The Bible accepts homosexuality!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Well then what do you mean by 'contrary to nature'?

please see the link that i gave to Zapansy it details why homosexual behaviour is both
unnatural and unhealthy. I would reproduce it but robomod will not let me as it
apparently finds some terms objectionable.

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0075.html

taking smack is pleasurable yet i doubt if you would state that intravenous drug use is
healthy.

Who would have thought the day would come when Robbie Carrobie is posting links to a Catholic website. As for that site, i have no interest in reading it.

It should also be noted there are risks associated with heterosexual sex also. So i'm not quite sure what you're point is?

In fact there are risks associated with everything in life, pregnancy, running, going for a dump (an extraordinary number of people suffer heart attacks whilst in the toilet), going to the gym, falling in love the list goes on and on.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Who would have thought the day would come when Robbie Carrobie is posting links to a Catholic website. As for that site, i have no interest in reading it.

It should also be noted there are risks associated with heterosexual sex also. So i'm not quite sure what you're point is?

In fact there are risks associated with everything in life, pregnancy, ...[text shortened]... eart attacks whilst in the toilet), going to the gym, falling in love the list goes on and on.

its Realpolitik my friend, I will try to reproduce the article, in part for it states in
scientific terms, why anal intercourse is objectionable. You would think a rampant
materialist like yourself would be interested in the science of the matter, but sadly
noooo, how vewy vewy intwesting 🙂

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
its Realpolitik my friend, I will try to reproduce the article, in part for it states in
scientific terms, why anal intercourse is objectionable. You would think a rampant
materialist like yourself would be interested in the science of the matter, but sadly
noooo, how vewy vewy intwesting 🙂

Anal intercourse is the sine qua non of sex for many gay men.22 Yet human
physiology makes it clear that the body was not designed to accommodate this
activity. The rectum is significantly different from the vagina with regard to
suitability for penetration by a peni*. The vagina has natural lubricants and is
supported by a network of muscles. It is composed of a mucus membrane with a
multi-layer stratified squamous epithelium that allows it to endure friction without
damage and to resist the immunological actions caused by semen and sperm. In
comparison, the anus is a delicate mechanism of small muscles that comprise an
"exit-only" passage. With repeated trauma, friction and stretching, the sphincter
loses its tone and its ability to maintain a tight seal. Consequently, anal intercourse
leads to leakage of fecal material that can easily become chronic.

The potential for injury is exacerbated by the fact that the intestine has only a single
layer of cells separating it from highly vascular tissue, that is, blood. Therefore, any
organisms that are introduced into the rectum have a much easier time establishing
a foothold for infection than they would in a vagina. The single layer tissue cannot
withstand the friction associated with penile penetration, resulting in traumas that
expose both participants to blood, organisms in feces, and a mixing of bodily fluids.

Furthermore, ejaculate has components that are immunosuppressive. In the course
of ordinary reproductive physiology, this allows the sperm to evade the immune
defenses of the female. Rectal insemination of rabbits has shown that sperm
impaired the immune defenses of the recipient.23 Semen may have a similar
impact on humans.24

The end result is that the fragility of the anus and rectum, along with the
immunosuppressive effect of ejaculate, make anal-genital intercourse a most
efficient manner of transmitting HIV and other infections. The list of diseases found
with extraordinary frequency among male homosexual practitioners as a result of
anal intercourse is alarming:

Anal Cancer
Chlamydia trachomatis
Cryptosporidium
Giardia lamblia
Herpes simplex virus
Human immunodeficiency virus
Human papilloma virus
Isospora belli
Microsporidia
Gonorrhea
Viral hepatitis types B & C
Syphilis25

natural you say?

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]I would say that Robbie is correct. In my estimation, there are relatively few people that don't separate at least to some degree... the self-sacrificing, heartfelt, kinship, oneness, wholesome love one feels for their loved one, and the act of fornication; sodomy, standard, or otherwise. And this goes especially for the case of sodomy because i ...[text shortened]... aginal sex quite abhorrent but I won't condemn discussion of it simply because of my disgust.

I personally find the idea of vaginal sex quite abhorrent but I won't condemn discussion of it simply because of my disgust.

its what it is attached to Conrau, not it itself.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
its Realpolitik my friend, I will try to reproduce the article, in part for it states in
scientific terms, why anal intercourse is objectionable. You would think a rampant
materialist like yourself would be interested in the science of the matter, but sadly
noooo, how vewy vewy intwesting 🙂

A rampant materialist?? Maybe i could get a t-shirt with that on.

