NationStates Jolt Archive

What does it matter if a man rather than placing his erect penis inside a woman's vagina, wants to place (with the aid of some vaseline, but don't get sand in it) his erect penis inside the anal tract of another man?

Surely Republicans/Conservatives/Nazis/Jackasses should be pleased about homosexuality. Imagine if homosexuality did not exist. Then you guys would get to sleep with noone. Imagine that!

Very graphic

Very graphic

Thanks. I bought it from Marks and Spencer.

It's sick and it's wrong. Forget about the whole religious arguement, and it's still wrong. I think it's a mental disorder.

It's sick and it's wrong. Forget about the whole religious arguement, and it's still wrong. I think it's a mental disorder.

Why though? How does it affect you and your life, apart from freeing up women for you to go out with (ha!)?

Make a declaration about it when your 60 years old and your sphincter doesn't work from all the abuse you've given it. Have fun wearing Depends.

Make a declaration about it when your 60 years old and your sphincter doesn't work from all the abuse you've given it. Have fun wearing Depends.

No, didn't catch a word of that.

Why though? How does it affect you and your life, apart from freeing up women for you to go out with (ha!)?

It disgusts me. I know the whole liberal arguement of "if it doesn't hurt anyone else, it's okay." Maybe, but it disgusts me nonetheless.
And I don't need any help getting a girlfriend, thank you!

No, didn't catch a word of that.
OK, in other words, "fudgepacking causes leakage".

It disgusts me. I know the whole liberal arguement of "if it doesn't hurt anyone else, it's okay." Maybe, but it disgusts me nonetheless.
And I don't need any help getting a girlfriend, thank you!


Sure you dont.

But seriously, if they are two consenting males, alternating between placing their erect penis inside the other's anal tract or mouth and opening their anal tract in order to be entered by the other's erect penis, then how does that hurt you?

OK, in other words, "fudgepacking causes leakage".

Well, I don't eat a lot of chocolate so I wouldn't know.

How does anything affect your life? How does a high AID's rate in South Africa affect you? Yet we still want to cure it...

How does a psycho criminal that eats his vicitim's affect you?
Yet we still want to cure them...

How does a Gay/Lesbian affect us?
Well it is a disease, i can bet you in maybe another 20...50...years we will finally discover that Homosexuality isn't a choice...it's a malfunction somewhere in our DNA that made us think like that. Then we will develop cures to fix that problem at birth.

Have you actually looked at the scientific research about what physically happens to a person after having anal sex? It's not pretty. Besides the immediate bleeding and such the first time, the semen starts to erode at the anal wall and significantly lowers the auto-immunological system's ability to stop diseases. Why do you think that STD's are so rampant among homosexuals? There's a lot more that could be said here, but I don't want to be too disgustingly graphic. Go look up the evidence for yourself.

And it's not just anal sex. If a woman has the semen of more than one man in her vagina, her body will physiologically change...permanently.

Of course, this all gets left out of virtually all sex-ed classes in high school.

Of course, this all gets left out of virtually all sex-ed classes in high school.

That's because we have to be nice to the Gays...we might hurt their feelings, and get sued or something.

Have you actually looked at the scientific research about what physically happens to a person after having anal sex? It's not pretty. Besides the immediate bleeding and such the first time, the semen starts to erode at the anal wall and significantly lowers the auto-immunological system's ability to stop diseases. Why do you think that STD's are so rampant among homosexuals? There's a lot more that could be said here, but I don't want to be too disgustingly graphic. Go look up the evidence for yourself.

And it's not just anal sex. If a woman has the semen of more than one man in her vagina, her body will physiologically change...permanently.

Of course, this all gets left out of virtually all sex-ed classes in high school.

At the end of the day though, they are consenting adults. You can get AIDS from being straight and sleeping with more than one lover. If you use protection, that probably won't happen. So I ask you again. What is wrong with a man making love to another man's bottom or to a woman licking her female partner's vagina until climax?

