Gay books for children

[ochotseat]

Gay-themed Kids Books on the Rise
By Charlene Israel

Publishers are putting more and more children's books on the market that feature gay characters. The books are showing up on library shelves, and creating a lot of controversy.

Books like "King and King" are causing alarm among some Louisiana parents.

One local mom said, "I wouldn't feel comfortable with that in the library and have someone pick that up."

Another parent asked about the book replied, "You could keep it in the library for other people to read, but I'm not going to let my family read it."

"King and King" is about a prince who falls in love with another prince. Publishers are pushing children's books with homosexual themes.

David Gale of Simon & Schuster Books for Young Readers, remarked, "I think the important part is for a kid to see himself in a book, and equally important for a kids to see people who are not like themselves in books, so they can learn to be tolerant of people who are not like them."

A Louisiana mom was upset when her child brought home a copy of “King and King” from the local library, and complained to her state legislator, who wrote a resolution banning books with gay content from kid sections in public libraries.

Louisiana House of Representatives Rep. A.G. Crowe (R) said, "When a book of a very bizarre nature, a very offensive nature, is found in a library in an area that would be considered very conservative, this tends to raise some eyebrows."

But Louisiana library officials say their mission is to provide all sorts of books for all sorts of people.

Donald Westmoreland of the St. Tammany Parish Library, said, "If they perceive in any way that they're not welcome, well, that goes against the purpose of a public library."

Homosexuality in children's books has sparked national controversy -- Louisiana, Alabama, and Oklahoma have all passed resolutions that would ban children's books that promote the homosexual lifestyle from public libraries.

And last month, the United States Congress proposed requiring parental advisory boards to weigh in on all new library books, or risk losing federal funding.

[Deborah]

Yes I see the problem, and I agree these books don't belong around children.

But you guys even got Noddy banned!
They were children doing things children do, and of course some dirty minded adult had to see something sinister in it!

[ochotseat]

Yes I see the problem, and I agree these books don't belong around children.

But you guys even got Noddy banned!
They were children doing things children do, and of course some dirty minded adult had to see something sinister in it!

What's Noddy?

[Judah]

I collected and read all Enid Blyton's Noddy books as a child and I must have been extremely dense... I had no idea that there was anything wrong with Noddy and Big Ears being good friends!
However, in my defence, I must add that any sexuality was very well kept out of the stories.
In fact, it must have been quite outside of the books, in the hands of adults who had such things on their minds.

http://www.noddy.com/index.html

[ochotseat]

I collected and read all Enid Blyton's Noddy books as a child and I must have been extremely dense... I had no idea that there was anything wrong with Noddy and Big Ears being good friends!
However, in my defence, I must add that any sexuality was very well kept out of the stories.
In fact, it must have been quite outside of the books, in the hands of adults who had such things on their minds.

http://www.noddy.com/index.html

Why was Noddy rumored to be gay?

Have you heard of Sesame Street? Bert and Ernie, two male puppets who roommate together on Sesame Street, were satirized as being homosexual lovers on the show Family Guy.

[Deborah]

Why was Noddy rumored to be gay?

Have you heard of Sesame Street? Bert and Ernie, two male puppets who roommate together on Sesame Street, were satirized as being homosexual lovers on the show Family Guy.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Pushing adult bias onto children!
Noddy was a child.

[Judah]

Why was Noddy rumored to be gay?

Sometimes Noddy and Big Ears stayed with each other and for lack of a spare bed, they bunked in together.
Lots of families have occasion to share a bed between two or more members, especially in situations of poverty or where this is a cultural norm, and without any sexual motive or activity.
I remember as a child sometimes sharing a bed with a same-sex friend. We talked for a little while and dropped off to sleep. Period.
Noddy and Big Ears also had "gay times in the woods" and occasionally "came over all queer"... in an age when the words gay and queer had no sexual connotations at all.

As Deborah so rightly says, it is all about pushing adult bias on to children.

