AIDS & Abortion: 2M deaths yearly

[John Dibble]

the law should also strictly prohibit homosexual behavior

If two gay people, neither of whom have AIDS, have sex, nothing will happen whatsoever.  If two straight people, one of whom have AIDS, have sex, the one who doesn't have it has a very real chance of getting it.  The moral of this story is that banning "homosexual behavior" is not going to eliminate AIDS, no matter what you may want to think.

Agreed. Gay sex in itself does not cause AIDS. AIDS is caused by the HIV virus being in a person's system for many years. PROMISCUOS sex, straight or gay, increases one's risk of infection simply because you increase the chances of being with someone who is infected.

You wishing to prohibit homosexual behavior has nothing to do with AIDS if you ask me. If you want to protect gays from AIDS, you should encourage them to be monogamous relationships - you know, something like a marriage.


As far as epidemics, AIDS is hardly an epidemic in this country, not anymore anyways. A problem - certainly. Far more deaths are caused by other things, like heart disease.

[John Dibble]

the law should also strictly prohibit homosexual behavior

If two gay people, neither of whom have AIDS, have sex, nothing will happen whatsoever.  If two straight people, one of whom have AIDS, have sex, the one who doesn't have it has a very real chance of getting it.  The moral of this story is that banning "homosexual behavior" is not going to eliminate AIDS, no matter what you may want to think.

I personally think that the best solution to it is as much education about this subject as possible.  You can't realistically expect people to suddenly stop partaking in "homosexual behavior" and in drug use involving hypodermic needles by simply making it illegal (and isn't the latter already illegal?).

Well, according to the World Almanac:
In men, 85.4% of AIDS deaths are from men who have sex with men, injecting drug use, and gay sex & drug use.

In women, 40.3% of AIDS deaths are from injecting drug use.  39.8% are from heterosexual contact with someone infected with AIDS.  So I guess I am more sympathetic towards women with AIDS.

Bottom line is AIDS spreads faster among homosexuals and drug users.  The solution entails excluding homosexuals from the rest of society and getting tougher on the war on drugs.

I don't see the problem - permiscuous people who get AIDS die, gay or not, drug users who get AIDS die. To me, this means IDIOTS DIE. Permiscuous people are irresponsible and dumb, along with drug users - let them deal with the consequences of their own actions. SOCIAL DARWINISM BABY!

What you propose is unenforceable legislation. Homosexual behavior was prohibited in the past - it still happened, just in secret. Drug prohibition doesn't work - people still do drugs and the prohibition is costly and raises the violent crime rate.

[John Dibble]

Yes, promiscuous people and drug users can get AIDS and die, but it cost all of society economically.  Insurance rates and/or taxes go up to cover the cost of caring for them.

The old saying, "An ounce of prevention is with a pound of cure" is ever so true.  Preventing the problems, ie. abstinance, birth control, anti-drug education, would be so much more cost effective.

But, if you just can't help yourself and engage in dangerous behavior, you need to take responsibility for your actions and pay your own way, instead of insisting that the government pay for your mistakes.  You get pregnant by having unprotected sex, you pay for the abortion yourself.  Don't expect 'daddy government' to pay for it.  Maybe people would think twice before doing something, if they knew that they would be held liable for their own actions.

I agree - if people want to do stupid things, then they should be the ones who deal with the consequences. Government shouldn't take care of such people.

[John Dibble]

Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.

-Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom

If we did a good act merely from love of God and a belief that it is pleasing to Him, whence arises the morality of the Atheist? ...Their virtue, then, must have had some other foundation than the love of God.

-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Thomas Law, June 13, 1814

Ok, those two quotes, and the one in my signature, should show that the founding fathers, at the very least least this one who is one of the most prominent, did not act to found this nation on christian principles. Need further evidence, try the Treaty of Tripoli, 1796:

“Article 11. As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,--as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,--and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries”

This document says that the government of the United states is secular. NOTE, THE GOVERNMENT IS SECULAR. We are, by vast majority, a Christian nation for sure, but the government and the religion of the populace are seperate. If you wish to have a moral nation, do what I do - preach your virtues, live your virtues, but do not force your virtues on others. In their misery, those who have strayed from the path of reason an intelligence shall see you prosper, and there will be those who wish to be like you, those who will emulate your ways so they too can prosper. However, you need to accept that there are some who will never accept your morals and that it is immoral to use force of law to violate their individual liberties in order to make them moral - all you will do is end up making them resent you, and you will help noone.