Well, I don't eat a lot of chocolate so I wouldn't know.
In the long run, anal sex will make you poop your pants.

How does anything affect your life? How does a high AID's rate in South Africa affect you? Yet we still want to cure it...

How does a psycho criminal that eats his vicitim's affect you?
Yet we still want to cure them...

How does a Gay/Lesbian affect us?
Well it is a disease, i can bet you in maybe another 20...50...years we will finally discover that Homosexuality isn't a choice...it's a malfunction somewhere in our DNA that made us think like that. Then we will develop cures to fix that problem at birth.

Yes but Homosexuality is not a disease that kills millions. AIDS is. That is like saying that people who have asthma kill millions a year through coughing too much. Diseases happen. And unlike a psycho criminal, two consenting adults engaging in homosexuality, if practised safely,hurt nobody. You are being far too melodramatic.

In the long run, anal sex will make you poop your pants.

Ahh. By the way was it you who said that you don't use condoms because they make your arse hurt?

One day we will find out that brown eyes and brown hair is a DNA defect and we will get a cure to prevent such diseases before they happen e.g. curing babies before birth. Then we will all be blue eyed and blond and truly Aryan. Welcome to the new Nazi century. Woot!

At the end of the day though, they are consenting adults. You can get AIDS from being straight and sleeping with more than one lover. If you use protection, that probably won't happen. So I ask you again. What is wrong with a man making love to another man's bottom or to a woman licking her female partner's vagina until climax?

So would it be fine, if 2 retard's had sex, unaware that they might have disease? Would it be fine, for some Teenage girl to have sex just to fit in with her friends? Would it be fine to have sex on the street, as they are consenting?

Second off...women with AID's generally either get it from a bisexual man..or they had a sex with a monkey...i'm going with the Bi-men.

And it is wrong because it is un-natural for someone to do so. Let's say 9 our of 10 people are straight.... Doesn't that feel sort of like a Cancer? Why did that 1 random man want to become gay? Pretty sure it didn't come from his mother...

So would it be fine, if 2 retard's had sex, unaware that they might have disease? Would it be fine, for some Teenage girl to have sex just to fit in with her friends? Would it be fine to have sex on the street, as they are consenting?

Second off...women with AID's generally either get it from a bisexual man..or they had a sex with a monkey...i'm going with the Bi-men.

And it is wrong because it is un-natural for someone to do so. Let's say 9 our of 10 people are straight.... Doesn't that feel sort of like a Cancer? Why did that 1 random man want to become gay? Pretty sure it didn't come from his mother...

What a stupid, un-informed, and totally ridiculous thing to say.

So would it be fine, if 2 retard's had sex, unaware that they might have disease? Would it be fine, for some Teenage girl to have sex just to fit in with her friends? Would it be fine to have sex on the street, as they are consenting?


1. Yes
2. Yes
3. Yes (though especially during winter it would be a little cold)

One day we will find out that brown eyes and brown hair is a DNA defect and we will get a cure to prevent such diseases before they happen e.g. curing babies before birth. Then we will all be blue eyed and blond and truly Aryan. Welcome to the new Nazi century. Woot!

If that were to be found out to be true, then we would fix it...but we wouldn't be called Nazi's, now would we?

If that were to be found out to be true, then we would fix it...but we wouldn't be called Nazi's, now would we?
Why not? Ever heard of the word "Heternormativity"? That's what some of you nazis suffer from.

Planta Genestae- How?

J0eg0d- You sicken me...

Gigatron- Your an Atheist aren't you?

So would it be fine, if 2 retard's had sex, unaware that they might have disease? Would it be fine, for some Teenage girl to have sex just to fit in with her friends? Would it be fine to have sex on the street, as they are consenting?

What about the phrase "consenting adults" [[and yes, consenting means that you have to have the ability to consent]] did you not understand?

