Sunday, July 29, 2012

A secular case against gay marriage

From Wintery Knight.

42 comments:

cl said...

Hey Vic, just out of curiosity, did you post this after seeing the discussion between Crude and I on my blog? If not, that's some pretty trippy timing!

Victor Reppert said...

I didn't see your exchange at all.

Really!

rank sophist said...

Interesting post. I, personally, was convinced by my reading on natural law morality. My stance had been kind of ambivalent before then.

On a similar note, a common argument I see from feminists is that taking a stance against female promiscuity is somehow a "bigoted" and "hateful" "double-standard". Often, you see the argument that promiscuous men are idolized as "playboys" while women who act similarly are denigrated. This is obviously true. However, I don't see how the degradation of the modern male is an argument for the degradation of the modern female. Rather, the modern male appears to be out of line--and correction is needed.

The same logic is used by homosexual activists. If we aren't against certain deviant sexual practices in heterosexual couples, then why the double-standard? The right answer is to take care of the deviant sexual practices: not to tear down the entire structure.

B. Prokop said...

I've never understood this wedding photographer thing (as mentioned in the link). Why on earth would anyone want their photos to be taken by a photographer who doesn't want the job? Sheesh! If I had been compelled by law to photograph some event against my will, I might just be tempted to do a lousy job!

Crude said...

cl,

Yeah, this has been getting referenced recently. I suspect Victor picked this up from Lowder's joint.

Bob,

I've never understood this wedding photographer thing (as mentioned in the link). Why on earth would anyone want their photos to be taken by a photographer who doesn't want the job?

Because power feels wonderful, and there's nothing quite as sweet as forcing a person you dislike to do something they don't want to do.

Victor Reppert said...

Right.

cl said...

@Vic,

Yeah, literally, I had asked Crude for a secular argument against gay marriage, then I popped over here, and... blammo! Ask and you shall receive I guess!

In all seriousness, Wintery Knight's amazing post has swayed my position on this matter. I knew there was a GLBT mafia so to speak, but I had no idea they were going around getting people fired from their jobs and whatnot. I now understand why so many Christians are so vocal about this issue over others, but that doesn't change my opinion that many Christians have succumbed to bigotry in the matter.

This should be an outcry. This *WOULD* be a major outcry if it were the other way around, that is, if a Christian somehow got a gay person fired for supporting gay marriage.

B. Prokop said...

The bigotry and intolerance are really strong on the "pro" side. I have personal experience of this. In a conversation on the subject with a (very left wing) relative a few months ago, I said that the whole issue was no Big Deal to me, and in fact it rather bored me. The rather impassioned response I got was along the lines of, "How can you be so bigoted?" and was treated to an hours-long tirade which basically boiled down to "unless you are actively and positively for same sex marriage, then you are an ignorant yahoo ready to trample on fundamental human rights".

Whew! Now you're considered a bigot for not holding an opinion!

Historical Sidenote: In the late 1930s in the Soviet Union, if a person did not actively and enthusiastically applaud the death sentences handed down to defendants at the Stalinist show trials, then he himself became suspect, and would likely fall under the next turn of the wheel. Neutrality was considered to be the same as opposition.

cl said...

B. Prokop,

The bigotry is strong on both sides. That's just how culture wars work.

"...I said that the whole issue was no Big Deal to me, and in fact it rather bored me."

That's exactly how I feel about it.

"...unless you are actively and positively for same sex marriage, then you are an ignorant yahoo ready to trample on fundamental human rights".

Yeah, that's about as lame as the Christian equivalent: "unless you are actively and positively against same sex marriage, then you are an dangerous heretic ready to trample on fundamental Christian beliefs".

Zach said...

Would that argument work because each one of those reasons applies to blacks. Should we not let blacks to marry each other? The marriages don't last as long, there is more violence, etc..

The secular arguments stink. Let's be honest: at root this is a covenant sanctioned by God, and clearly God never intended it to be b/w two men or two women.

cl said...

Zach,

You *MIGHT* have a point if you could provide analogous evidence for black marriage. Does it exist? I invite you to write a blog post that makes the case against black marriage that is as supported by empirical evidence as WK's.

