We've written back and forth with lengthy responses but this is a good representation of what has gone down since my first post. His thoughts are in quotes with my response to follow.
“My point: Unrestrained sexual behavior has huge socio-economic consequences. At the Johns Hopkins University School of Health and Hygiene, the basic course in public health proposes that 80% of our healthcare dollars are spent on conditions related to alcohol & drugs, tobacco, violence and unrestrained sexual behavior.”
"If you do some research on the effectiveness of condom use in anal intercourse for the prevention of disease, you'll find the 'fail' rate is abysmal. You'll also find that anal intercourse, in and of itself, is far more traumatic and more conducive to the transmission of deadlier diseases. In short (and again, comparing risky behaviors), having repeated anal intercourse with multiple partners AND using a condom is like driving drunk with your seat belt fastened or smoking filtered cigarettes. The idea of 'safe sex' is part of the lie that the American society has been told for the last two generations. From a public health perspective, the only absolutely 'safe' sex is no sex -- David Carradine demonstrated that its not even safe if you're a do-it-yourselfer. A monogamous, lifelong, heterosexual relationship is by far the safest sex, next to 'no sex' (which I'm not even considering)."
He goes on to say:
”the best way to stem the epidemic of sexually transmitted diseases - especially among young people - and to reduce childhood poverty is to uphold a standard of sexual behavior that reduces the risk of sexually transmitted diseases and creates a stable economic environment for raising the next generation. I believe that standard to be a monogamous, heterosexual lifelong union. I just can't see where the two relationships are exactly the same and believe the term 'marriage' should only apply to the latter.”
"We all have desires, but when we choose to over-indulge in risky behaviors, is that healthy? How many of these health and socio-economic trends do you think are acceptable in this new paradigm of unrestrained sexual behavior?"
My response:
“My point: Unrestrained sexual behavior has huge socio-economic consequences. At the Johns Hopkins University School of Health and Hygiene, the basic course in public health proposes that 80% of our healthcare dollars are spent on conditions related to alcohol & drugs, tobacco, violence and unrestrained sexual behavior.”
"If you do some research on the effectiveness of condom use in anal intercourse for the prevention of disease, you'll find the 'fail' rate is abysmal. You'll also find that anal intercourse, in and of itself, is far more traumatic and more conducive to the transmission of deadlier diseases. In short (and again, comparing risky behaviors), having repeated anal intercourse with multiple partners AND using a condom is like driving drunk with your seat belt fastened or smoking filtered cigarettes. The idea of 'safe sex' is part of the lie that the American society has been told for the last two generations. From a public health perspective, the only absolutely 'safe' sex is no sex -- David Carradine demonstrated that its not even safe if you're a do-it-yourselfer. A monogamous, lifelong, heterosexual relationship is by far the safest sex, next to 'no sex' (which I'm not even considering)."
He goes on to say:
”the best way to stem the epidemic of sexually transmitted diseases - especially among young people - and to reduce childhood poverty is to uphold a standard of sexual behavior that reduces the risk of sexually transmitted diseases and creates a stable economic environment for raising the next generation. I believe that standard to be a monogamous, heterosexual lifelong union. I just can't see where the two relationships are exactly the same and believe the term 'marriage' should only apply to the latter.”
"We all have desires, but when we choose to over-indulge in risky behaviors, is that healthy? How many of these health and socio-economic trends do you think are acceptable in this new paradigm of unrestrained sexual behavior?"
My response:
The fundamental difference between us is that you view homosexuality as some kind of fringe behavior, while I just see it as different from what some people are used to. The fact is we cannot ask homosexuals to not be attracted to one another, and to not desire same-sex sexual relationships, any more than we could ask heterosexuals to do the same with respect to the opposite sex. Knowing this to be true, we need to move on and address the issues you have brought up by expanding sexual education to address homosexual issues. Sure, if an infected male has sex with numerous partners, even while using a condom, he is selfish and irresponsible, knowing what we know about the increased risk of infection through anal intercourse. But you’re ignoring the ability of every person, gay or straight to be educated and to get tested.
Again, nothing about the institution of marriage these days is lifelong since half end in divorce. So the ideal you’re fighting to protect DOES NOT exist in the first place. Then looking at marriage in a purely functional way, doesn’t it just make sense, for your argument, that homosexuals are able to join in a monogamous lifelong union. Here’s why. In an earlier response, you said “any two people entering into a relationship where they share financial resources and living quarters, having some sort of contractual agreement is prudent to clarify expectations and to financially protect each individual.” Plus, in order to curb the spread of sexually transmitted disease, doesn’t it just make sense for two homosexuals who are free of STDs to join in attempt at a lifelong monogamous union. Isn’t this the standard for homosexuals as well according to your argument? Then the only issue becomes, what will the economic, legal, social, and religious implications of that union be? So my question remains the same: Why should homosexuals have to settle for a separate but equal institution?
No comments:
Post a Comment