Second off...women with AID's generally either get it from a bisexual man..or they had a sex with a monkey...i'm going with the Bi-men.

Complete misinformation.

And it is wrong because it is un-natural for someone to do so.

You are right, we should start burning everything in this world that acts in a homosexual or bisexual manner. Never mind that we will lose most of the population of many mammals -hell, we won't have any bighorn sheep left after a generation.

Let's say 9 our of 10 people are straight.... Doesn't that feel sort of like a Cancer? Why did that 1 random man want to become gay? Pretty sure it didn't come from his mother...

Most people have brown eyes. I guess that means blue eyes are cancer?

And that 1 man didn't "want to become gay," he already was gay and is just acting on that.

Planta Genestae- How?

J0eg0d- You sicken me...

Gigatron- Your an Atheist aren't you?
Yes I am.

It only count's if it's an actual birth defect, as in it affects you mentally or physically to a point of notice.

You can't help but notice the insanity of gayness.
http://www.photo.net/photo/pcd0155/gay-parade-20.3.jpg

I used to be lutheran, then I read the Bible and became baptist. Then I got a mind and thinking of my own and became bahai. Then I read Nietzsche and some Kant and became agnostic, it is not really as if you always have answers of universal truth when thinking about big questions, opinions do change, why should we then outlaw rights for people? Isn't that the completely wrong thing for counstitutional democracies to do?

I want to cure AIDS as it harms people who have not chosen it. I want to cure the physcopat (right spelling?), he harms people who don't deserve it. I have homosexual friends and want to "cure" them, I know what they are and will be facing, they are worth so much more respect, I also want to cure religious people, is there any other belief that hurts one more than religion? But wait, who are suffering from these two? Well, you had the choice to declare or not declare yourself homosexual, you had the choice to not waste your time with idiotic and ignorant belief systems (I am just writing this as an example of many, you can debate the religion thing by tg if you want), but do you break laws by doing this? Are people hurt physically? No, that you are dísgusted is not a reason to condemn it, I am disgusted by many of you and vice versa.

Giga- Figured :rolleyes:

What about the phrase "consenting adults" [[and yes, consenting means that you have to have the ability to consent]] did you not understand?

So you agree to any 2 people having sex, irregadless of their mental condition? Let's hope people like you never control a country....

Complete misinformation.
Is there another way to get AIDS? if so, plz tell me.

You are right, we should start burning everything in this world that acts in a homosexual or bisexual manner. Never mind that we will lose most of the population of many mammals -hell, we won't have any bighorn sheep left after a generation.
1. You cannot speak for animals...we have no idea why they do that, so there is no need to copy their own actions...that is a very poor argument. On another note. Buzzards (i think it was them) Eat their own crap to attract a mate, by showing their fortitude? Want to imitate them as well?


Most people have brown eyes. I guess that means blue eyes are cancer?

Only if it has an adverse affect on the people of Earth... typically physical features come from climate...why do you think people look all different from different places on Earth.

And that 1 man didn't "want to become gay," he already was gay and is just acting on that.

So you admit that person got it from Genetics then?

I used to be lutheran, then I read the Bible and became baptist. Then I got a mind and thinking of my own and became bahai. Then I read Nietzsche and some Kant and became agnostic, it is not really as if you always have answers of universal truth when thinking about big questions, opinions do change, why should we then outlaw rights for people? Isn't that the completely wrong thing for counstitutional democracies to do?
You're a Baptist and you can think for yourself? Amazing!

You're a Baptist and you can think for yourself? Amazing!
Wrong I am an agnostic, I became bahai by starting to think about and questioning the Bible, and thus shake indoctrination of myself.

Well, you had the choice to declare or not declare yourself homosexual,

You have a choice whether or not to declare it, but not whether or not to be it.