Oh, and by the way, bushforever, you are not in the right party. I think you'll find this one more to your liking. (oh, and btw, anti-sodomy laws were struck down by the supreme court, good luck overturning that, I don't think you'll be getting too much support from the Republican Party on this)

[John Dibble]

I haven't made comments on drug users yet, but now I will - not all drug users who have AIDS have it because of drugs, needles, and whatnot. People who use drugs have a higher chance of being promiscuous and generally irresponsible - banning drug use won't stop them from doing those, and neither will banning being promiscuous and irresponsible(virtually unenforceable all around).

[John Dibble]

and secondly, how come a Republican thinks the land of the free should brainwash people and interfer with people's privacy?

There are stupid people in all groups. I've seen nutbags in the Democratic party presenting equally ludicrous ideas, just towards other groups.

[John Dibble]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Although I don't necessarily advocate banning sodomy, I think it sad that one would consider sex a "stupid thing". Sex is not a stupid thing, sex is a very huge, and potentially hazardous thing. This has no more to do with the “brainwashing” we do in illegalizing robbery and murder, and prosecuting those who commit the crimes. Though I do support privacy in the bedroom, I can see it possible that we should remove that privacy should it affect society negatively. Believe it or not, two gay men having "sex" does affect me, indirectly or not.

I think he means that promiscuous sex and doing drugs are stupid things, not sex in general.

Many personal decisions do affect society, negatively even, but forbidding them usually has more negatives than plusses. Freedom comes at a price.

[John Dibble]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As I said, homosexuality causes promiscuous sex. Although there are some homosexuals who live lives without promiscuity, it is uncommon for homosexuals not to have promiscuous sex.

Although I agree that legislating personal issues usually ends up not solving the problem, if worst comes to worst and the problem isn't solved by keeping it legal, it would be morally remiss not to legislate it. 

The problem won't go away by illegalizing it either - some things are problems and they always will be, whether you like it or not. Homosexuality was illegal before, and that did not stop it from existing. The same goes for drugs - no matter how we try to stop drugs from being produced, they still run rampant, and our prohibition attempts only cause more violent crime and thusly is a waste of money.

A more effective strategy would be to encourage monogamous relationships among homosexuals - you won't stop them from being homosexual, and you won't be able to illegalize it. The best thing to do is work within the problem and reform the attitudes of homosexuals towards sex. To do this people need to get over their prejudices and realize that they can't change someone's nature. You see the problem - what have you done to fix it?

[John Dibble]

Firstly, I do not believe that the problem with homosexual promiscuity is bad enough to implement laws against homosexuals. I do believe you could be able to correct homosexuality. The best thing we can do now is to help homosexuals seek treatment, and discourage homosexual advertisements, movies, and general publicity, as that can create homosexuality among children.

Gabu, I don't believe anyone can convert to heterosexuality, but rather, they can cure themselves into heterosexuality.

1. You have the foolish notion that people who's brains are wired for homosexuality(their brains, not their genes, brain development is not completely based on genetics) can change that in their adult lives. They can't. Most of these 'treatment' programs revolve around shaming homosexuals that homosexuality itself is wrong - it doesn't change their urges, they are just shamed into it. Real treatment would get them to stop being promiscuous.

2. You have the foolish notion that heterosexuals can be converted into homosexuals. You are or you aren't. Advertisement, movies, and publicity don't have crap to do with kids becoming homosexual. Biological, environmental, and IMPORTANT psychological factors come in - seeing two men kiss isn't going to make a five year old homosexual, being molested MIGHT.

[John Dibble]

Firstly, I do not believe that the problem with homosexual promiscuity is bad enough to implement laws against homosexuals. I do believe you could be able to correct homosexuality. The best thing we can do now is to help homosexuals seek treatment, and discourage homosexual advertisements, movies, and general publicity, as that can create homosexuality among children.

Gabu, I don't believe anyone can convert to heterosexuality, but rather, they can cure themselves into heterosexuality.

1. You have the foolish notion that people who's brains are wired for homosexuality(their brains, not their genes, brain development is not completely based on genetics) can change that in their adult lives. They can't. Most of these 'treatment' programs revolve around shaming homosexuals that homosexuality itself is wrong - it doesn't change their urges, they are just shamed into it. Real treatment would get them to stop being promiscuous.

2. You have the foolish notion that heterosexuals can be converted into homosexuals. You are or you aren't. Advertisement, movies, and publicity don't have crap to do with kids becoming homosexual. Biological, environmental, and IMPORTANT psychological factors come in - seeing two men kiss isn't going to make a five year old homosexual, being molested MIGHT.