Let's say you could pull this off. There is at least one argument in WK's case that can't be applied to blacks or anybody else: the fact that children do better with a mother and a father.

At best, that would be an argument against same-sex-married adoption. Of course, then you could just say, "Ok, so should we ban single parents from adopting?"

Personally, I think this issue should be decided by majority vote. Leave it to the voters, not the elites.

Victor Reppert said...

The trouble with religious arguments against same sex marriage is that the government already sanctions marriages that, for example, began in adulterous affairs. We have actual words of Jesus about that: it's an unacceptable marital practice. So, either the state is wrong and needs to tighten the requirements for marriage license to fit with the covenants God has laid down, or else the Church has to face the fact that the government may be justified in accepting as marriages relationships rooted in sin, for its own reasons, appealing to the separation of church and state. If you do that for heterosexual marriages that are rooted in sin, then even if you maintain that homosexuality is sinful, you can't infer directly from scriptural injunctions against homosexuality to the unacceptability of gay marriage. You need some other argument to show that the state has an interest in not allowing gay marriages even though marriages that began in adultery can still be marriages.

Anthony Fleming said...

I think that is somewhat simple:

A society/state has a right to tax or give tax benefits to certain groups. They do it all the time.

Heterosexual unions, in principle, have the inherent potential to reproduce. Such unions are indispensable to the survival of society. Therefore, a society can choose to give benefits to such unions and not to other unions which have no inherent potentialities and are not indispensable to society. Society then has reason to recognize and give benefits to one union and not to another type of union.

Two things I often hear in relation to this.

#1 - What about those who cannot reproduce?

First, I wrote "in principle." A society can choose, if they want, to only give benefits to those who actually do reproduce, but it doesn't have to in order to be consistent with the principle. In principle reproduction is inherently possible between a man and a woman. Society can encourage that type of union.

#2 - What about Gay couples that adopt.

Once again, this is not indispensable to society. Single people can adopt. If adoption is all we are looking for then why not polygamy? Or even 3 gay men forming a union (I know a couple of guys who did that). A society could set up a tyrannical government that can "adopt" children. So, even with adoption, there is nothing inherent to homosexual relationships that make society "have to" recognize or give benefits to homosexual unions.

Now, of course, society can choose otherwise, but they do have reason not to.

Anthony Fleming said...

One other thing, my argument is provided without discussing the health problems caused by sodomy.

However, I do believe a society also has a right not to promote certain behavior that, by its nature, often causes major health issues.

For example: sodomy often causes a wearing away of the colon lining which can then allow feces to enter the blood stream causing hepatitis. Go to any "rehabilitation" center for pedophile/homosexuals and you will find that many of the "patients" have hepatitis.

While heterosexual couples can practice sodomy, it is not a virtual necessary result of the union. True, we could still allow marriages between lesbians, who have far fewer health issues, but I doubt this would be acceptable for the homosexual rights activists.

cl said...

Victor,

"So, either the state is wrong and needs to tighten the requirements for marriage license to fit with the covenants God has laid down, or else the Church has to face the fact that the government may be justified in accepting as marriages relationships rooted in sin, for its own reasons, appealing to the separation of church and state. If you do that for heterosexual marriages that are rooted in sin, then even if you maintain that homosexuality is sinful, you can't infer directly from scriptural injunctions against homosexuality to the unacceptability of gay marriage."

EXACTLY. Thank you so much for making this point. This represents my views to a tee. I tried getting Crude to understand this point in the discussion at my place, but I'm not sure whether it came through. To me, that Christians aren't equally up-in-arms about "divorcee marriage" is cause for concern.

Although, Crude's response was along the lines that divorcee marriage isn't front and center in the culture wars, and I think that has some merit. Still, the disproportionate Christian attention given to gay marriage suggests to me that there is a strong undercurrent of bigotry and judgment going on here.

Crude said...

Over the next two weeks, I plan to augment WK's list - I think it can be dramatically improved.

cl,

EXACTLY. Thank you so much for making this point. This represents my views to a tee. I tried getting Crude to understand this point in the discussion at my place, but I'm not sure whether it came through. To me, that Christians aren't equally up-in-arms about "divorcee marriage" is cause for concern.