Have you actually looked at the scientific research about what physically happens to a person after having anal sex? It's not pretty. Besides the immediate bleeding and such the first time, the semen starts to erode at the anal wall and significantly lowers the auto-immunological system's ability to stop diseases. Why do you think that STD's are so rampant among homosexuals? There's a lot more that could be said here, but I don't want to be too disgustingly graphic. Go look up the evidence for yourself.

And it's not just anal sex. If a woman has the semen of more than one man in her vagina, her body will physiologically change...permanently.

Of course, this all gets left out of virtually all sex-ed classes in high school.

Immediate bleeding? did it ever occur to you people that maybe being gay isn't entirely about anal sex? maybe they actually love eachother, and maybe they aren't fucking like bunnies every night? That's like saying marriage is about vaginal sex...it's a gross degredation of the nature of the whole thing. Fucking a bleeding pisshole isn't exactly beautiful either.

You have a choice whether or not to declare it, but not whether or not to be it.
To OPENLY declare you homosexual is hard, my friends have broken bonds with as well as family as career to do this, I think that they have screwed up their lives, but as I am hetero I don't know if could have the fatigue to live with sucg a lie.

Ok- so say 'gayness', or homosexuality is a birth defect.( I'm not saying it is), should homosexuals be treated differently because of it. If it is a birth defect, then shouldn't they find a way to well... FIX IT.

As for fixing it, why not just find a fucking cure for HIV, AIDS, and Cancer (I know cancer isn't STD, but it was mentioned previously on this thread). I mean, maybe a shot or something that completely gets rid of it.

As for 'Aryan'. I have brown hair and eyes. Fuck all you nazis and neo-nazis.

Oh, and whoever posted that half naked lady- totally out of line man, maybe you should go take a week off and 'grow' some maturity.

You can't help but notice the insanity of gayness.
http://www.photo.net/photo/pcd0155/gay-parade-20.3.jpg
Here, I have found som friends for you; www.info14.com (www.info14.com) and [url=www.panzerfaust.com]www.panzerfaust.com[/qoute]

MuhOre, just what is it about gay people that disgusts you so much? Is it really just the image of two men joined at the rear?

If this is the case, then you are sadly misinformed.

Just for perspective, I'd like you to read this part of a play too.

http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/mattsmind/images/breeders.pdf

You can't help but notice the insanity of gayness.
http://www.photo.net/photo/pcd0155/gay-parade-20.3.jpg

*applause* yes! in fact, you cannot help but notice it! maybe that's because he was TRYING TO GET YOUR ATTENTION? you can't help but notice that most gay guys AREN'T OUT and you NEVER KNOW WHO THEY ARE. For every weird picture of a gay man there are 20 weird pictures of straight people.

Have you actually looked at the scientific research about what physically happens to a person after having anal sex? It's not pretty. Besides the immediate bleeding and such the first time, the semen starts to erode at the anal wall and significantly lowers the auto-immunological system's ability to stop diseases. Why do you think that STD's are so rampant among homosexuals? There's a lot more that could be said here, but I don't want to be too disgustingly graphic. Go look up the evidence for yourself.

And it's not just anal sex. If a woman has the semen of more than one man in her vagina, her body will physiologically change...permanently.

Of course, this all gets left out of virtually all sex-ed classes in high school.
i guess you just argued in favor of mandatory lesbianism, then, seeing as how lesbians are the only sexual combination in which a penis cannot be inserted into an anus and semen will not be inserted into the vagina.

So you agree to any 2 people having sex, irregadless of their mental condition? Let's hope people like you never control a country....

People with severe mental conditions do not have the ability to consent.

Is there another way to get AIDS? if so, plz tell me.

Yes darling. You can get HIV from sex, from blood, from any transfer of bodily fluids from an infected person.

A straight woman can get it from a straight man who got it from a straight woman. A straight man can get it from drug use sharing with a straight man/woman who is infected.

A woman does not have to sleep with a bisexual man to get HIV, nor does she necessarily have to sleep with anyone at all.