Good post....but being molested will not make you homosexual, but it may in fact make one confused about their sexuality or make them think they are homosexual.

Being molested is a potential factor in making one a homosexual. It is rarely the only factor. There is usually no one factor that determines an individual's sexuality, it is usually a combination of factors, varying from individual to individual. Molestation at an early age may affect brain development, and might knock something out of normal operation.

[John Dibble]

It seems like the main issue here is whether you think people are born gay or whether homosexual behavior is a learned trait.  I believe it is learned and occurs over time.  Everybody is born innocent, it's the life experience and the choices one makes that determines whether a person is good or bad.  It's all the sexual advertisements and heresay, and stuff like that which may make a person confused about their sexaul identity.  These people need to be cured.

As Kurt Cobain said in the song All Apologies... "what else could i say, everyone is gay."  And I believe that everyone has the possibility and the capability to be gay or to be straight, it just depends on how a person is brought up and the choices they make.

You can't really call a person stupid or ignorant for believing that homosexuality is a learned trait or something a person is born with.  Let's be respectful of other's views, eh?

I call it ignorant and stupid when someone ignores science. Homosexuality is not learned. A variety of factors define a person's sexuality, just as a variety of factors determine other traits within a person. The biggest ones have to do with the body's chemistry - remember that the human body is really just a big sack of chemical reactions, and when one reaction changes it can affect the others. One reaction could change the development of your brain, and it might skew you towards being homosexual. There are many other things that you might be biologically predisposed towards - risk taking, alcoholism and other diseases based on addiction, and so much more. Of course, I am not denying that people still have a will of their own, but the mind and the body are greatly intertwined, so the body does affect behavior.

Brambila will dispute anything from the APA, simply because he thinks they are run by homos, but I'll link it anyways: http://www.apa.org/pubinfo/answers.html

Most importantly from that: "There are numerous theories about the origins of a person's sexual orientation; most scientists today agree that sexual orientation is most likely the result of a complex interaction of environmental, cognitive and biological factors. In most people, sexual orientation is shaped at an early age. There is also considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person's sexuality. In summary, it is important to recognize that there are probably many reasons for a person's sexual orientation and the reasons may be different for different people."

Basically it says you can't simply 'learn' to be a homosexual.

Another thing.

The underlying causes of AIDS, i.e. promiscuous sex among homosexuals and heterosexuals alike, and drug use are the real problems deserving of attention and cure, not the disease itself.  Otherwise you will just encourage immoral behaviors like promiscuous sex and drug use.  For example......Oh, I'm gonna have group sex and get high on heroin tonight...it's not like I'm gonna get AIDS or anything.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't cure the disease itself. We should both encourage responsible behavior and find a cure. They aren't mutually exclusive. I don't have group sex or do drugs - and AIDS really doesn't factor in at all for me. I've been taught and shown that such behaviors are just plain dumb, cheap ways to feel good, and can't replace true happiness. Some people will be stupid no matter what you do, you have to accept that. I say just let them die of their own stupidity - a little social darwinism now and then could be a good thing.

[John Dibble]

Bram(this was a longer post, but connection problems killed my post ):

1. Brain 'wiring'(chemistry would be more accurate): Read this and this.

2. Reparative therapy - not sure which kind this is based on what you linked. It's too much to go through. I'm assuming, based on what I read, that it is not the kind that actually tries to change a person's sexuality, merely try to suppress someone's sexual desire. If so, that's the same kind of therapy that nymphomaniacs need. We both know all homosexuals are not promiscuous, so some don't need therapy.

3. Environmental and psychological factors - to try to seperate these from biological factors if not wise. The brain, which controls most functions in the body, is affected by the environment and psychological factors. However, there are other biological factors - being exposed to a chemical in the womb is considered a biological factor, for instance. When I mentioned 'brain wiring' before, I believe I mentioned development as well - the brain is not fixed upon birth. Something as simple as what you eat can affect it's development. However, some people are simply born with certain predispositions. Sometimes a catalyst may be necessary. Therefore it is not out of the question to think that some people are predisposed towards homosexuality, but may need an outside catalyst in early age to affect the development of the brain in the way that would wire it to be homosexual. Of course, predisposition is not a gaurantee. As far as homosexual publicity goes, I don't think it is a very important factor, outside of the possibility of overexposure(just as overexposure to alcoholism or violent imagery can sometimes affect someone later in life, most kids see these things sometimes but it doesn't really affect them if it is occassional). Something big like being molested is far more of a factor than seeing two men kiss.