As for the implications of anal sex, yes i am versed in them thanks, i just have no interest reading it from the Catholic Church.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I personally find the idea of vaginal sex quite abhorrent but I won't condemn discussion of it simply because of my disgust.

its what it is attached to Conrau, not it itself.

Double post.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Anal intercourse is the sine qua non of sex for many gay men.22 Yet human
physiology makes it clear that the body was not designed to accommodate this
activity. The rectum is significantly different from the vagina with regard to
suitability for penetration by a peni*. The vagina has natural lubricants and is
supported by a network of muscles a belli
Microsporidia
Gonorrhea
Viral hepatitis types B & C
Syphilis25

natural you say?

You still haven't answered the question, if anal sex is such an abomination why do you think God created us with the ability to orgasm that way?

Just to clarify, i wasn't claiming anal sex was 'natural', my claim was with regards to homosexuality itself.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
perhaps some science might convince you otherwise Zappy, we live in hope,

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0075.html

catholic education screamed objectivity, i had to check it out.
so after the contents, this was the first line: "Sexual relationships between members of the same sex expose gays, lesbians and bisexuals to extreme risks of Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STDs),"

extreme risks. simply because they both have the same genitals. it is almost like magic.

"There is an extremely high rate of parasitic and other intestinal infections documented among male homosexual practitioners because of oral-anal contact."

"Some gay men sexualize human waste, including the medically dangerous practice of coprophilia, which means sexual contact with highly infectious fecal wastes"

""Fisting" refers to the insertion of a hand or forearm into the rectum, and is far more damaging than anal intercourse."

and after these i gave up.

wonderful study. very objective indeed. up to date too. awesome how the most deviant sexual acts (sexual acts that are all performed by heteros too) found their way into the study as a way to vilify homosexuality in general. awesome how they fail to mention that hey, there are gays that don't engage in a quarter of that stuff.

i like how they used the word "high rates". high rates compared to what? what exactly is the number that warrants "high rates". on what gays(what was their background, education, profession, etc) was the study made? i think it would be funny to count how many times was the "high rates" expression used. and how many of those times actual numbers were used.

missing a lot of links from the references cited.

lots of mention of "an australian std clinic" without mentioning its name. i think i can find a Zimbabwean clinic that says that sex with giraffes while high on paint thinner has no health risk whatsoever.


so many stuff is wrong with this link, and just from the first few paragraphs i forced myself to read just to offer you a chance.



it is sad. very sad.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Well then what do you mean by 'contrary to nature'?

please see the link that i gave to Zapansy it details why homosexual behaviour is both
unnatural and unhealthy. I would reproduce it but robomod will not let me as it
apparently finds some terms objectionable.

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0075.html

taking smack is pleasurable yet i doubt if you would state that intravenous drug use is
healthy.

Warning to whom it may concern: don't.

i got there and barely made it out alive with my sanity intact.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
You still haven't answered the question, if anal sex is such an abomination why do you think God created us with the ability to orgasm that way?

Just to clarify, i wasn't claiming anal sex was 'natural', my claim was with regards to homosexuality itself.

because as i stated, simply because something is possible, does not mean that its beneficial, nor natural, nor healthy. Yes you should get a tee shirt made.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
Warning to whom it may concern: don't.

i got there and barely made it out alive with my sanity intact.

sure ignore a scientifically conducted study in favour of your liberalist amoral agenda.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
catholic education screamed objectivity, i had to check it out.
so after the contents, this was the first line: "Sexual relationships between members of the same sex expose gays, lesbians and bisexuals to extreme risks of Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STDs),"

extreme risks. simply because they both have the same genitals. it is almost like magic.

...[text shortened]... orced myself to read just to offer you a chance.



it is sad. very sad.

is that the best you have, to call into question references and a few comments about
STD's. What about the actual data itself, hard to argue with i suppose given the
scientifically attested arguments that were made concerning the comparison with the
vagina and the anus and its suitability for penetration given the physiology. Sure
ignore a doctors advice, why should you listen to any one else's opinion that clearly
has blown the wheels from your flotilla as it was cruising along quite nicely in your gay
parade.

Originally posted by Conrau K
That's nice.

What is nice about it.? The Holy Bible says that the act of a man laying with
another man as if he was laying with a woman is an abomination. I think
that this anal penetration is the only thing that could refer to. The Holy
Bible never says homosexuals are an abomination. It is only referring to
an act that could easily be performed by heterosexual males.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
because as i stated, simply because something is possible, does not mean that its beneficial, nor natural, nor healthy. Yes you should get a tee shirt made.

But why did God create us that way? Do you have a theory? If not a simple 'dunno' would suffice.