 jmjoness says: "It is clear that there are serious medical consequences to same-sex behavior. Identification with a GLB community appears to lead to an increase in promiscuity, which in turn leads to a myriad of Sexually Transmitted Diseases and even early death. A compassionate response to requests for social approval and recognition of GLB relationships is not to assure gays and lesbians that homosexual relationships are just like heterosexual ones, but to point out the health risks of gay sex and promiscuity. Approving same-sex relationships is detrimental to employers, employees and society in general." WARNING- This article bluntly discusses health issues involved with different homosexual acts. If you find this to be offensive, I would suggest that you not read the article in its full context. It is a little blunt. I wonder if it is the attitude about sex among gays and lesbians as opposed to the act itself. I am a Pastor so I talk to people who struggle with sexual identity all the time. The one thing that I have found from them is that homosexuals (men) take a much more casual view of promiscuity. Definitely blunt.. I hope my warning sufficed. I found it noteworthy, not only because of the promiscuity and reckless sexual behaviour, but also because of the health risks directly associated with homosexual activity. I hate being this blunt, but man people want to lie to themselves to such an extent that you have to be this blunt. The human bodies were just not (created or adapted, this is not religously biased) for homosexual activity. And you're right about them taking a much more casual view of promiscuity. In fact, I even have a quote from a homosexual activist claiming that promiscuity is a cornerstone to the gay lifestyle, and that a monogomous relationship would be a betrayal of that lifestyle. I'll have to see if I can find it. 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 a 'communal betrayal of gargantuan proportions.'"Ah, is was in the first paragraph of the article I clipped, duh. Here's some interesting statistics too. http://www.mfc.org/contents/article.cfm?id=1368 Look, if you were not Catholics and I said that I KNEW that the Catholic religion was the ONLY way to salvation, would you believe me? Why then would you accept this crap from some sexual-deprived celebrate clergy as gospel. Show a source other than a Catholic rag and I'll read it. Until then don't display your person problems by supporting this rot - unless you are Catholic and then you are fuc@ed. By the way, I'm a long lapsed Catholic. I believe in myself and mankind, or most of it, now. Look, if you were not Catholics and I said that I KNEW that the Catholic religion was the ONLY way to salvation, would you believe me? I'm sorry but this makes absolutely no since in the context of this article. No where in it does it say "Homosexual behaviour is a damnable sin because the Bible declares it an abomination". Maybe you should actually bother reading the article first, before coming to such an illogical conclusion. I found it noteworthy, not only because of the promiscuity and reckless sexual behaviour, but also because of the health risks directly associated with homosexual activity.Maybe you could a... ugh I'm sorry the above post is so crappy, my internet connection blows. whatsoever. And 2). you would have noticed that he makes no mention of a "cultural" or "societal" biasness against homosexual individuals, he only explains reasons why the behaviour is unhealthy. Now, if you want to have a proper debate on the subject, then please read the article before posting any more comments. I honestly cannot have a logical discussion with you on the matter if you don't. @righthand BTW, in case you didn't realize, I am not personally a Catholic. I simply googled "is homosexual behaviour unhealthy?", and this is the article I found. As my instincts disagree with this I didn't or once read all as i didn't wish to be upset. With ClipMarks we rightly have to use whatever is in the main story. The title is ours to pick. You can clip something you disagree with and indicate you personal choice in what title you pick. I saw the title saying "medical research" but the site Catholic. I would not go to a doctor for confessions. Similarly I'd not use a religious site for 'medical research' and certainly not for something so controversial and new as this. Hence my comment. Mm, that is your choice I suppose. I just wanted to make it clear that your first example was illogical. Has anybody noticed that when jmjoness posts a clip, most of the comments also seem to be from jmjoness? Maybe he should start a blog instead. Can't help it if nobody else has a lot to say  |
View the Top Clips from June 18, 2008
Embed This Clip In Your Site...
|
|||||
|
|
||||||
|
New from the makers of Clipmarks: Amplify.com - Don't just share the news...Amplify it!
|
||||||
