XPost: alt.gossip.celebrities, alt.atheism, alt.politics.homosexuality   
   XPost: alt.abortion   
   From: fritz@spamexpire-200905.rodent.frell.theremailer.net   
      
   The health risks of homosexual practice are higher than   
   heterosexual practice   
   Exclusively monogamous gay relationships are extremely rare[1]   
   and 90% or more of gay men engage in anal intercourse.[2,3]These   
   two patterns of behaviour lead to an increased risk of four   
   types of physical disease: STIs, enteric infections, anal trauma   
   and cancer, AIDS.[4]   
      
   In the UK 64% of HIV infections are acquired as a result of gay   
   sex.[5]   
      
   Homosexual orientation is often a transient phase of adolescent   
   development   
   Although the British Medical Association claims that sexual   
   orientation is fixed by the age of sixteen, the Wellings survey   
   and other studies clearly contradict this. Wellings concludes:   
   'The difference in prevalence between lifetime and current   
   homosexual experience points to the likelihood that homosexual   
   experience is often a relatively isolated or passing event'.[6]   
   Another large study shows that sexual orientation is uncertain   
   in many boys in their lower teens with an increasing number   
   being more certain with increasing age.[7]   
      
   Homosexuality and paedophilia are linked   
   Freund and Watson, though careful to point out that their study   
   should not be interpreted as indicating that gay men are more   
   likely to be paedophiles, none the less conclude: 'homosexual   
   development notably does not result in androphilia but in   
   homosexual paedophilia'.[8] Freund's data also show that a)   
   around 80% of the victims of paedophilia are boys molested by   
   adult males and b) although most gay men are not paedophiles,   
   35% of paedophiles are homosexual whilst only 2% of adult men   
   overall are homosexual.[9]   
      
   I also take issue with the three usual reasons given in favour   
   of lowering the age of consent:   
      
      
   Three fallacies to dispute   
   (7)  Men aged 16-18 are not in need of special protection from   
   being 'recruited' into homosexuality   
   Few people realise that the absolute heterosexual age of consent   
   (when there is no legal defence possible for the man) is   
   actually thirteen, not sixteen, under current law. If equality   
   is given for homosexual acts then older boys and men will be   
   able, with impunity, to have sex with boys as young as thirteen.   
      
   As one gay writer chillingly puts it, 'what will happen when the   
   limit is reduced to 16? Won't there be a few precocious   
   individuals of 14 or 15 who are tempted to experiment? Is it not   
   likely that they too will escape prosecution for the very reason   
   that 16 or 17 year olds escape it now? So the ratchet of   
   permissiveness is given another deadly twist.'[10]   
      
   The risk posed by predatory older men is just as great whether   
   the victim is a man or a woman   
   The comments on paedophilia above show that this is not so.   
      
   An unequal age of consent prevents the provision of safe-sex   
   advice to those most at risk   
   This is the most astonishing argument of all! I regularly give   
   sex education classes to 12-14 year olds and can give safe-sex   
   advice without hindrance. Since the Gillick judgement doctors   
   have been freely able to give both contraceptives and   
   confidential advice to under 16 year olds who request it. A   
   whole host of gay helplines and widely available leaflets   
   already give explicit advice perfectly legally.   
      
   Furthermore, some leading gay writers are disparaging about safe-   
   sex education anyway.   
      
   'The implicit goal of eradicating unsafe sex is unrealistic. It   
   is neither a sustainable strategy nor an epidemiological   
   necessity, but rather an unnecessary restriction on desire and   
   action.' [11]   
      
   Finally, lack of knowledge is not really the issue in any case.   
   Non-use of condoms is not because of lack of knowledge about   
   HIV. As one AIDS specialist laments: 'What makes me despair is   
   that 30% of my patients...went into a relationship knowing that   
   their partner was positive. If people will do that, will have   
   sex without a condom with someone who's openly positive, then   
   how the hell are we going to persuade two people who are   
   probably negative to use a condom "just in case"?'[12]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)