to take that very seriously.

Jeff:

What that phrase means is that all Men are capable of conforming equally to moral standards.

Jeff-

A little preachy, no? If you want to have a contest on the number of interactions with the gay community or the number of gay friends I think you may lose, although my brothers are not gay.

Moral choices are the issue rather than justifying the all too human tendency to succumb to apetite and desire whatever the cost.Since the article speaks about what may be some of those costs, the question seems to be, why the need to equate normal, healthy heterosexuality with an activity that results in the problems discussed in the article?

My reaction to this post is, "what's the point? What does this gain us, the non-medical community?"

Yes, homosexual behavior may increase STDs. Its a shame that their choices lead to that. The doctors of homosexual men are in a fine position to warn them about it. So too are well-intentioned public health workers, who place signs on buses and broadcast warnings on the radio. Let them, and those directly associated with homosexuals, do the warning and chastising.

Otherwise, I say, live and let live.

What else are we do to about this? Walk around with signs saying that gays are condemned to Hell? Spit on them? Curse at them? Lock them up, and pray over them??? What does the Gospel teach us about treating our fellow man? You may enjoy sneering at others from your oh-so-moral position, but I think you're just a hypocrite unless you act on it. Go ahead, I dare you: Go tell a gay man that he's a sinner because of what he does in his bedroom.

Mr. Cooke-

Are we looking at the same post and comments? Man, this topic brings out some, uh...hysterics?

If your attitude is "live and let live", I believe you're kind of preaching to the choir here.

Bradley:

The question isn't so much what they do in their bedrooms, but that they now insist society accept it and treat those actions as morally acceptable.

Bradley:

We are discussing ideas here, not running for office. What one approves of and what one would do if he were king for a day are very different issues. This whole debate is being conducted in the context of angry, assertive demands from the gay activist community to the effect that gay and hetero sex are morally and socially equivalent and to be celebrated and sanctified equally. Don't pretend we are slinking around peeping through windows looking for candidates for an auto-da-fe.

Jeff:

So, they were born that way. I was born naked, demanding and completely selfish. From that we conclude...

Tom:

The contest isn't over the number of interactions, it is coming to terms with the notion that homosexuality, just like heterosexuality, is not a moral choice. Rather, for some people, homosexuality is every bit as much a part of their humanity as heterosexuality is of yours.

So the question becomes: on what basis do you deny those people's humanity without also negating the Declaration of Independence?

Clearly, homosexuality incurs some health risks that heterosexuality doesn't. What is the moral component there that deserves your opprobrium? (BTW, the list completely failed to discuss heterosexually transmitted diseases, which is not short) I somehow doubt that if, tomorrow, all those diseases were to disappear, that your prejudice would follow in their wake.

The question you have to answer is why monogamous sex of one type is morally inferior to monogamous sex of another.

Monogamy is the moral standard. Sex is an act. There is a difference.

No one denies their humanity. We acknowledge their humanity when we hold them to exactly the same moral standard as everyone else. Key to that morality is the treatment of every being as bearing inviolable dignity. To treat them instead, or yourself, like the Beta baboon submitting to the Alpha male is obviously completely violative of that standard. Buggery is incompatible with love.

Negating the Declaration of Independence? Jeff, you are frothing.

Seeing as how you seem to believe every human activity or characteristic is innately caused or determined by non-human, purposeless forces, the Declaration must say a lot more than anyone ever imagined.

What is next--civil rights for psychopaths?

Peter:

That's no joke. For folk like Jeff, who believe such human pathologies as homosexuality to be biologically determined, there is no coherent argument why such should be a bar to full equality. Naturalism of this sort denies the possibility of morality.

Peter:

Every? Surely you are the one frothing.

I am talking about this specific one, and asserting that morality is about the context within which the act takes place, not the act itself.

When homosexuality takes place within a monogamous context, the one which you hold moral for heterosexuality, the impact upon those outside the relationship is zero.

Which is what I mean when I assert you are putting the DoI on disregard. If the pursuit of their happiness in no way impinges upon yours, then on what basis may you limit their civil options? In short, what dog do you have in the fight?

You do in fact deny their humanity, in asserting the only moral choice they may make is precisely the same one you would never impose upon yourselves: celibacy and a life without the security of marriage.

My approach actually does search for morality, of a kind where people are free to live their lives to the extent they don't detract from others to live theirs (this is where you strike murder, sociopathology, rape, incest from your list of strawman objections).

