You're not actually suggesting that gay men, taken as a statistical group, are NOT at higher risk for a host of such health threats, are you? Rationally speaking, they simply are. That doesn't mean you're one of them, but that doesn't mean society has no palce whatsoever in saying anything about it or encouraging better behavior.

I continue to argue that there is a place for society to ask young gay men to behave better than they often do. I think the same thing for young straight nen. Is that really a bad thing?

Hi Dean,

I am absolutely NOT saying that encouraging responsible sexual behavior is wrong! Nor am I saying that homosexuals are not as a group at higher risk for STDs. I wouldn't even say that gun owners are not at higher risk for firearm suicide deaths than non gun-owners.

My argument is with the idea that if some (even most) group members do something, that all share responsibility. AIDS prevention is important (and I have donated to AIDS charities), but that does not make me responsible for people who refuse to listen.

Morality strikes me as very personal by definition. Thus, declaring that a group is immoral strikes me as tyrannical (unless the group's defining activity is immoral per se -- which I do not believe homosexual conduct is). To say that homosexuality per se is immoral because of STDs makes as much sense as declaring drinkers immoral because of cirrhosis.

Irresponsible homosexuals may of course be immoral. All that proves is that some homosexuals are immoral.

Your title can only be correct if you ignore about half of what I said.

But in your defense, I've written ALOT on the subject. Have you bothered to follow any of the relevant links on my blog? Your post seems to indicate that you haven't, since most of your objections have already been addressed.

But I'll also add that if you only read the last few posts, including the comments on Dean's World, your confusion is understandable.

Nathan,

My title was intended as tongue-in-cheek satire. Sorry that I couldn't read all of your links; I couldn't get your "Main" page to load when I was writing this.

The quality and quantity of work you have put into this issue is impressive, and I don't disagree with you all that much, but my principal objection still stands; it is not fair to restrict, judge, or punish all members of a "group" because of the actions of some -- or even most. Group punishment may be appropriate in certain school or military settings, but not for adults in a free society. If you read through my blog you will see that I have a problem with identity politics, and even with the idea of a grouping people based on sexual desires.

To give an example of where you and I part company, I disagree with this type of thinking:

If you accept the usual liberal public health arguments (such as applied to guns), these are all legitimate public health arguments for regulating homosexual anal sex--even if the law is overbroad, affecting the relatively small percentage of gay men who are in permanent, mutually monogamous relationships. After all, liberals don't mind that many gun control laws are even more overbroad, impacting the vast majority of gun owners who will never misuse a gun.

Thanks for visiting my blog!

I totally agree with you! I oppose gun control _and_ anti-sex laws.
As for his statistical correlations: Homosexuals have been condemned and criminalized for so long and so thoroughly it's no wonder that some do turn to promiscuity, drugs, even suicide. Also: Some 50% of marriages end in divorce, with all that that entails. Is marriage wrong? Is falling in love wrong?
I'll reiterate what I wrote on Dean's blog, if you will: Falling in love with, and marrying, someone of the same sex is not wrong. Being "deviant", i.e., different from the majority is not wrong. _Choosing_ to be different from the majority is not wrong. Making love for other than reproduction is not wrong. Trying to _change_ "deviants" so that they will conform to the majority is wrong. Surrendering to pressures to conform is wrong. You/I must be loyal to yourself/myself above all, to your/my deepest vision of the true, the good, the beautiful. That is where I stand.

Eric, I agree with you 100% about individual vs. group morality. I've been arguing the same points on my site and on Rosemary's.

Eric,

Across the ATlantic is a team blog. shell is my blog partner as well as life partner, and I am delighted (and amused to report) that shell is delightfully female.

There I go, making assumptions!

:)

I take it you are the Group Captain?

Eric,

Yep.

"Simply put: the basis of Christian morality is responsibility..."

Silly me. And all this time I had been led to believe that the basis for Christian morality was the Wholly Babble.

Babble on....

Quite frankly, all of this discussion is irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. I guess some people have too much time on their hands. Concerning themselves with what others do.

My only response (distilled from paragraph upon paragraph of argument) to nathan's position is: "Figures always lie, and liars always figure." The statistical methodology behind studies of homosexual conduct are so flawed as to be nearly meaningless. Guiding principles should be applied to the place of homosexuality in our culture, not a spreadsheet of moralistic cost-benefit analysis.

I agree with Dean that society in general (though "society" is a dangerous term itself) is free to speak out about the harmful repercussions of things like unprotected sex, reckless drug use and . . . and bicycling without a helmet, in fact; but that in no way gives society (or any "concerned group") the right to arbitrarily regulate the sexual behavior of one group (if that group can even be *identified*) while giving the rest of society a free pass, essentially.

I believe that consensual sexual behavior cannot morally be regulated in any fashion whatsoever. Certainly, I cannot see how gay and lesbian Americans -- an understudied, stigmatized and largely unrecognized part of the population -- can be singled out for such regulation.

Nathan is long on credentials but short on credibility, I'm afraid.