However... there may be an arguable case for such stories being interpreted with adult bias by the child who has indeed been sexually abused in a shared bed.
Now that's a thought.

And maybe for today's children, substitute words should properly be considered to clear up any possible misconceptions. Afterall, I see that the un-pc Gollywogs have already been dispatched. And should Mr Plod the Policeman have some In Service Training so he stops advising a good spanking for naughty people?
Or maybe we leave all this in place and teach children how it used to be "in the olden days" instead?

David Gale of Simon & Schuster Books for Young Readers, remarked, "I think the important part is for a kid to see himself in a book, and equally important for a kids to see people who are not like themselves in books, so they can learn to be tolerant of people who are not like them."

This raises an interesting question. Should Christians be so tolerant?

We are taught in 1 Corinthians 13 the characteristics of love... patient, kind, does not envy, does not boast, is not proud, is not rude, is not self-seeking, is not easily angered, keeps no record of wrongs, does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth, always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres, and never fails.

Do you think tolerance is hidden in that list somewhere, or not?

[LittleShepherd]

Do you think tolerance is hidden in that list somewhere, or not?

A type of tolerance, sure, but not the type of tolerance being asked of us by the extremely vocal minority in today's culture.

I'd suggest reading a few books on gay issues, such as Dr. James Dobson's "Marriage Under Fire," and Dr. Ronnie W. Floyd's "The Gay Agenda." When you see the various implications that accepting homosexuality would have on people -- all people, gay and straight -- in the areas of cultural, physical, and psychological wellbeing -- you will see that there is no love in the liberal definition of "tolerance." I'm in agreement with these authors that to ascribe to their definition of tolerance is to be guilty of hatred.

It's important to keep in mind what tolerance is, too -- it's being able to look at various viewpoints, and to give them a fair chance to prove themselves. It's not accepting every potential viewpoint blindly. It's not allowing people to harm themselves and society. You'll also notice a strange theme amongst supporters of liberal tolerance -- an almost rabid intolerance of Christianity. On a particularly strange note, I've found many supporters of liberal tolerance towards homosexuality who also advocate tolerance and validity of Islam -- a religion that's much harsher on homosexuals than Christianity.

I'm speaking as a former homosexual here. It is not a happy lifestyle, and it's not the fault of the "intolerant Christain bigots," as many would have you believe. If all Christians(and other people opposed to homosexuality) were to suddently vanish, it would still be a miserable lifestyle that robs people of their health and long-term happiness. All in the pursuit of insignificant short-sighted pleasures.

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/stats.htm#aidscases

The above link shows you a startling statistic from the year 2003. I will point out that this is not from some obscure, meaningless website -- this is the Center for Disease Control itself! If you scroll down to the "By Exposure" section, you'll note the numbers relating to the new cases diagnosed in 2003. Gay males accounted for over 17,969 new AIDS cases -- more than the combined total of heterosexual men and women of 13,260.

Now, let's make these numbers a bit more startling, shall we. We now know that the accurate percentage of gay people in the United States isn't 10 percent. It's not even 5 percent. It's 1.1%. And for simplicity, let's assume they are all male and that there are no lesbians. The next figures are going to be shocking regardless.

We now have 1.1% of the population accounting for 57.5% of all newly-diagnosed sexually-transmitted AIDS cases in 2003. The other 98.9% of the population accounts for only 42.5% of all sexually-transmitted AIDS cases. Call me crazy, but that seems disproportionate. The numbers say one important thing -- gay males are over 100 times more likely than a heterosexual person of either gender to contract AIDS, even with the increase in safe sex practices within the gay community.

If we take all the years up to 2003 together the numbers are even more dramatic. We then have 1.1% of the population accounting for over 74.6% of the total number of sexually-transmitted AIDS cases. Yes, this means that safe sex practices have helped some over the years, but not nearly enough to consider gay sex even remotely safe, even with all the normal precautions.

