I don't know what TTBOMK means, but pointing out that HIV/AIDS is a predominantly homo disease is very un-PC. In truth, this is only the case because the lining of the anus tears more easily during sex (or even during its more common usages as a means of fecal egress), thereby exposing the bloodstream by which AIDS is transmitted. If men got to have nearly as much anal sex as they'd like to have, it wouldn't be so much a gay disease. ;)

You are wrong there. The primary vectors for HIV in the US may be gay sex and intravenous drug use. But in other parts of the world, noteably Africa, it is primary spread through hetrosexual contact.

Well, I'm pointing out that "nature" can mean "natural behavior" or "via scientifically-possible means." See, you define them as "naturally" procreating even though they look like women, think they are women, and in their minds are homosexual. You have defined "natural behavior" as having nothing to do with the person's intentions or internal thought processes. Which surprises me. I don't think anyone else arguing your position would define "natural behavior" to be independent from "intended behavior" -- in fact, the argument that reason can overcome the base animal urges which cause dogs to hump other male dogs argues in favor of looking into someone's mind, at their intentions, when determining if their behavior is "natural." Now, it seems you have backtracked on that position. I'll let you reply as to whether or not you have before I continue.

HIV is spread by risky behavior. Multiple partners, sex with prostitutes, no condoms, anal sex, shared needles, etc. It just happens to be that a higher percentage of heterosexuals practice safer behavior. In third world countries where even heterosexual risky behavior runs rampant, the risk is pretty much equal.

<font color=deepskyblue>No, <font color=coral>Rokenn</font>, that isn't any better...because nobody has said this in any post in either thread. In fact, the Bible doesn't even say this. It does call homosexuality an <font color=white>"abomination"</font>, but it does not arbitrarily relegate all homosexuals to Hell.
</font> </font>[/QUOTE]And the penalty for 'abomination' is death. Pretty severe:

Funny, how advocating an "institution" that tends to promote monagamy, aka marriage, would help reduce the risk of AIDS. Funny how that works just fine for heteros, but just cant work for homos in a legal sense. Ironic the topic would turn this way.

[ 08-08-2003, 05:41 PM: Message edited by: Chewbacca ]

Why the HELL does the innocent animal have to die too??

Well, I'm pointing out that "nature" can mean "natural behavior" or "via scientifically-possible means." See, you define them as "naturally" procreating even though they look like women, think they are women, and in their minds are homosexual. You have defined "natural behavior" as having nothing to do with the person's intentions or internal thought processes. Which surprises me. I don't think anyone else arguing your position would define "natural behavior" to be independent from "intended behavior" -- in fact, the argument that reason can overcome the base animal urges which cause dogs to hump other male dogs argues in favor of looking into someone's mind, at their intentions, when determining if their behavior is "natural." Now, it seems you have backtracked on that position. I'll let you reply as to whether or not you have before I continue. </font>[/QUOTE]Since you're using an unrealistic hypothetical situation, it makes it difficult to be too realistic in the response. Internal thought are still very pertinent. We have the cognitive ability to know and understand our biological sex and the purpose of it. That supports my opinion that homosexual behavior is a conscious choice made by an individual at some point in their lives and not some biological mutation or defect. It's a psychological(behavioral) problem.

At least you finally admitted that it's your oppinion! But that doesn't make it right, wrong, natural or devient.

And to think that humans are the only animals with cognitive ability is both egotistic and homocentric. All multi cellular organisms exhibit cognitive ablility for it requires cognitive response to react to pain, pleasure, fear; to hunt for food, to exhibit self preservation, to seek propagation of species.

Take Great White Sharks for example - not even mammals. They swim in every ocean of the world. They do not all eat the same things. They had to learn by location which prey animals were most suited to sustaining them. Even individuals in common hunting grounds display different tactics when hunting. This all points to cognitive ablility.

That we cannot communicate with other animals the same way we communicate with other humans does not mean all other animals are cognitivly challenged. And we can communicate with other animals BTW. But this is all a different topic.

But you never did answer my question .... what so called perks do you wish to deny them, and why?

Can you come up with any 'reason' that the Anglicans did not already come up with for the Puritans? Or what some whites came up with for blacks/natives/Jews/ect? Or can you only come up with a variation of "they are different from us ...."?

Disease. Potential livestock and human infection.