Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying this is true or that even if it were gay people should be punished or treated like child molestors. I think we all agree that child molestors generally have an attraction to abnormally young people and this is unnatural. According to them, and the medical community I believe, they can't help it. So what then, would we say to people who claim that like people attracted to children, people attracted to the same sex also have a mental disorder. Is the fact that child molestors hurt the innocent, or those who can't make wise decisions, the reasoning for it being a disorder? Or is it that they are attracted to abnormally young people? What if someone had feelings of attraction towards children, but resisted it, is that still a disorder? If so, how would you respond to those who believe being gay is a mental "disorder"? If they are both innate things they cannot choose, what makes a normal but semi-rare attraction, while the other is a mental disorder?

Greekalum, I'm referring to the physical injury that can result from gay sex. I'm not saying it is a reason to not allow gay marriage, I brought it up on regarding the issue of whether risks can be higher in gay relationships. I hope you now see what I'm saying, because I really don't enjoy thinking about it.

Again, i'm going to say that one hurts people and is against the will, the other is consentual and no one gets hurt.

Perhaps if you can give us something more to go on as to why these two should relate? I really can't say any more than that without knowing why someone would equate these two things as being the same. You don't have to agree with the reasoning, just state what some of it is. If you say that they're both a mental disorder, well again, one hurts people, the other doesn't. I don't know what more of a difference is needed.

Ah, okay. That's also not necessarily any more common in the homosexual vs. heterosexual community. Not to mention the number of sex related injuries that are due to just plain klutziness.

Yeah, um, this happens in straight relationships, too -- although, if my theory is correct, the guys who ask for it have tiny penises and injury therefore isn't as likely.

I know I'm a little late, but in regards to the whole health insurance issue stated in previous pages:

I'm not arguing that there isn't most likely a slightly higher risk of STD's in the gay community. However, for the insurance companies, I would think the bigger concern is heart disease (often the result of eating a meat-and-potatoes diet) and cancer. The most common types of cancer being skin (usually a result of tanning), lung (usually a result of smoking), prostate, colorectal (also usually a result of eating a meat-and-potatoes diest), and breast. Also don't forget that the fastest growing population of HIV infection is in heterosexual women. In addition, the South and Midwest see a large number of cases of chlamydia, gonorrhea and syphilis. I tried to find data for 2006, but the most recent I could find was 2004. Maybe, things have changed since then, but I kinda doubt it. The states in the top 10 for these three STD's are Louisiana, Mississippi, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Alabama, Florida, Tennessee, Texas, New Mexico, Michigan, Ohio, Illinois, Missouri, Maryland, Alaska, California, Hawaii, and New York. My point being that while the gay community may have a slightly higher risk of STD's, the straight community probably still poses a larger liability for the insurance companies.

In my own personal opinion, if someone can't see the difference between a child molestor (preying upon a victim) and a homosexual relationship (consentual, no one gets hurt), and believes that they are similar mental disorders... well... I think that I'd say that that person's the one with a mental disorder. That's just my personal opinion, not a legal opinion or even much of an argument.

And if someone can't see the difference between one thing hurting somone and the other thing not hurting anyone, there's really no other argument that's going to convince them otherwise.

I don't have an answer to your question about how to respond to people who think being gay is a "disorder". However, I wanted to say that for many sexual offenders, it is about more than just attraction. It is also a power/control issue, where they violate those that are vulnerable (smaller than them, weaker than them, easily scared/kept quiet by threats of harm to their families, easily manipulated into believing either that it's what little girls/boys are supposed to do with dad/uncle/neighbor/etc. or into believing that they *the child* are sinning/doing something so despicable that everyone will hate them if they told). I definitely think that people who prey on children should not be considered as being on the same plane as statutory rape, provided that it's between two teenagers and not a 40-year old man and a teenage (because in that case, they are not on the same level of maturity development and it leaves the door open to the teenager being preyed upon)

Kd, I think you're still missing my point. Say a person has an attraction to children, but doesn't act in any way to harm them. He has no desire to take advantage of them without their consent, but merely desires young people. Does he still have a mental disorder? If an abnormal attraction, regardless of actions that result because of it, are mental disorders, could homosexuality not be put beneath the same banner? It is not the normal attraction experienced by the majority of people, just as most people don't have any attraction toward children.