Back to the original point now:

No, the liberal tolerance is nowhere in the Bible. What they call tolerance, the Bible calls hatred. What they call pluralism, the Bible called idolatry. We are to stand against these things, and to speak out agains them in a spirit of love. As Dr. Ronnie Floyd has said, we must combine both love and truth if we are to claim either. In other words, we're to let gay people into our churches, even embracing them with open arms -- but we are not to water down our presentation of the law and the gospel in an effort to be more consumer-friendly for them. That's not being tolerant -- it's one of the most harmful and hateful things a Christian could possibly do.

[ochotseat]

A type of tolerance, sure, but not the type of tolerance being asked of us by the extremely vocal minority in today's culture.

I'd suggest reading a few books on gay issues, such as Dr. James Dobson's "Marriage Under Fire," and Dr. Ronnie W. Floyd's "The Gay Agenda." When you see the various implications that accepting homosexuality would have on people -- all people, gay and straight -- in the areas of cultural, physical, and psychological wellbeing -- you will see that there is no love in the liberal definition of "tolerance." I'm in agreement with these authors that to ascribe to their definition of tolerance is to be guilty of hatred.

It's important to keep in mind what tolerance is, too -- it's being able to look at various viewpoints, and to give them a fair chance to prove themselves. It's not accepting every potential viewpoint blindly. It's not allowing people to harm themselves and society. You'll also notice a strange theme amongst supporters of liberal tolerance -- an almost rabid intolerance of Christianity. On a particularly strange note, I've found many supporters of liberal tolerance towards homosexuality who also advocate tolerance and validity of Islam -- a religion that's much harsher on homosexuals than Christianity.

I'm speaking as a former homosexual here. It is not a happy lifestyle, and it's not the fault of the "intolerant Christain bigots," as many would have you believe. If all Christians(and other people opposed to homosexuality) were to suddently vanish, it would still be a miserable lifestyle that robs people of their health and long-term happiness. All in the pursuit of insignificant short-sighted pleasures.

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/stats.htm#aidscases

The above link shows you a startling statistic from the year 2003. I will point out that this is not from some obscure, meaningless website -- this is the Center for Disease Control itself! If you scroll down to the "By Exposure" section, you'll note the numbers relating to the new cases diagnosed in 2003. Gay males accounted for over 17,969 new AIDS cases -- more than the combined total of heterosexual men and women of 13,260.

Now, let's make these numbers a bit more startling, shall we. We now know that the accurate percentage of gay people in the United States isn't 10 percent. It's not even 5 percent. It's 1.1%. And for simplicity, let's assume they are all male and that there are no lesbians. The next figures are going to be shocking regardless.

We now have 1.1% of the population accounting for 57.5% of all newly-diagnosed sexually-transmitted AIDS cases in 2003. The other 98.9% of the population accounts for only 42.5% of all sexually-transmitted AIDS cases. Call me crazy, but that seems disproportionate. The numbers say one important thing -- gay males are over 100 times more likely than a heterosexual person of either gender to contract AIDS, even with the increase in safe sex practices within the gay community.

If we take all the years up to 2003 together the numbers are even more dramatic. We then have 1.1% of the population accounting for over 74.6% of the total number of sexually-transmitted AIDS cases. Yes, this means that safe sex practices have helped some over the years, but not nearly enough to consider gay sex even remotely safe, even with all the normal precautions.

Back to the original point now:

No, the liberal tolerance is nowhere in the Bible. What they call tolerance, the Bible calls hatred. What they call pluralism, the Bible called idolatry. We are to stand against these things, and to speak out agains them in a spirit of love. As Dr. Ronnie Floyd has said, we must combine both love and truth if we are to claim either. In other words, we're to let gay people into our churches, even embracing them with open arms -- but we are not to water down our presentation of the law and the gospel in an effort to be more consumer-friendly for them. That's not being tolerant -- it's one of the most harmful and hateful things a Christian could possibly do.

