Bigotry nonsense

Same sex couples are just as fertile is anyone else, obviously.

And, plenty of heterosexuals make babies by coming together in a petri dish and certainly don't limit themselves to marriage, for that matter.

I think you are seriously confused about sexuality and marriage.

 

It's not even that (except for the last part about starving children). You can fit the entire population in Jacksonville, FL with more room than a crowded elavator. Now if we gave everybody living space then you can fit the population well within the borders of Florida with the bread basket (mid west) completely uninhabited. The reason for starvation is not overcrowding but politics.

 

Actually your WRONG as far as your post....." Only the coming together of a man and a woman creates their own child."...end quote dixon.

Both Man and Woman are no longer needed for procreation.

All that is needed is a cell sample from either a man or a woman and you don't need a cell sample from both just one or the other.......then Geneticists can take that cell sample and convert then into a STEM CELL LINE......then they can take the Stem Cells and assign them to be both EGG AND SPERM CELL......

......THEN.....they can take and fertilize the egg cell with the sperm cells......THEN....they can implant the Fertilized Egg Cell into an ARTIFICIAL UTERINE WALL.....in an artificial womb.....or they could implant it in a living woman's womb either way works......

.....THEN.....they can gestate the fetus to term and birth it.

We no longer need both a man and a woman to create a child.

AA

 

Prove that. Science have yet to prove a gay gene and just because you have inclinations to be gay that doesn't mean it's part of being human. Would say the same for those who have an inclination to murder? Am I'm a bigot for telling someone he needs to control his temper even though that's his inclination?

Prove it to be a lie.

And I'm not a bigot by the definition you gave.

Prove that gay is not just an action.

Read carefully. I said homosexuality (an act), not homosexuals (a group).

Yes.

Once again I don't hate any grump even the nazis. What I do hate are their ACTIONS.

 

What is a "grump" ???

 

Group spelled incorrectly.

 

Key term being "PREVALENT". Men who have sex with men, 2% of the population, account for 67% of the new cases of HIV in a given year. Gay men are singled out for their higher prevalence of HIV. A level of prevalence that doesn't exist among others.

 

Sorry !
I should have known that......

 

Once again, that number cannot be correct !
There are too many vectors of disease, and cannot determine undiagnosed cases of people spreading disease, AIDS, lose in public.
Those numbers can never be accurate as at any given time, there may be who knows how many asymptomatic infected people.

That includes Heterosexual males that seek out male prostitutes for sexual encounters, high risk behavior.

 

Uuuuuh???, all the above is much more than the "coming together" of two people, and so doesn't contradict my statement.

 

Ooooook.
Key term being "PREVALENT". Men who have sex with men, 2% of the population, account for 67% of the new cases of DIAGNOSED HIV in a given year. Gay men are singled out for their higher prevalence of DIAGNOSED HIV. A level of prevalence that doesn't exist among others.
Not sure of the relevance of your point.

 

You cannot use numbers as far as quantifying or predicting infectious disease vectors, when it is impossible to ever know the actual number of undiagnosed asymptomatic infected patients out in public.

Heterosexuals are just as responsible for infecting others with AIDS, however, I don't expect someone not educated in Healthcare to understand even simple basic Medical facts.

Your lack of acumen and total reliance on unreliable or junk studies is sad.

 

A same sex couple has no fertility. Only the coming together of a man and a woman creates their own child.

- - - Updated - - -

That's why I specified "DIAGNOSED cases of HIV".

 

As DoctorWho has already suggested, there are other factors. For example, do you really believe every HIV positive homosexual admitted that he was also a user of IV drugs? Even if we assume the data is accurate, you still using the behavior of 0.34% of them to excuse your attitude toward ALL homosexuals. How is that NOT bigotry?

 

this means that people should be careful. It means nothing in the regards of people needing to be exterminated or shunned or treated poorly for being gay.

So what is you point?

 

Even if it was 100% among gay men it still is no reason or justification for any attitude what so ever. The second most infected group of people are black women. That statistic doesn't justify feeling that we should discourage black people from keeping their babies of they're female or that having sex with black women should be avoided or any attitude what do ever towards black women.

It's poor justification for any attitude.

Telling a gay boy or man that they are far more prone to HIV or anything else won't make them straight. So these facts should be used to encourage young gay men to be careful, they are no justification to discourage gay men from excusing or pretending to be straight.

 

With voluntary testing and subsequently treatment and education, the spread of AIDS can be halted.

 

No problem.

 

A female same sex couple can have kids twice as fast as a hetero couple.

Plus, hetero couples are quite innovative at pairings and child support clauses - so the fact that marriage is NOT limited to ANY procreation choices should not be so distressing to you.

 

Moot point as again there are areas of the world where HIV is mainly a heterosexual illness and the way to mitigate the risk of contracting the disease worldwide is the same for gays and straights. Focusing on gays when straights are also effected is biased. To mitigate the spread of HIV requires more than focusing on gays. Focusing on gays when HIV knowns no sexual orientation boundary is illogical by my measure of logic.

 

True. That is clear reality and facts, right there.

 

Not without getting sperm or adopting children from a mother and father.

Ok?

 

Absolutely.

And it is perfectly reasonable to point out that all responsible and sexually active adults should take all of the necessary precautions- gay men of course- since they are more vulnerable- but any man or woman who is having intercourse involving a penis who is not absolutely certain of a monogamous partner- should be using condoms.

The message should be to everyone who is sexually active:
a) get tested regularly if you are not monogamous
b) use condoms

 

Depends on what you mean by "coming together" I suppose.

A same sex couple I know have a lovely little baby boy (he would be just over a year old now). They went through the pregnancy, birth and so on just like any heterosexual couple would. The only (and obvious) difference was that the sperm had to come from elsewhere. In this case, the woman bearing the child was artificially inseminated using sperm from her partner's brother, so there is a bloodline link.

 

You will find that almost all social conservatives believe in a Walt Disney take on all reality.

The difficulty, the joy, the pain, waiting, expectations, disappointment, and ultimately, fulfillments of raising kids are all beyond them.

If your kids turn out gay, love them.

If your kids turn out straight, love them.

This is really simple. Saddens me that they hate easily and at a Pavlovian level.