Regarding the injury question again, of course it is possible for straight couples as well. Straight sex clumsiness can also cause injury. However, I think such injury could be more likely in gay relationships (I guess, I'm no expert on how these things work), and I think things like infections could pose a problem that straight couples may not experience through clumsiness...(I understand that straight couples get infections from things as well, but people who engage in what I was previously referring to have a entirely different set of health issues to deal with).

Even if gay couples have a higher risk of "injury" from sex than straight couples, how would any related healthcare costs compare to the healthcare expenses that result from pregnancy, childbirth, fertility treatments, and raising children?

Addressing the first paragraph- well that's sorta different. I'm not a psychologist and haven't studied this at all, i'm not sure how the scientific community regards it. However, by law he is ALLOWED to have those thoughts. It is not illegal to have those thoughts. It is allowed. Only when it involves actions and real children is it illegal. Hell, even animated kiddie porn is legal. Kiddie erotica is legal. (if it were illegal, there would be a certain ex-GCer who would be serving time right now). The difference is when someone acts upon it. It's more of a matter of opinion. He (or she) has the right to think those things, just not a right to act upon them. To me, as long as he doesn't act upon them or it doesn't disturb his everyday activities, I don't really care. It doesn't hurt anyone.

People have all sorts of weird thoughts, desires, fantasies. Some are more extreme than others. Just surf around the internet and you can see all kinds of freaky stuff.

As to the second paragraph- I don't know how you can say an injury is more likely to happen in a gay relationship and but also say you don't know how these things work? (though I can't understand how you don't understand how it works... part A is inserted into part B, etc. etc.- it's not much different than hetero sex) Also, homosexuals and heterosexuals engage in a lot of the same sorts of activities. Heterosexuals also engage in oral and anal sex, so any injury could also just as easily happen to heterosexuals.

I'm pretty sure that fertility treatments are covered by the couple, not by health insurance because they aren't viewed as a medically necessary expense.

Kd, well regarding the first paragraph, my question was mostly how the scientific community would view the thoughts and desires of the two groups. I don't think we should regulate how people think either, my question was solely concerning how the desires are viewed.

Regarding the injury part, I didn't mean I didnt understand HOW it actually worked, but more I don't know anything about sexual habits of gay couples. I don't know if they all generally participate in both oral and anal sex, or whatnot. Thus I didn't wanna say something and have someone go, "well, not all gay couples have that type of sex, etc..." However, don't you think those type of I guess anal related injuries would be more prevalent in a gay marriage. I doubt there are statistics on this, but I imagine people in a gay marriage are much more prone to participate in such an action. But then I'm from the south, so anal sex may be more common than not in other parts of the country.

I don't know how common anal sex injuries are. Being that you rarely hear about any kind of anal sex injury (besides the man in Seattle having sex with the horse, lol), I don't think it's prevalent enough to be much of an argument. Of course, you're free to provide some sort of stats or evidence to prove me wrong, but the frequency of occurrence of injury would be very minimal. And it would strongly pale in comparision to any injuries and health care associated with pregnancy and childbirth.

Sex acts know no geographical bounds, lol, so I really doubt anal sex is more common in certain parts of the country or not.

Well, I think I'll make the choice not to do further research. I've always heard that being that area is so sensitive to infection, things can often occur, but seeing as the issue grosses me out some, I'll let it go. Now I really don't think you can put anal sex injury on the same plane as childbirth, as one is purely recreational, and the other can be in order to start a family. I think I'd put the previous category more on line with having insurance cover your viagra pills.