This brings up an important point: tolerance and criticism go hand in hand. In today's intolerant and PC Western world, one is labeled a homophobe if he or she points out the fact that the average homosexual is more promiscuous and prone to self abuse than the average heterosexual, at least 90% of people are straight, or simply that homosexuality is not biologically functional. Homosexual pride parades are marketed as festivals rather than immoral farces.
There are shows, such as Will and Grace, that glamorize homosexuality while they neglect the deviation of homosexual sex (anal intercourse, fisting, oral-anal contact, child molestation).
It seems that it's gotten to the point that gay and lesbian activists want to equate homosexuality, bisexuality, or transsexuality with something as normal as race. Children are now being taught that bans on same sex marriage are today's form of racial segregation.

[j316]

The main problem with tolerance is that the various minorities don't want to be tolerated, they demand acceptance. Thus the issue rightly becomes the limits of tolerance, what is acceptable.

Christianity is headed for another period of persecution because of issues similar to this one, the feel good heathens are going to legislate us into an oppressed minority the first chance they get.

It becomes a survival thing eventually, how far can I trust the good will and tolerance of someone who doesn't share my beliefs? Given the fact that they are human, and not even christian for the most part, I would say that the answer is 'not very far'.

So how do you win a battle for survival in which the majority of both sides are not even aware of the battle? I feel that the only answer to this question is faith that God is in control. It may be that the end times are not very off.

[Felgar]

A type of tolerance, sure, but not the type of tolerance being asked of us by the extremely vocal minority in today's culture.

I'd suggest reading a few books on gay issues, such as Dr. James Dobson's "Marriage Under Fire," and Dr. Ronnie W. Floyd's "The Gay Agenda." When you see the various implications that accepting homosexuality would have on people -- all people, gay and straight -- in the areas of cultural, physical, and psychological wellbeing -- you will see that there is no love in the liberal definition of "tolerance." I'm in agreement with these authors that to ascribe to their definition of tolerance is to be guilty of hatred.

It's important to keep in mind what tolerance is, too -- it's being able to look at various viewpoints, and to give them a fair chance to prove themselves. It's not accepting every potential viewpoint blindly. It's not allowing people to harm themselves and society. You'll also notice a strange theme amongst supporters of liberal tolerance -- an almost rabid intolerance of Christianity. On a particularly strange note, I've found many supporters of liberal tolerance towards homosexuality who also advocate tolerance and validity of Islam -- a religion that's much harsher on homosexuals than Christianity.

I'm speaking as a former homosexual here. It is not a happy lifestyle, and it's not the fault of the "intolerant Christain bigots," as many would have you believe. If all Christians(and other people opposed to homosexuality) were to suddently vanish, it would still be a miserable lifestyle that robs people of their health and long-term happiness. All in the pursuit of insignificant short-sighted pleasures.

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/stats.htm#aidscases

The above link shows you a startling statistic from the year 2003. I will point out that this is not from some obscure, meaningless website -- this is the Center for Disease Control itself! If you scroll down to the "By Exposure" section, you'll note the numbers relating to the new cases diagnosed in 2003. Gay males accounted for over 17,969 new AIDS cases -- more than the combined total of heterosexual men and women of 13,260.

Now, let's make these numbers a bit more startling, shall we. We now know that the accurate percentage of gay people in the United States isn't 10 percent. It's not even 5 percent. It's 1.1%. And for simplicity, let's assume they are all male and that there are no lesbians. The next figures are going to be shocking regardless.

We now have 1.1% of the population accounting for 57.5% of all newly-diagnosed sexually-transmitted AIDS cases in 2003. The other 98.9% of the population accounts for only 42.5% of all sexually-transmitted AIDS cases. Call me crazy, but that seems disproportionate. The numbers say one important thing -- gay males are over 100 times more likely than a heterosexual person of either gender to contract AIDS, even with the increase in safe sex practices within the gay community.