There are reasons they're not up in arms over that right now.

First: that is radically more difficult for the state to even be aware of. How do you know a given marriage "began adulterously"? How do you know the involved couple weren't penitent over their adultery? How do you know the marriage was valid (not legally, but religiously) to begin with?

In fact, my understanding of the biblical passages in question is that Christ is interpreted as viewing adultery is a reason that *justifies* divorce. Now, I could be wrong here. But if that's the case, then talking about people being divorced illicitly on the grounds that they got divorced due to adultery while married is moot.

To use a comparison: marrying someone because you just want their money, I think, would be near universally regarded as immoral. But actually getting the state involved? I think even people who are against it and don't care about Church v State issues would pause here, precisely because of what difficulties are involved with even ascertaining this.

Gay marriage is far and away easier and more reasonable, from a practicality and actionability standpoint, to oppose.

Second, the reason there's more of an outcry right now, and I tried to make this clear, has a lot to do with the fact that there is an overwhelming, frantic assault by the pro-gay-marriage side, and this assault is wide-reaching. To use an anecdotal example here: look at Bob. Take a good look at what Bob reported. Just being *neutral* is enough to cause rage at this point. Look at Chik-fil-a, look at the list WK compiled - oppose gay marriage, and you can count on quite a lot of backlash.

This issue is more complicated than the marriage question itself at this point.

Crude said...

By the way, an atheist by the name of Stephen R. Diamond referred me to his own arguments against gay marriage here:

http://tinyurl.com/crlvq4o

Probably controversial from all angles, but I offer it up all the same.

cl said...

Crude, for the umpteenth time, I'm talking about people who get divorced as a result of non-adulterous issues (i.e., can't get along, money, etc.). Yes, such marriages would be difficult to identify, but to me it's telling that Christians NEVER (or maybe very rarely) get up-in-arms about them, when they froth at the mouth over gay marriage.

Like this:

Many Christians vocally, publicly oppose gay marriage because it is a sin.

Yet, nil Christians vocally, publicly oppose divorcee marriage, which is also a sin.

Granted, divorcee marriage was never illegal in the first place, but that's kind of beside the point. All I'm interested in exploring here are the reasons that would justify the public outcry over gay marriage but the relative silence over divorcee-marriage. Such is exactly what I would expect if, as I suggest, Christians have been duped into bigotry.

At the same time, I also give some credence to your "cultural prominence" argument.

Make sense?

B. Prokop said...

cl,

I totally agree that the emphasis many "Christians" put on this issue is way out of proportion. Yes, one can find a handful of passages in scripture that have a low opinion of homosexuality, but I find it telling that Jesus never mentioned the subject once, whereas he warned of the dangers of wealth and strongly condemned injustice against the poor many, many times. (It would actually be interesting to count them up. I imagine such passages would be outnumbered only by those against hypocrisy.) and don't get me started on the Prophets - they were all about social justice and the poor. And once again, dead silent on the issue of same-sex marriage.

So why the totally off-balanced obsession with this issue by (right-wing) "Christians"? Beats me. As for myself, I'll repeat what I said in a family setting months ago - I couldn't care less. I wouldn't lift a finger to advance "the cause", but neither will I make any effort to impede it. I truly do not give a damn.

Anthony Fleming said...

Bob,

Three things.

First, while Jesus did not address homosexuality directly, he did promote the explicit definition of marriage found from the beginning of Genesis, to the words of Paul, and the words of Peter (Mark 19:5, 10:7, Ephesians 5:31 etc).

Second: Even if Jesus' whole message centered around social justice, instead of the eschatalogical kingdom of God, it still would not mean that we must "relax" one of his commands or explicit definitions (Matthew 5:19).

Third, we don't get our entire doctrine from the gospels. We have insights into orthodox teaching and creeds from the disciples, Paul was responsible for most of this content. While he wrote that those who practice homosexuality (among many other things) will not inherit the kingdom (1 Corinthians 6:9), he also wrote that "such were" some of his readers (1 Corinthians 6:11).

