cont'd ...

Here is a link for you that may help if you
decide to start your own discussion on the
subject, that you may find useful:

http://www.cdc.gov/std/life-stages-populations/stdfact-msm.htm

The jump of HIV to young heterosexual women is concerning health authorities all around the world and for obvious reasons.

Something positive needs to be done to protect girls and young women. Making it a formal requirement for their intending male partners to divulge prior same-sex experimentation (or current practice!) is perfectly reasonable where the lives of the woman and her unborn infants are at stake.

It should also be an offence as it is in Sweden and Julian Assange groupies would be aware, where the male partner has not properly used a condom as expected. Very few women would not have the expectation that an intending sexual partner would be proposing to do anything other than wear a condom and do it effectively. It is not unreasonable to expect that an intention to go 'bare' would ordinarily be an additional, required part of obtaining consent.

Dearest Foxy,

Even though you " .... don't want to make this discussion simply about Gay marriage .... ", it may be constructive if we differentiate between lesbians and homosexual men: maybe like OTB and most blokes (at least heterosexual blokes), I have far less objection to female homosexual activity than to male homosexual activity.

I can appreciate why women may not want to enter into exploitative relationships with men, and that they can love each other as passionately as any heterosexual couple. I can't see that they could transmit any diseases to each other any more than any heterosexual couple can. On that score, what Toni has inferred is quite appalling.

But although I would give lukewarm support to legalising male homosexual activity, I don't have to like it, or the idea of it. I feel sorry, of course, for all those homosexuals who have caught AIDS from a partner, and I look forward to a proper vaccine for them.

I suppose two men can love each other just as heteros can, but the thought still makes my skin crawl. So call be a troglodyte, conservative, whatever. And let them call whatever they seek something other than 'marriage'.

In answer to your very first question, yes, marriage is very important to me - monogamous marriage, as giving a sense of security to women. I hope that is not seen as patronising or presumptuous.

Love,

Joe

Dear Joe,

I fully understand how you feel.
I suspect many heterosexual men may share
your viewpoint.

However that still does not give anyone
the right to decide who should be
allowed to be married based on their
sexual practices because there are many
practices in the heterosexual world that
are also questionable and risky.

As I stated earlier marriage should be between
a spouse and a spouse. Not a gender and a
gender. And allowing people to make and celebrate
their life-long commitment to just one partner is
healthier for all concerned including society.

Fourth post, I think.

Derarest Foxy,

Even though you " .... don't want to make this discussion simply about Gay marriage .... ", I guess that's all it's going to be. But male homosexuality is more than just sexual practices, surely ? And whatever they may be, they can choose another word for it.

And if there is to be a plebiscite about it, then we can all vote on it, and take the consequences.

Yes, I too " .. don't want to make this discussion simply about Gay marriage .. " Marriage is more important, more substantial, more consequential, and should be respected as such. I'm sure your incredibly lucky husband would agree :)

Love,

joe

Dear Joe,

I'm the lucky one.

I count my blessings every day.