If we take all the years up to 2003 together the numbers are even more dramatic. We then have 1.1% of the population accounting for over 74.6% of the total number of sexually-transmitted AIDS cases. Yes, this means that safe sex practices have helped some over the years, but not nearly enough to consider gay sex even remotely safe, even with all the normal precautions.

Back to the original point now:

No, the liberal tolerance is nowhere in the Bible. What they call tolerance, the Bible calls hatred. What they call pluralism, the Bible called idolatry. We are to stand against these things, and to speak out agains them in a spirit of love. As Dr. Ronnie Floyd has said, we must combine both love and truth if we are to claim either. In other words, we're to let gay people into our churches, even embracing them with open arms -- but we are not to water down our presentation of the law and the gospel in an effort to be more consumer-friendly for them. That's not being tolerant -- it's one of the most harmful and hateful things a Christian could possibly do.

Powerful testimony LS, and definately remarkable statistics...

[XenonII]

A type of tolerance, sure, but not the type of tolerance being asked of us by the extremely vocal minority in today's culture.

Extremely vocal minority? Mainstream society isnt an extremely vocal minority but so called "Christian" fundamentalist bigots most certainly are a minority AND extremely vocal (hysterical id call it).

I'd suggest reading a few books on gay issues, such as Dr. James Dobson's "Marriage Under Fire," and Dr. Ronnie W. Floyd's "The Gay Agenda." When you see the various implications that accepting homosexuality would have on people -- all people, gay and straight -- in the areas of cultural, physical, and psychological wellbeing -- you will see that there is no love in the liberal definition of "tolerance." I'm in agreement with these authors that to ascribe to their definition of tolerance is to be guilty of hatred.

And i'd suggest reading what the APA has to say concerning this issue rather than resulting to blatant homophobic propoganda. Certainly a lot better than junk science and http://www.apa.org/pubinfo/answers.html is a good place to start.

It's not allowing people to harm themselves and society.

Homosexuality does NOT harm society, but the effects of homophobia can be devistating!

You'll also notice a strange theme amongst supporters of liberal tolerance -- an almost rabid intolerance of Christianity. On a particularly strange note, I've found many supporters of liberal tolerance towards homosexuality who also advocate tolerance and validity of Islam -- a religion that's much harsher on homosexuals than Christianity.

I think you are forgetting that not all Christians feel the same or have the same point of views on everything. You have liberal Christians just as you have fundies, in fact millions and millions of them. How arrogant of you to label all Christians as fundies or only people such as yourself as real Christians and being right and others wrong.

Islam is much harder on homosexuals? Lol since when? Haven't you read a BIBLE? Romans says they should be put to death.

I'm speaking as a former homosexual here. It is not a happy lifestyle, and it's not the fault of the "intolerant Christain bigots," as many would have you believe. If all Christians(and other people opposed to homosexuality) were to suddently vanish, it would still be a miserable lifestyle that robs people of their health and long-term happiness. All in the pursuit of insignificant short-sighted pleasures.[

Homosexuality is NOT a lifestyle! There is no one single lifestyle that ANYONE leeds! Homosexuals are just as varied in their lifestyles as anyone else. Of course what fundies mean by this "lifestyle" propoganda is being sexually active. Well if that's what you mean why don't you just say that instead of dressing it up as a non-existant "lifestyle".

And just because someone stops having sex that doesnt mean their sexuality suddenly changes! Someone who is gay was gay before they started having sex and they will still be gay after they stop. It IS a very unhappy "lifestyle". But why is that? Its not so much to do with the sexuality per se, but the rampant homophobia and unaceptance that goes along with it!

I hardly call the pursuit of happiness short sighted pleasures either.