Many people try to find ways to doubt what the Bible really says about marriage. I am not advocating that the Bible's definition of marriage needs to be the public policy, I provided purely secular reasons against homosexual marriage above.

Even so, even if there were no passages that commanded against homosexual practice, it would still not mean Christians should promote it as part of a union in which the Bible (from the Old Testament, Gospels, to epistles) explicitly defines.

physphilmusic said...

If only the government could completely GET OUT of any kind of definition of marriage. Let people do whatever they want - monogamy, polygamy, same-sex marriage, group marriage, incest...it's their own decision, their own sin, their own consequences. Why should a Christian care? The important thing is that we should fight for the right to personally oppose same-sex marriage, including the right to preach against it and not doing wedding photographs for them, for example. Let them claim their own insurance and argue it with the insurance companies. Even if Christians successfully restrict the definition of marriage to "one man and one woman", that alone is still not fully sufficient for Biblical marriage.

Anthony Fleming said...

physphilmusic,

Having no definition of marriage might work, or it might not. Or having "gay marriage" and then regular "marriage" could work too. I don't think the homosexual activists would go for that though.

Even so, society does have a right to define and give benefits to certain unions. They have a reason to give such benefits to heterosexual unions vs. homosexual ones. I wrote on this above.

Papalinton said...

"Even so, society does have a right to define and give benefits to certain unions."

And that is what society is doing, exercising the right to broaden the definition of relationships, be they heterosexual unions, homosexual unions, unmarried parents, adopting parents [homosexual or heterosexual or even single parents]. There is no one-size-fits-all classification of what constitutes a 'union'. And that is as it should be. Non discriminatory. Children need loving relationships, loving families, regardless of their make up. In Aboriginal societies in Australia, the primary responsibility for the welfare and care of children was vested in the aunts and uncles, not the parents, over forty thousand years of unbroken tradition that remains as successful today as of yesteryear. We must never be blinkered to the variety of successful relationship models that humanity has evolved.

This acknowledgement for variety and choice is precisely what is being reflected in how society is expressing that need.

Anthony Fleming said...

Papalinton,

You wrote, "And that is what society is doing, exercising the right to broaden the definition of relationships, be they heterosexual unions, homosexual unions, unmarried parents, adopting parents [homosexual or heterosexual or even single parents]."

In most of the states that have voted, including California, society has upheld traditional marriage. My argument is that they have reasons and right to do just that. You are welcome to go after my secular argument above and demonstrate my error.

You wrote, "here is no one-size-fits-all classification of what constitutes a 'union'. And that is as it should be. Non discriminatory. Children need loving relationships, loving families, regardless of their make up."

Ok, what does that have to do with any of my points? Marriage is not a right or an entitlement. My only point is that heterosexual unions have inherent potential to reproduce, which is vital to society. Homosexual relationships have no inherent potential that is indispensable to society. Therefore, a society can see the difference and encourage one union over the other.

You wrote, "Children need loving relationships, loving families, regardless of their make up. In Aboriginal societies in Australia, the primary responsibility for the welfare and care of children was vested in the aunts and uncles, not the parents, over forty thousand years of unbroken tradition that remains as successful today as of yesteryear. "

Once again, this has nothing to do with anything I have written. I didn't say anything about being against homosexual adoptions. I just don't see that the ability to adopt means a certain unions, including those that practice sodomy which carries many health problems, need to be encouraged by society. A single person can adopt. Three gay guys could potentially adopt. Does that mean we should recognize polygamy or homosexual polygamy too? After all, three or even five gay guys could provide far more economic support for a child.

Like I said, there is nothing homosexual unions have which are indispensable to society. Therefore, a society does not have to encourage or give benefits to such unions.

You wrote, "We must never be blinkered to the variety of successful relationship models that humanity has evolved. "

Lol...did you really just include homosexual relationships, which cannot reproduce, in evolutionary terms. Come on!

You wrote, "This acknowledgement for variety and choice is precisely what is being reflected in how society is expressing that need."

Where are you living? Most of society has not expressed that need. Most societies have expressed the opposite. While homosexual relationships are seen more favorable, they don't have the majority of our nation for support.