[John Dibble]

No, your "point" is that unacceptable behavior is going to happen so let's just make the best of it.  The solution is to eliminate the unacceptable behavior. 

If your drain pipe leaks under the sink, you can treat the results by putting a pan under it and emptying it every so often (hey sometimes it overflows, I just have to live with it, drains are going to leak), or fixing the pipe.

It is just easier to  live with the inconveniences than trying to correct the problem.

Some problems can't be solved. His point is that you can't expect to solve them, so you can try to prevent them occuring in your own kids as best you can.

It's been my experience that the more freedom and respect you give your kids(teenagers especially), the more likely they'll respect and listen to your advice. Teenagers are at a point in their life where they want some recognition as adults and individuals - too much restriction will only make them want to lash out. Letting them go to a party where there might be activities you dissaprove of tells them that you have enough respect for them to make the right decisions - in which case they probably will respect your wishes in the matter.

[John Dibble]

New stuff for you Bram -

As I said before, the various factors are not always seperate. Biological and environmental factors are especially inseperable in one very important place - the womb. The womb is a biological environment, and what the mother does affects the developing fetus's biology. We know that if a mother drinks too much while pregnant, the baby could be born with birth defects, or if the mother is a crack-head, the baby could be addicted to crack. Now, we have some new info - a recent study found that pregnant women taking slimming pills increase chances of bearing lesbian children.

[John Dibble]

The two sources you provided are simply theories, and have not been confirmed. As a matter of fact, the evidence has not even been confirmed!

“Although the new University of Chicago findings suggest male sexual response is regulated in large part by genes or neurochemistry, the results are preliminary and need to be replicated in other studies.”

Many of your studies still need to be confirmed, or had suspicious motives behind them, or insufficient methods, ect. but you still linked them as part of your argument. And I did link a third study.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well it's only your opinion that homosexual desires are unhealthy. I don't believe they are. Having uncontrollable heterosexual desire is unhealthy, but you don't see people trying to make them homosexuals. My point is that not all homosexuals need therapy, and many don't even want it. You've still yet to convince me that homosexuality is a disorder.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And I think you conveniently ignore the fact that neurology is intricately connected to the mind. Ask any decent psychologist - brain chemistry's effect on any psychological disorder should not be ignored. Heck, look at the third study I linked - you mentioned the fetus getting poisoned, the article mentions possible effects of medicines being taken by the mother that affect the fetus.

[John Dibble]

Bram, I have to say this - you don't know as much about pyschology as you think you do. No offense, and I'll correct you on the biggest thing I saw wrong with your argument - schizophrenia.

You say schizophrenia is a cognitive disorder - you are wrong. It is cognitive, in the sense that it affects behavior, but unlike a phobia the biggest causes are not cognitive. Most recent research on schizophrenia shows that the major causes of it are neurological and probably genetic(having a close relative with it increases your chances of having it, twin studies also show this as well) - for more info go here. I'm not denying the possibility of some cognitive causes, but for the most part science shows it to be biological in nature.

Other diseases that have cognitive effects but biological causes: 
- Manic-depressive disorder, or bi-polar disorder
- Obsessive-Compulsive disorder
-Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, though admittedly this one is probably overdiagnosed. In many cases I think we just don't give children enough exercise time to release pent-up energy(I heard that the elementary school I used to go to cut recess out as well as shortened gym time, for instance.

Of course, then there's mixed bag cases like depression. Some people are biologically vulnerable to depression, but it usually takes cognitive factors to set it off, and treatment often involves both cognitive and medicinal therapy. All I listed above may also sometimes have cognitive factors, but usually biology is the biggest factor and medication is the biggest treatment.

Homosexuality is clearly behavioral in effect, but the causes are probably not all cognitive. We are not sure which it leans towards. Biological causes of something are vast, and just because they have not been found that does not imply they don't exist. I linked studies, very recent ones, that still need to be followed up - but that does not mean we should discount them, unless at some point they are disproven. I disputed many of the studies you listed, too much to really dig up and list, but, just as an example one of the journals used in a report you linked was misused by the author(I remember the researcher being furious her work was used in that way). I suppose only time and more research will tell. However, I think that it is more likely to lean on biological causes than cognitive, though in many cases it's probably 'mixed bag'. If genetics are involved, it may only be in terms of increasing risk - there is no one 'gay gene' as was insisted in the past. Like schizophrenia, the causes are not the same for everyone.