1. You cannot speak for animals...we have no idea why they do that, so there is no need to copy their own actions...that is a very poor argument. On another note. Buzzards (i think it was them) Eat their own crap to attract a mate, by showing their fortitude? Want to imitate them as well?

The point was that you cannot state something is unnatural when it occurs in nature. It is pure stupidity to do so.

And yes, there are many reasons for homosexuality, especially in a social species such as ourselves.

Only if it has an adverse affect on the people of Earth... typically physical features come from climate...why do you think people look all different from different places on Earth.

Homosexuality has no adverse effect on the people of Earth. Looks like we're alright then.

So you admit that person got it from Genetics then?

It most likely partially comes from genetics, partially comes from hormone balances in the womb during pregnancy, partially comes from neural development, and partially comes from life experiences while very young.

i guess you just argued in favor of mandatory lesbianism, then, seeing as how lesbians are the only sexual combination in which a penis cannot be inserted into an anus and semen will not be inserted into the vagina.


Lesbians almost never contract HIV too. Maybe they're God's chosen people. :D

I don't see how it affects me so people can do whatever they want as long as it doesn't hurt anyone or anything. As long as they don't do it in public. That goes for straight people too by the way! Anyways if there are more gay men that means there is less selection for the women and that means I'm more likely to get a date, lol.

It's ridiculous to completely dismiss the religious argument. One of the justifications for an opposition to homosexuality is the notion that sin (as defined by Judeo-Christian or Islamic doctrine) has a weighty impact on the nation as a whole. Many people believe that there is some divine hand of providence hanging over this nation, and if enough people believe that, should they not have the ability to define the laws and values or their own country?

John Locke and Thomas Jefferson argued that if a nation does not reflect the will of the people, then revolution is in order. If the citizens of the United States want laws and values that reflect Judeo-Christian or spiritual principles, then they should be allowed to have their government reflect those laws and values.

Secondly, it is true that you cannot empirically prove that God exists or that homosexuality is sin...but, at the same time, you cannot empirically prove the immorality of denying somebody civil rights either. Secularists would argue that morality is defined by the values of a given society...if that is so, then how can a secularist argue for the morality of something that has only about 20% popularity?? (Like gay marriage)

Finally...you cannot dismiss the *possibility* that Christians have it right...that God says that homosexuality is a sin. We have no concrete proof that it is true, but you have no concrete proof that it is untrue. We must therefore conclude that the issue is 'unclear' ...with no side being on the obvious side of truth. You have as little justification for asserting the morality of homosexuality as we have for asserting its immorality.

Giga- Figured :rolleyes:



So you agree to any 2 people having sex, irregadless of their mental condition? Let's hope people like you never control a country....

How exactly small does your brain have to be to read 'consenting adults' as '2 people'?


Is there another way to get AIDS? if so, plz tell me.

1. Inheritance
2. Vaginal Sex
3. Sharing Needles
4. Contaminated Blood Transfusions (Big problem in the third world)
5. The whole 'Blood Brother' thing
6. Coming into contact with any other bodily fluids for any other reason

1. You cannot speak for animals...we have no idea why they do that, so there is no need to copy their own actions...that is a very poor argument. On another note. Buzzards (i think it was them) Eat their own crap to attract a mate, by showing their fortitude? Want to imitate them as well?

Ha, nice strawman reversal. The "Animals do it too" thing is meant to counter the "But it isn't natural!" arguement, not a reason to do it.


Only if it has an adverse effect[sic] on the people of Earth... typically physical features come from climate...why do you think people look all different from different places on Earth.

Define 'adverse effect'.

So you admit that person got it from Genetics then?

That's kind of the point, you know.

What is important is a common classification for homosexualty. In Sweden we used to "fix" them with shocking theraphy, does this mean that we cured them or that we oppressed their sexuality? Nobody knows and meanwhile the friends of J0egod (or whatever your name is) can use it as real arguments.

Is there another way to get AIDS? if so, plz tell me.