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/stats.htm#aidscases

The above link shows you a startling statistic from the year 2003. I will point out that this is not from some obscure, meaningless website -- this is the Center for Disease Control itself! If you scroll down to the "By Exposure" section, you'll note the numbers relating to the new cases diagnosed in 2003. Gay males accounted for over 17,969 new AIDS cases -- more than the combined total of heterosexual men and women of 13,260.

Now, let's make these numbers a bit more startling, shall we. We now know that the accurate percentage of gay people in the United States isn't 10 percent. It's not even 5 percent. It's 1.1%. And for simplicity, let's assume they are all male and that there are no lesbians. The next figures are going to be shocking regardless.

We now have 1.1% of the population accounting for 57.5% of all newly-diagnosed sexually-transmitted AIDS cases in 2003. The other 98.9% of the population accounts for only 42.5% of all sexually-transmitted AIDS cases. Call me crazy, but that seems disproportionate. The numbers say one important thing -- gay males are over 100 times more likely than a heterosexual person of either gender to contract AIDS, even with the increase in safe sex practices within the gay community.

The risk of exposure to HIV is related to a person's behavior, not their sexual orientation! What's important to remember about HIV/AIDS is it is a preventable disease through the use of safe sex practices and by not using drugs. Promiscuity and unsafe sex practices 'causes' AIDS not someone being gay.

And worldwide 96% of people with the disease are straight so if anything it is a heterosexual disease and most of them are black women in africa. And whats this 1.1% are gay males nonsense? Talk about loading the figures in your favour! 4-15% is an excepted figure by experts so you can safely presume its somewhere in the middle of there maybe around 10%.

If we take all the years up to 2003 together the numbers are even more dramatic. We then have 1.1% of the population accounting for over 74.6% of the total number of sexually-transmitted AIDS cases. Yes, this means that safe sex practices have helped some over the years, but not nearly enough to consider gay sex even remotely safe, even with all the normal precautions.

Imagine the scenario 2 gays never had sex before fall in love decided to get married and spend their rest of their lives together and be faithful to one another. How on earth in that scenario could gay sex not be considered even remotely safe. Your logic or lack of it really is baffling.

I dont know why so called Christians spend so much energy opposing homosexuals when fornication is running rampant in their own community (heterosexual) and you'd think that would be a far bigger and greater problem that needs tackling especially when nothing is ever said anything about it. Very hypocritical.

[Kurieuo]

Haven't you read a BIBLE? Romans says they should be put to death.

I have. Can you point out where in Romans it says homosexuals should be put to death?

I dont know why so called Christians spend so much energy opposing homosexuals when fornication is running rampant in their own community (heterosexual) and you'd think that would be a far bigger and greater problem that needs tackling especially when nothing is ever said anything about it. Very hypocritical.

Good point. Yet, to add something else...

Pointing to another wrong (i.e., fornication) to justify homosexuality I think portrays what you deep down inside believe regarding the morality of homosexuality, and if you're Christian, what God would think.

Kurieuo.

[LittleShepherd]

Extremely vocal minority? Mainstream society isnt an extremely vocal minority...

Gay people and their supporters aren't mainstream society, though. Statistics show that over 55% of people in the US are opposed to gay marriage and homosexual practices -- not just fundamentalist Christians(whatever that means). Of the remaining 45%, many are undecided and fewer than 25% are actively in support of homosexuality. Also, people in hollywood tend to be far more liberal than "mainstream society" on most issues, so the presence of homosexuals in the media can hardly be considered an accurate representation of society's acceptance of homosexuality in general.

And i'd suggest reading what the APA has to say concerning this issue rather than resulting to blatant homophobic propoganda. Certainly a lot better than junk science and http://www.apa.org/pubinfo/answers.html is a good place to start.

Yes, I'm aware of the current APA stance on homosexuality, and I'm also aware of how their change in stance came about due to pressure from such organizations as the ACLU(among others), and isn't grounded in any valid studies whatsoever.

Homosexuality does NOT harm society, but the effects of homophobia can be devistating!