Anthony Fleming said...

Papalinton, now that I re-read my comment I realize my tone could sound rather harsh. I do respect you and appreciate your willingness to engage and respond.

I hope you consider my actual position.

Have a good night. It is bed-time for this guy.

Crude said...

Crude, for the umpteenth time, I'm talking about people who get divorced as a result of non-adulterous issues (i.e., can't get along, money, etc.). Yes, such marriages would be difficult to identify, but to me it's telling that Christians NEVER (or maybe very rarely) get up-in-arms about them, when they froth at the mouth over gay marriage.

And I've repeatedly pointed out the difference between those two cases. What's more...

Many Christians vocally, publicly oppose gay marriage because it is a sin.

Yet, nil Christians vocally, publicly oppose divorcee marriage, which is also a sin.


This is not true. At least not in the Catholic Church, where divorce and remarriage - though not a public drum-banging situation - is taken very seriously, to the point where some churches deny communion to people who are divorced. And it's been addressed in prominent places.

All I'm interested in exploring here are the reasons that would justify the public outcry over gay marriage but the relative silence over divorcee-marriage. Such is exactly what I would expect if, as I suggest, Christians have been duped into bigotry.

At the same time, I also give some credence to your "cultural prominence" argument.

Make sense?


It does make sense, but I think your emphasis is incorrect. I myself have pointed out the myriad of things Christians have done wrong on this issue. But I don't think it's fair to call the emphasis 'bigotry'. It's as simple as that.

Crude said...

cl,

Seriously, I get where you're coming from on this. I just think you're overestimating an aspect of the issue, and underestimating another.

I'll drop it for now. I intend to get that augmentation of Wintery Knight's article out in a couple weeks, tops.

grodrigues said...

@B. Prokop:

"Yes, one can find a handful of passages in scripture that have a low opinion of homosexuality, but I find it telling that Jesus never mentioned the subject once, whereas he warned of the dangers of wealth and strongly condemned injustice against the poor many, many times."

A "handful of passages"? That is a very bizarre argument for a Catholic to make. But pray, why on earth would Jesus Christ mention the issue of sodomy to contemporary Jews? On the other hand, St, Paul, addressing a Hellenistic audience, had to face the issue and he did, and in no uncertain terms.

The institution of marriage is divinely sanctioned and *prior* to the state and state law. Redefining it is tantamount to redefine human nature so it is an intrinsically unjust, totalitarian move. It starts by "emptying out" marriage of its traditional underpinnings in order to undermine the rational case of SSM opponents and then goes on to pile arbitrary attributes to it -- arbitrary insofar as the SSM case, of necessity, starts by destroying the idea that there is anything essential to marriage -- vacuous platitudes such as "commitment" or "loving relationship" or whatever. It also has dramatic consequences, for example in how we view the crucial and foundational concept of filiation. By the way, this last reason is one reason, but not by any means the only one, why the analogy with divorcee marriages does not work.

We have only a finite time and we must choose our battles, and choose them wisely. For example, my political spine is virtually non-existent (no need to bust my chops, I already get all the flak I can handle), reducing itself to a smatter of Chestertonian distributist ideas and a general dislike for both the Servile State and Big Corporate Monopoly and I care very little for the "social gospel". So if you "do not give a damn" about "the cause" in this sense, then that is perfectly fine. But if you are saying that the issue is objectively unimportant, then I have to strongly disagree with you, on theological, moral, cultural and societal grounds.

note: and just for the record, I am not an American and where I live this particular battle is already lost.

cl said...

grodrigues,

"By the way, this last reason is one reason, but not by any means the only one, why the analogy with divorcee marriages does not work."

Could you elaborate on that? I'm interested in hearing your opinion. Although, before elaborating, could you state the argument you think I'm making when I reference divorcee marriage? That way we can be sure we're on the same page.

B. Prokop said...

Grodrigues,

You are correct - I really just don't give a damn.

As to whether the issue is "objectively unimportant", I hope I did not give that impression. What I meant to say was that it is objectively far less important than the other issues I mentioned. Orders of magnitude less important.