YES. oh my god, please do not tell me that you think homosexual contact is the only way to get AIDS. please tell me there are not still people who are rich enough to get computers but who don't know basic information about HIV transmition. please.

most of the AIDS cases in the world are in straight people who have never had sexual contact with any member of the same sex, or even with a partner who has had contact with a member of the same sex. homosexuality is involved in a very small fraction of the world's total AIDS cases, and it is totally possible to get AIDS even if you and anybody you sleep with are 100% straight. you can get it from needles, infected blood transfusions, heterosexual sexual contact, or any exchange of significant body fluids with an infected person.

PLEASE educate yourself, for the sake of your own life and the lives of those you love.

*applause* yes! in fact, you cannot help but notice it! maybe that's because he was TRYING TO GET YOUR ATTENTION? you can't help but notice that most gay guys AREN'T OUT and you NEVER KNOW WHO THEY ARE. For every weird picture of a gay man there are 20 weird pictures of straight people.

You can't find 20 weird pictures of heterosexuals displaying their sexuality because heterosexuality isn't weird.

It's ridiculous to completely dismiss the religious argument. One of the justifications for an opposition to homosexuality is the notion that sin (as defined by Judeo-Christian or Islamic doctrine) has a weighty impact on the nation as a whole. Many people believe that there is some divine hand of providence hanging over this nation, and if enough people believe that, should they not have the ability to define the laws and values or their own country?

Actually, no. There's this little thing called Seperation of Church and state. No religion or religious values should be part of the legal system.

Not to mention that what you're talking about would be mob rule; the founding fathers specifically set the country up as a constitutional republic to avoid that, protect the rights of the minority from the tyranny of the majority.

John Locke and Thomas Jefferson argued that if a nation does not reflect the will of the people, then revolution is in order. If the citizens of the United States want laws and values that reflect Judeo-Christian or spiritual principles, then they should be allowed to have their government reflect those laws and values.

If the majority wanted to go out and lynch all blacks, would that be acceptable to you?

Secondly, it is true that you cannot empirically prove that God exists or that homosexuality is sin...but, at the same time, you cannot empirically prove the immorality of denying somebody civil rights either. Secularists would argue that morality is defined by the values of a given society...if that is so, then how can a secularist argue for the morality of something that has only about 20% popularity?? (Like gay marriage)

The problem with this is that the country was founded on the basic principle that everyone has the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Denying a group inherent civil rights when they do no real harm to anyone else infringes upon these rights.

Finally...you cannot dismiss the *possibility* that Christians have it right...that God says that homosexuality is a sin. We have no concrete proof that it is true, but you have no concrete proof that it is untrue. We must therefore conclude that the issue is 'unclear' ...with no side being on the obvious side of truth. You have as little justification for asserting the morality of homosexuality as we have for asserting its immorality.

And you cannot dismiss the possibility that the universe was created last Tuesday by an invisible pink unicorn.

You can't find 20 weird pictures of heterosexuals displaying their sexuality because heterosexuality isn't weird.


ROTFL!!!

Is there another way to get AIDS? if so, plz tell me.

1. You cannot speak for animals...we have no idea why they do that, so there is no need to copy their own actions...that is a very poor argument. On another note. Buzzards (i think it was them) Eat their own crap to attract a mate, by showing their fortitude? Want to imitate them as well?

Only if it has an adverse affect on the people of Earth... typically physical features come from climate...why do you think people look all different from different places on Earth.

You can get AIDS from a blood transfusion, the only people I personally know of who have died of AIDS got it this way.

I completely agree, comparing ourselves to animals is pointless and has no value in an ethical system.