Your approach, on the other hand, is typified by OJ's continued arrogant imposition upon others feelings which they themselves do not hold. If that doesn't deny their humanity, I don't know what does.

Jeff:

I am beginning to understand why your ideal secular society is full of religious people. It would implode if it weren't.

I love your Norman Rockwell image of sober, discreet married gays minding their own business while they walk the puppy, having no effect whatsoever on the society around them and taking the greatest care not to impose on anyone else. Yup, that's the typical modern gay community, all right. Zero impact.

Peter:

Remember, I'm talking about context while you are wrapped around the biological detail axle.

I said absolutely nothing about how many gays would adopt that kind of lifestyle, only that the morality of their sexuality is determined by the lifestyle they choose.

Even if only one gay couple chooses monogamy, their lives are just as moral as all the heterosexual couples who choose monogamy.

And all the gays who choose promiscuity are no more immoral than all the heterosexuals who do the same.

Jeff:

"I said absolutely nothing about how many gays would adopt that kind of lifestyle, only that the morality of their sexuality is determined by the lifestyle they choose."

Let me get this straight. The morality of what we do is determined by what we choose to do? And if we are born with innate characteristics like gayness, we really have no choice about what we choose? So, whatever we choose to do, even if we are really not choosing, because we have no choice, is moral because we choose to do it?

Am I close? Jeff, tell me I'm close, please.

Peter:

This really isn't so hard. Read the last two sentences of my previous post.

If a monogamous heterosexual relationship is moral, why isn't a monogamous homosexual one?

Jeff:

Anal sex

Jeff:

"Even if only one gay couple chooses monogamy, their lives are just as moral as all the heterosexual couples who choose monogamy.

And all the gays who choose promiscuity are no more immoral than all the heterosexuals who do the same."

You mean these two? Forgive me, but they sound more like thunderous pronouncements of revealed truth from the mountain top than rational, scientific deductions.

Peter B:

I'd love to see you try to prove, in a logical manner, that Jeff's two statements are not true.

oj:

Your concept of "love" seems, at best, incomplete.

If your decision that homosexual sex is immoral, is based on the health risk, combined with the dominance issue, then you cast a wide net, indeed.
One third of Americans, 90 million, are morbidly obese. All straight couples, according to you, are at their core based on dominance and submission.

So, what's the difference ? Why are fat people and straight people moral, and gays immoral ?

Peter:

They are not thunderous pronouncements--they are trial balloons.

After all, if the criteria were disease, despair, turmoil and death, vaginal sex would fit the description just as well as anal sex.

So maybe, just maybe, the morality of sexuality is not in the biological details, but rather contained within the act's context.

Certainly that is true for other things. Killing can be moral. Certainly drinking, dancing, and gambling are not always immoral.

So help me with this Peter. Is the morality of gay sex situationally dependent? And if not, why not?

Michael:

Morality isn't based on the health risk. The incompatability of anal sex with health merely demonstrates it to be unnatural and abti-Darwinian, the latter being an impossibility if Darwinism is true. The post is anti-Darwin, not anti-gay.

Peter:

They are not thunderous pronouncements, they are trial balloons.

If one were to use disease, disruption, despair, and death as criteria of morality, then vaginal sex is also immoral.

Well, of course not. The morality of heterosexual sex is completely dependent upon context.

So if that is true for heterosexual sex, then is it also true for homosexual sex? And if not, why not?

OJ:

Shall I start listing all the diseases associated with vaginal sex?

The only basis on which to decide homosexuality's unnaturalness is on whether they are born that way.

If they are, it is natural. Period.

And there is no reason to believe they aren't.

Oscar Lewis is my published, academic source.

I have some unpublished information tending to confirm his findings.

oj:

As you've noted before, humans are no longer entirely bound by natural selection.

Which is a good reason to believe that gays are, by and large, born that way. Otherwise, they'd have died out by now, eh ?

Michael:

The opposite. They'd have doied out if it was genetic. It's merely a social pathology.

OJ:

If everything we are is genetic, there would be no XY women.

But there are.

So your assertion it is merely a social pathology is far less certain than you portray.

That is one persistent social pathology.

What other social pathologies have been so widespread, long-lasting, oppressed and persecuted ?

Murder, rape, incest, pedophilia, genocide, etc., etc., etc.--Man is Fallen.