Now, as to the 'healthiness' of homosexuality. Based on what I've read from your posts, you think that homosexuality is unhealthy in itself - that being attracted to the same sex instead of the opposite is unhealthy. Please do correct me if I'm wrong on that. I do not think that is the case. I do believe that unchecked promiscuous behavior, whether homo or heterosexual, is unhealthy in that is has so many risks to one's health, both physical and mental, but simply being attracted by the same sex is not in of itself unhealthy.

I don't view two homosexuals who are monogamous with eachother, in a non-abusive relationship, as living an unhealthy lifestyle. If they are supportive and loving, it's a healthy relationship. There might be a few health factors, such as increased chance of anal tissue damange/infection during their gay sex, but overall that is not a big factor on the scale of health.

If two homosexuals are in a relationship, but they are promiscuous or abusive, then it's unhealthy.

I'm not really a relativist in the sense that you described - personally I think society can be filled with idiots, as it is in many places on the planet, and they are ignorant on what's actually healthy. Now, you do have to distinguish that healthy and moral are not the same things - some people view masturbation as unhealthy, but any doctor will tell you it has no real negative health effects. Society often defines what it views as moral or healthy, and that gives a general sense of the culture of the society, but not what is actually healthy. As far as health goes, I'd be more willing to ask for the consensus of studied medical professionals as well as some common-sense bolstered by self-study to determine what is healthy.

What I actually am is an individualist - I think people can hold their own standards of morality, though for society to function there usually has to be some consensus and compromise in the laws made. And, being an individualist, I don't generally lump people into groups - there are healthy homosexuals and there are unhealthy ones, just as with heterosexuals.

[John Dibble]

Two things, Bram -

1. First, just letting you know I fixed the link on schizophrenia I posted. Here it is again, so you don't have to go digging for it: http://psychologyinfo.com/schizophrenia/index.html

I didn't deny that schizophrenia has possible cognitive causes, I merely asserted that, based on what research I have seen, that the causes are mostly biological. I've admitted in previous posts that stressors could serve as triggers.

I believe in looking at causes to determine how to classify a disorder. A phobia is usually pure cognitive - little having to do with biology is actually involved in causing the fear. Schizophrenia has cognitive effects but has primarily biological causes in nearly every case - you disagree because of supposed lack of physical evidence, but I say we have enough to conclude that it is majority biological causes. Doesn't mean more research should be done, though. I guess this is up to opinion. Really we don't have physical evidence that a lot of things exist or happen, yet we accept them as fact - lots of physics stuff for instance. Perhaps it would be better to classify disorders by both cause and effect(pure organic, pure cognitive, cause organic/effect cognitive, cause cognitive/effect organic, ect) rather than simply organic or cognitive.

2. That quote was about biological factors causing disorders in general, not schizophrenia(I'd think that would be obvious, since it was before the schizophrenia argument). Alcohol can be a factor in any number of disorders, whether schizophrenia is among them or not I do not know. Of course, as you admitted, viral factors in the womb can increase chances of developing schizophrenia. By the way, the same site you linked(different part of it) says something about prenatal alchohol exposure, and other chemicals such as lead, can increase the risk of schizophrenia by %300. Read here, section 6.

[John Dibble]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's fine- I'm just making sure you understand that schizophrenia is mainly caused by psychological trauma, not brain trauma. Though some studies suggest the possibility of genetic vulnerabilities, enviromental issues still play a major role. What would be correct in asserting is that among the cognitive disorders, schizophrenia is one with one of the most genetic influences. I think I saw a study somewhere that said identicle twins have a 40% chance of getting schizophrenia if their sibling has it. Although this is a high number, enviroment obviously plays a huge role of influence.

Yes- I saw that sixth section. Again, it was purely statistical and lacks physical evidence.

Well, I still disagree with you about 'mainly' on cognitive causes for schizophrenia. I believe it is mainly a phsyical ailment, just one that develops over a longer period of time. Stressors may serve as triggers, as I said, but those same stressors likely wouldn't cause schizophrenia in 99% of the population - basically the stressor would trigger the dormant physical condition. I think this article explains it pretty well, under the section labeled The "Two-hit" Theory of the Origin of Schizophrenia. The biological problems always exist, so the disease is dormant and may never show itself, but a cognitive problem brings it to the surface. Of course, it's diverse, so the causes could be majority biological in some and majority cognitive in others. I just tend to think it is more often biological in the case of this disease.

On homosexuality, we're just going to have to disagree on the whole 'healthy'/'disorder' thing.