Wordy, you are dodging my points like George Bush dodges shoes.
Sterile heteros can have all the moral sex they want. But immoral sex exists, whether it's safe or unsafe.
And here you go again to the "it's immoral lols" argument, assuming that everyone else's idea of immoral (which you haven't in any way supported without having your argument shot down) is the same as yours. What makes it immoral, the inability to have kids? Well, then sterile sex is just as immoral, yet you're cool with that. Increased risk of STDs? You're leaving other, much higher-risk groups out, because "it's okay for them but not for gays". Don't try telling me AIDS is a major reason, either, because you've stated it would be wrong even if it didn't have higher STD rates. You are picking on gays for this stuff that applies much more validly to other groups while ignoring said other groups.
(Heck, even pedophiles can have safe sex with children.)
Alright,
enough with the pedophilia comparisons. They are not in any way comparable. Two gay people consenting to sex while knowing its risks and such is
entirely different from molesting emotionally undeveloped children who don't understand what's going on. Slip a condom on, put on some lube, whatever you do, that kid is still going to get hurt either emotionally or physically, against their will.
Don't try telling me you're "not making any comparisons". If you weren't, you wouldn't be bringing it up. You are making "points" (in the loosest possible sense of the word)... by making comparisons. Whoa! Funny how that works.
And homosexual sex---physiologically unnatural, disordered homosexual sex---is immoral and is also clearly a bad legal precedent.
You keep saying this crap, even though you never bother to argue against our rebuttals to such. "Physiologically unnatural"? Refer back to my question, the one you made the pine cone rebuttal to. For being so physiologically unnatural, it sure seems to work. "Disordered"? You keep calling it a disorder, but the only thing you've ever said to support this was that the APA
used to consider it a disorder but changed because TEH GAYS scared them into changing it; the only evidence you brought up for
that was a book that said nothing of the sort. You dodge our rebuttals to your points and state them over and over again, and it's getting a little frustrating.
Peppering in your own personal opinions presented as fact also does not help your case much.
C'mon. I already addressed that. Unsafe sex is wrong by whites, blacks, etc. It shouldn't be engaged in. Period. But black heterosex is good. Homosexual sex is not good. That's just the way it is.
And now you've resorted to argumentum ad "I'm right, you're wrong, deal with it" again. You're also ignoring the possiblity of safe homosexual sex (condoms, lubricant, etc.). What, do you not think it exists or something?
I think what wordy is driving at is that homosexual sex can never result in procreation, regardless of whether you're sterile or not. The most fertile gay couple on the planet is not going to have a child, no matter what.
In vitro is an option. Hell, if one really needed to, a gay person could have sex with someone of the opposite gender to result in a pregnancy. What you're not realizing is that just because you don't
want to have sex with someone of the opposite gender doesn't mean you're
incapable of it. Saying a gay person has a disorder because they're not having heterosexual sex makes about as much sense as claiming a person who refuses heterosexual sex from someone must therefore have some sort of disorder. Gay sex itself will not result in birth, but there are plenty of sexual actions between heterosexuals that will never result in birth either - oral sex and handjobs, to name just a few. Are those just as immoral because they don't result in forming babby?
(Yes, I just invoked an internet meme. So sue me.)