Zach said...

Crude I thought of addressing this in my post:
There is at least one argument in WK's case that can't be applied to blacks or anybody else: the fact that children do better with a mother and a father.

But I didn't because it was obvious that it is a bad argument, otherwise we should outlaw single-parent adoption. I thought it would be obvious. But yes, the analogy with blacks doesn't hold for every case.

As I said, the secular arguments stink, especially when they are meant to push the law in a certain direction.

That post was not written by someone with a secular perspective, but someone trying to simulate a secular perspective and producing an epic fail.

This is a religious issue, don't try to cover it with BS.

cl said...

Zach,

"But I didn't because it was obvious that it is a bad argument, otherwise we should outlaw single-parent adoption. I thought it would be obvious."

Thanks for the lack of charity. If you reread my comment you'll see that it *WAS* obvious, which is why I counter-argued against it in the very next sentence.

Hell, I thought *THAT* would have been obvious.

Crude said...

cl,

Thanks for the lack of charity. If you reread my comment you'll see that it *WAS* obvious, which is why I counter-argued against it in the very next sentence.

If he rereads the comment, he'll also see you said that, not me. ;)

cl said...

Crude,

I assumed either:

A) He was aware I said it but felt it was somehow germane to discussion between the two of you; or,

B) He was unaware I said it and accidentally addressed you.

Not sure which it was but I like that you're on top of things!

Papalinton said...

Hi Anthony
Just a couple of thongs:

"I didn't say anything about being against homosexual adoptions."
Good.

" I just don't see that the ability to adopt means a certain unions, including those that practice sodomy which carries many health problems, need to be encouraged by society."
You mean health problems, STDs like gonorrhea, chlamydia, genital herpes simplex, chancroid, Granuloma inguinale, syphilis etc are the preferred health problems to be encouraged by society? Not really a sustainable argument, Anthony.

"Like I said, there is nothing homosexual unions have which are indispensable to society."
How about according gays personal dignity? How about mitigating prejudice, bigotry, intolerance, narrow-mindedness, unfairness, inequity, one-sidedness; on not discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation? How about affording homosexuals peace of mind, security and a sense of community safety, and an opportunity to live a family life, [yes, different from your idea of a family life, yet a family life nonetheless] analogous to that which they would have grown up experiencing as a young person, and to share family responsibilities with their partner. Remember, homosexuality has always been an inadvertent and accidental product of heterosexual unions. To discriminate on the basis of homosexuality is truly unfairness writ large.

"Where are you living? Most of society has not expressed that need. Most societies have expressed the opposite. While homosexual relationships are seen more favorable, they don't have the majority of our nation for support."
So according to you, it is justifiable to discriminate against a minority group [homosexuality accounts for about 10% of the population] because might is right. Hardly a reason for willful discrimination against a minority that are there by accident of birth.

Papalinton said...

Anthony
Just as a follow up:

"The 2000 U.S. Census Bureau found that homosexual couples constitute less than 1% of American households. The Family Research Report says "around 2-3% of men, and 2% of women, are homosexual or bisexual." The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force estimates three to eight percent of both sexes."

"In August 2002*, Gallup asked Americans, in an open-ended format, to estimate[My bolding] the percentage of American men and the percentage of American women who are homosexual. The average estimates were that 21% of men are gay and 22% of women are lesbians. In fact, roughly a quarter of the public thinks more than 25% of men and 25% of women are homosexual. It should be pointed out, too, that many Americans (at least one in six) could not give an estimate."
http://www.gallup.com/poll/6961/what-percentage-population-gay.aspx

It seems the reality of the numbers of actual gays and lesbians in the community is somewhat different from the imagined numbers and the perceived threat of hordes.

Anthony Fleming said...

Papalinton,

I wrote, "Like I said, there is nothing homosexual unions have which are indispensable to society."

You wrote, "How about according gays personal dignity? How about mitigating prejudice, bigotry, intolerance, narrow-mindedness, unfairness, inequity, one-sidedness; on not discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation..."

