- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
06 Nov 11
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyWhat is Whodey aiming at? Well it's kinda like drug abusers. I suppose you could provide them with clean needles and all to let them carry on as they like. No doubt, it would "save" some lives, but in the end, there is no changing the fact that it's simply a screwed up lifestyle that is inherently unhealthy.
What is Whodey aiming at? Well it's kinda like drug abusers. I suppose you could provide them with clean needles and all to let them carry on as they like. No doubt, it would "save" some lives, but in the end, there is no changing the fact that it's simply a screwed up lifestyle that is inherently unhealthy.
So what is more loving? Is it more loving to ...[text shortened]... ment to carry on or is it more loving go through the horrendous ordeal of going cold turkey?
This is ridiculous and highly offensive. The statistics Sumydid cited also indicated that the majority of cases of HIV infection among women (74% if I recall correctly) were the result of heterosexual sex. Are we to conclude that heterosexual relationships are 'inherently unhealthy'?
Certainly AIDS has been prevalent in the gay community. There are a number of reasons for this. One, obviously, is promiscuity compounded with the lack of awareness of how HIV was transmitted. The other would be that HIV is likely to be common in cases of 'situational homosexuality', as in prisons or pornography or prostitution where people may not be engaging in homosexual sex because of any homosexual orientation but because of circumstances. How does this in any way bear on the majority of gay men nowadays?
The fact is that many gay men now are in committed relationships. The proportion of AIDS in the gay community is lessening, which is why there is increased impetus to have bans on blood donations lifted. The fact that many gay men have contracted AIDS is a tragedy of circumstances and certainly not an indication of any inherent unhealthiness of a homosexual life. Personally, I think you're a prick.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
06 Nov 11
Originally posted by whodeyRight, and so we know that promiscuous unprotected sex with multiple partners is not a healthy lifestyle for a gay man. Why should this mean that all gay men are leading an unhealthy lifestyle, even if they are monogamous and use protection?
How I feel about something is meaningless. Either a particular lifestyle is healthy or it is not healthy. The stats tell the tale.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
06 Nov 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSure. Anal sex is not healthy. But why do you equate this with homosexuality? Anal sex is practiced in heterosexual relationships too and there are many gay men who refuse to engage in anal sex. I have said this so many times that this is likely just another wasted effort. Hopefully it will sink through eventually though.
no, it has been pointed out using physiological fact that anal penetration is unhealthy.
You cannot dispute this, its incontrovertible, the anus is not 'designed', for
penetration. Will you admit publicly that this is the case or if you will not then what
evidence do you have to the contrary, simply stating that you dont think its unhealthy
is not evidence in itself, nor is citing medical advancements.
07 Nov 11
Originally posted by Conrau KBut gays make up only around 5% of the population, women make up more than half.
This is ridiculous and highly offensive. The statistics Sumydid cited also indicated that the majority of cases of HIV infection among women (74% if I recall correctly) were the result of heterosexual sex. Are we to conclude that heterosexual relationships are 'inherently unhealthy'?
07 Nov 11
Originally posted by Conrau KHere we go!! We can force them all to stay monogomous and used rubbers and all will be well.
Right, and so we know that promiscuous unprotected sex with multiple partners is not a healthy lifestyle for a gay man. Why should this mean that all gay men are leading an unhealthy lifestyle, even if they are monogamous and use protection?
No one is stopping them. Perhaps the rates may decline a bit but by in large my guess is that the rates will not go down significantly even if gay marriage is the law of the land.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
07 Nov 11
Originally posted by whodeyI am not suggesting that gay men be forced to live monogamously. What I am objecting to is your claim that a gay lifestyle is 'inherently unhealthy'. Now even in the gay community where AIDS has been prevalent, it has never been the case that the majority of gay men have been HIV infected. So how can you possibly say that a gay lifestyle is inherently unhealthy.
Here we go!! We can force them all to stay monogomous and used rubbers and all will be well.
No one is stopping them. Perhaps the rates may decline a bit but by in large my guess is that the rates will not go down significantly even if gay marriage is the law of the land.
I, and all my gay friends, live monogamously. If they engage in sex, it is always with protection and they are still regularly tested. I do not see how that could be any more dangerous than a heterosexual couple. If this is the norm, and I believe it is now, why wouldn't you expect cases of AIDS to decline in the gay community? Do you think that AIDS spontaneously occurs in homosexual relationships?
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
07 Nov 11
Originally posted by whodeyYes, obviously that means that AIDS is more prevalent among gays than among women since the cases of AIDS among women is spread out over a larger population. But it is still the case that if a woman contracts HIV it is most likely through heterosexual sex. Presumably then, by your same reasoning, heterosexual lifestyles are inherently unhealthy for women.
But gays make up only around 5% of the population, women make up more than half.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
07 Nov 11
Originally posted by whodeyMaybe we should force all heterosexual people to be monogamous as well.
Here we go!! We can force them all to stay monogomous and used rubbers and all will be well.
No one is stopping them. Perhaps the rates may decline a bit but by in large my guess is that the rates will not go down significantly even if gay marriage is the law of the land.
Make them only have sex after marriage and ban divorce.
Then all would be well....
07 Nov 11
Originally posted by Conrau KBecause he doesn't know what 'inherently' means? Was it inherently unhealthy among the Greeks? No. Is it inherently unhealthy among lesbians. No. Is it currently inherently unhealthy. No. But there are risks. So what? There are risks with unprotected heterosexual sex. How any of this is relevant to the question of moral status of homosexual activity is beyond me. But, whatever, these folks will say whatever they can to lend the patina of justifiability to a view that they hold for religious reasons. The arguments in support of their bigotry are all ad and post hoc.
So how can you possibly say that a gay lifestyle is inherently unhealthy.
07 Nov 11
1 edit
Originally posted by bbarrDon't know about anyone else, but, if there was nary a mention of said act in the bible, I'd still not be in support of it. However I don't support the authorities kicking in doors and arresting people for doing whatever they want in the privacy of their own home. I just don't support the act in general. I consider it a turn-off.
Because he doesn't know what 'inherently' means? Was it inherently unhealthy among the Greeks? No. Is it inherently unhealthy among lesbians. No. Is it currently inherently unhealthy. No. But there are risks. So what? There are risks with unprotected heterosexual sex. How any of this is relevant to the question of moral status of homosexual activity i ...[text shortened]... ld for religious reasons. The arguments in support of their bigotry are all ad and post hoc.
If it's a turn-on to you, then I don't think any of us should hold it against you. That's your choice.
07 Nov 11
Originally posted by Rajk999I am a supporter of freedoms in general. ie, the ones that dont impinge on others. Homosexuality falls under this umbrella and it is from this point of view that I defend homosexuality.
Well unzip all you like, but look through this thread and tell me who are ones guilty of the most 'hate' ... is it the gay-supporters or the Bible-supporters ?
In a debate we present our arguments and thats that. Why do so many gay-supporters need to have Christians on their side otherwise they get abusive?
07 Nov 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWhat was the clitoris designed for? Hmmm?"
no, it has been pointed out using physiological fact that anal penetration is unhealthy.
You cannot dispute this, its incontrovertible, the anus is not 'designed', for
penetration. Will you admit publicly that this is the case or if you will not then what
evidence do you have to the contrary, simply stating that you dont think its unhealthy
is not evidence in itself, nor is citing medical advancements.