That depends on what you mean by "homophobia." I find that most supporters of homosexuality have a very broad definition of this which means "any opposition to homosexuality whatsoever, for whatever reason." It's also a misnomer -- I don't fear homosexuals or homosexuality. I just don't support it or its adherents.

How arrogant of you to label all Christians as fundies or only people such as yourself as real Christians and being right and others wrong.

Did I at any point say that people who disagreed with me are not real Christians? No. While opposition to clear Biblical principles is cause for concern and needs to be addressed, their actual status as Christians is between them and God.

Islam is much harder on homosexuals? Lol since when? Haven't you read a BIBLE? Romans says they should be put to death.

No, it doesn't. The first chapter mentions that all the sins in it are worthy of death, but not that Christians should put said people to death. In fact, the New Testament simply states that "X action is wrong," never "X action should be punished by X method." The Old Testament laws given to Israel in the desert were to be used to run a country -- not so with the New Testament rules given to Christians. Christians are to submit to the government placed over them, even if that government okays homosexuality, but only as long as that submission doesn't cause them to go against God. And that doesn't prohibit them from using available legal channels(such as our ability to vote, write congress, and hold office, etc.) to oppose such things.

Homosexuality is NOT a lifestyle! There is no one single lifestyle that ANYONE leeds! Homosexuals are just as varied in their lifestyles as anyone else. Of course what fundies mean by this "lifestyle" propoganda is being sexually active.

Yes, we know it doesn't fit the strict definition of "lifestyle," but it's a term that's been used for so long that everyone understands what it means in this context. I didn't come up with it. And no, it isn't limited to "sexually active" people. That's false, as lust is also adultery. It is, however, a choice that has implications in almost every area that makes up a "lifestyle."

It IS a very unhappy "lifestyle". But why is that? Its not so much to do with the sexuality per se, but the rampant homophobia and unaceptance that goes along with it!

You do know that the vast majority of discrimination and violent crime towards gay people actually comes from other gay people, right? Hate crimes from heterosexual people are actually quite rare. Even in the famous Matthew Shepherd case, the men who committed the crime were people whom he had slept with, so their het status is questionable at best. While there are some groups that want to actively persecute homosexuals, they are in the minority, and they are not Christian(whatever they might claim). The vast majority of Christians actually want to help homosexuals to experience true freedom in Christ, though most simply don't know what to do. I've spoken with quite a few Christians on the issue since becoming a Christian myself last year, and I have never heard one of them say anything even remotely hateful or spiteful. The number one emotion that comes to the forefront is concern.

I hardly call the pursuit of happiness short sighted pleasures either.

It depends on what you're trying to derive your happiness from. Some pursuits aren't short-sighted, and others are. The pursuit of happiness derived from homosexuality is one of the pursuits that is short-sighted.

The risk of exposure to HIV is related to a person's behavior, not their sexual orientation! What's important to remember about HIV/AIDS is it is a preventable disease through the use of safe sex practices and by not using drugs. Promiscuity and unsafe sex practices 'causes' AIDS not someone being gay.

Actually, safe sex practices aren't as sufficient as you've been led to believe. The condom is only 70% effective at preventing the spread of AIDS, and does nothing for herpes and HPV, and very little for other STDs. Nice try, though. Monogamous relationships are also a rarity among gay men and women. In studies done in European countries with gay marriage, it has been shown that gay people are much more likely to cheat on their "spouses," and to engage in extremely unsafe sexual practices.

And worldwide 96% of people with the disease are straight so if anything it is a heterosexual disease and most of them are black women in africa. And whats this 1.1% are gay males nonsense? Talk about loading the figures in your favour! 4-15% is an excepted figure by experts so you can safely presume its somewhere in the middle of there maybe around 10%.