In no way does this address my point. Gays can live together, start families, adopt, etc etc. The question is whether society can choose not to recognize that union without without danger of discriminating. I think society is justified in not giving benefits to all unions, and have reason to do so.

A man could also live with 3 woman and start a family, or 3 gay men could live together with an adopted kid. Perhaps a society should also recognize incest relationships so brothers and sisters who want to have sex can "keep their dignity." Like I said, they have nothing indispensable to society, so a society has a right to promote (and give benefits) to one type of union and not another. Do you have an argument against this?

You wrote, "You mean health problems, STDs like gonorrhea, chlamydia, genital herpes simplex, chancroid, Granuloma inguinale, syphilis etc are the preferred health problems to be encouraged by society? Not really a sustainable argument, Anthony"

Are you referring to common STDs that spread through heterosexual sexual intercourse especially as a result from multiple partners? If so then I fail to see how it applies, no one is asking for the act of sex to be promoted or encouraged by society. You are confusing "heterosexual sex" with "heterosexual monogamous relationships" which often result with families.

Even so, there is a difference between the two. It is the nature of sodomy that causes the numerous health problems (like the wearing away of the colon lining which allow feces in the blood stream).

First Loot said...

An infection caused by a herpes simplex virus (HSV), which has an affinity for the skin and nervous system and usually produces small, transient, irritating, and sometimes painful fluid-filled blisters on the skin and mucous membranes. HSV1 (oral herpes, herpes labialis) infections tend to occur in the facial area, particularly around the mouth and nose; HSV2 (herpes genitalis) infections are usually limited to the genital region.
Elaboration Of Herpes Simplex

Lara Jericho said...


I can’t believe this. A great testimony that i must share to all HERPES SIMPLEX VIRUS patient in the world i never believed that their could be any complete cure for Herpes or any cure for herpes,i saw people’s testimony on blog sites of how Dr Emuan prepare herbal cure and brought them back to life again i had to try it too and you can,t believe that in just few weeks i started using it all my pains stop gradually and i had to leave without the herpes the doctor gave to me. Right now i can tell you that few months now i have not had any pain. delay in treatment leads to death. Here is his email: Dremuansolution@gmail.com

Marjorie Lawrence said...

Thank God Almighty that led me to Dr Timothy I never thought i would be Herpes negative again after been diagnosed in 2011, i have tried everything possible in life from one doctor to another, one hospital to another, series of tests, different kinds of medication, i had already lost hope until i meet Great Dr. Timothy online testimonies, a specialist in herbal medication from Africa, i contacted him Drtimothyhealingtemple@gmail.com and he prepared Herpes herbal medication for me which i took for 10days and now i am completely cured. i want to use this medium to express my gratitude to him for saving my life and curing me from Herpes Hsv2, for taking away all my pains and sorrows, I'm indeed grateful and i am so happy I'm now Herpes negative. i will continue to tell the good news of your great works to everyone, if you have Herpes or other deadly disease please contact him now, Email: Drtimothyhealingtemple@gmail.com

Emilia Whyte said...


I Never believed i was ever going to be HSV2 Negative again, Dr. Silver has given me reasons to be happy, i was HSV2 positive for 2years and all the means i tried for treatment was not helpful to me, but when i came on the Internet i saw great testimony about Dr Silver on how he was able to cure someone from HIV, this person said great things about this man, and advice, i decided to give him a try, he requested for my information which i sent to him, and he told me he was going to prepare for me a healing portion, which he wanted me to take for 7days, and after which i should go back to the hospital for check up, well after taking all the treatment sent to me, i went back to the Hospital for check up, and now i have been confirmed HSV2 Negative, friends if you have anything disease contact Dr Silver on any treatment for any Disease he is the one only i can show you all up to, reach him on: drsilverhealingtemple@gmail.com

Walsh Bob said...

I give all thanks to Dr Stanley for helping me to cure my Herpes virus problem which i have been going through for the past 3years, i really tried many prescribed medicine but could not work for me till i was privileged to meet this Dr. Stanley who helped me with a positive solution and cure my herpes with herbal remedies. You can also be cured if you are suffering of any types of HERPES by contacting Dr. Stanley via drstanleyherbalhome@gmail.com