No, worldwide only 75% of cases can be attributed to straight people, and only 42% of these are women. You also must realize that many of these reports are from countries where homosexuality is not accepted and not talked about, so the reports of M2M contact will be skewed. Also, many of these countries(such as those in Europe) have removed Christianity and its practices(such as monogamy) far more than has happened in the US and Canada, which would go a long way in explaining the different percentages of gay-to-straight cases in Europe and Africa as opposed to the US.

And yes, whatever you like to believe, the actual percentage of gay people in the US is only 1.1%. 10%(and the more recent 5%) are both loaded figures meant to make gay people seem more numerous than they actually are.

Imagine the scenario 2 gays never had sex before fall in love decided to get married and spend their rest of their lives together and be faithful to one another. How on earth in that scenario could gay sex not be considered even remotely safe. Your logic or lack of it really is baffling.

First, this is almost never the case. Gay men are statistically shown to be far more promiscuous than straight men, and to be far less loyal during "marriage." Where heterosexual marriage has a cheating rate somewhere around 20%, homosexual "marriage" has a cheating rate in excess of 70%.

Second, even in the most ideal conditions there are other health concerns besides STDs. Gay people also have a much higher rate of colon cancer, chronic anal seepage(of fecal matter), impaired immune system(due to immunosuppressive agents in sperm), hemorrhoids, anal fissures, anorectal trauma, retained foreign bodies, exposure to many diseases and pathogens that aren't normally STDs such as salmonella poisoning and other pathogens that are actually good to have in the intestines, but not anywhere else in or on the body.

Yes, some heterosexual people practice the same acts(you know which ones I'm talking about, especially the main 3, so I'm not going to list them) that cause these problems in homosexuals, but it is far, far rarer than for homosexuals, for whom such practices are actually the norm. In addition to this, there are some exclusively homosexual problems. Only homosexuals are known to get the HHV-8 form of herpes(which leads to cancer within 10 years of contraction over 50% of the time), and only gay males are known to be able to spread Typhoid via their sexual practices.

Lesbian practices are less well-documented, but approximately 93% are reported to have actually had heterosexual sex, and strangely enough the average number of male partners in a lesbian's lifetime is over double that of exclusively heterosexual women, which makes their risk even higher than heterosexual women(especially since they're more likely than heterosexual women to have sex with gay men). Crabs, genital warts, herpes, and chlamydia are common among lesbians, and even the ones who have never had sex with men often have HPV, trichomoniasis, and anogenital warts.

Your ideal scenario is extremely, extremely rare. And even in the ideal scenario, the risk of health problems and diseases is extremely high, and all the condoms and dental dams in the world don't do a thing to change that.

I dont know why so called Christians spend so much energy opposing homosexuals when fornication is running rampant in their own community (heterosexual) and you'd think that would be a far bigger and greater problem that needs tackling especially when nothing is ever said anything about it. Very hypocritical.

You realize that Christains do oppose these other forms of sexual immorality, right? Yes, they are widespread, but they are accepted cultural norms which makes the fight very difficult -- it is still being fought, though. It just doesn't get as much airtime on the news. Once something has been accepted as a cultural norm, it's very difficult to convince people that it's wrong regardless of their claimed religious affiliation. That's one reason that so much energy is being poured into the fight against homosexuality -- it's much easier to prevent something than to clean up after it. We learned this the hard way with the "free love" and "no fault divorce" movements -- both of which have repercussions that are nothing short of disasterous.

[XenonII]

I have. Can you point out where in Romans it says homosexuals should be put to death?

Sure, it is in Romans 1:32 which says: "Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them."

Pointing to another wrong (i.e., fornication) to justify homosexuality I think portrays what you deep down inside believe regarding the morality of homosexuality, and if you're Christian, what God would think.

I'm not justifying it i'm pointing out the hypocrispy in one sin being spoken out against so strongly and another being practically ignored. If fornication was actually spoken out against as strongly there would be a lot less of it or at least it wouldnt be so approved of. Because no one is saying anything about it people aren't even aware that its a real sin.