And homosexuality DOES in fact have adverse effects on society! Plato was gay! so was Socrates! So was Davinchi! Homosexuals were regaurded as sacred mediators between the male and female ends of the gender continuum by tribal societies before the advent of patriarchal rule. They certainly are odd, and the western world certainly owes a HUGE portion of it's art and science and philosophy to them! Divine Devients. You'd be writing in Farsi right now if it weren't for these perverts. Get over yourself - gay people are some of the most creative and intellectual benefactors of society ever. There are OBVIOUS reasons for them to exist - and frankly there's no demographic I would trust more than openly gay and lesbian people.

It's ridiculous to completely dismiss the religious argument. One of the justifications for an opposition to homosexuality is the notion that sin (as defined by Judeo-Christian or Islamic doctrine) has a weighty impact on the nation as a whole. Many people believe that there is some divine hand of providence hanging over this nation, and if enough people believe that, should they not have the ability to define the laws and values or their own country?

no. most people used to believe that blacks were property, and that didn't make them right.


John Locke and Thomas Jefferson argued that if a nation does not reflect the will of the people, then revolution is in order. If the citizens of the United States want laws and values that reflect Judeo-Christian or spiritual principles, then they should be allowed to have their government reflect those laws and values.

the Founders specifically designed America as a Republic rather than a pure Democracy to avoid exactly the sort of tyranny of the majority that you are describing. any introductory Con Law text will introduce you to that fact.


Secondly, it is true that you cannot empirically prove that God exists or that homosexuality is sin...but, at the same time, you cannot empirically prove the immorality of denying somebody civil rights either. Secularists would argue that morality is defined by the values of a given society...if that is so, then how can a secularist argue for the morality of something that has only about 20% popularity?? (Like gay marriage)

less than 20% of the American population is asian; does that mean that asian citizens should not be given equal rights? less than 20% of the American population will attend graduate school, so does that mean that attending graduate school is immoral because not many people choose to do it?

Finally...you cannot dismiss the *possibility* that Christians have it right...that God says that homosexuality is a sin. We have no concrete proof that it is true, but you have no concrete proof that it is untrue. We must therefore conclude that the issue is 'unclear' ...with no side being on the obvious side of truth. You have as little justification for asserting the morality of homosexuality as we have for asserting its immorality.
i also cannot dismiss the possibility that God specifically WANTS all humans to be gay, and that He will punish us all by sending us to hell if we don't become gay right now. since that possibility has just as much evidence supporting it as the suggestion you posted, we are left at an impass. God's will on the subject will never and can never be determined, so it would be wrong of us to attempt to base our laws upon God's unknown will.

It's ridiculous to completely dismiss the religious argument. One of the justifications for an opposition to homosexuality is the notion that sin (as defined by Judeo-Christian or Islamic doctrine) has a weighty impact on the nation as a whole. Many people believe that there is some divine hand of providence hanging over this nation, and if enough people believe that, should they not have the ability to define the laws and values or their own country?

John Locke and Thomas Jefferson argued that if a nation does not reflect the will of the people, then revolution is in order. If the citizens of the United States want laws and values that reflect Judeo-Christian or spiritual principles, then they should be allowed to have their government reflect those laws and values.

Secondly, it is true that you cannot empirically prove that God exists or that homosexuality is sin...but, at the same time, you cannot empirically prove the immorality of denying somebody civil rights either. Secularists would argue that morality is defined by the values of a given society...if that is so, then how can a secularist argue for the morality of something that has only about 20% popularity?? (Like gay marriage)

Finally...you cannot dismiss the *possibility* that Christians have it right...that God says that homosexuality is a sin. We have no concrete proof that it is true, but you have no concrete proof that it is untrue. We must therefore conclude that the issue is 'unclear' ...with no side being on the obvious side of truth. You have as little justification for asserting the morality of homosexuality as we have for asserting its immorality.
If christians do want to have a nation based on christian principles, go ahead, there are plenty of non-occupied atolls in the Pacific! As it is now you have a constitution which you can change to fit with your religion, you just need to have 51 % behind you. It is not impossible for the christians of US to vote for genocides commited on homosexuals, just start if that is what you want. I don't define morals as the majority's principle, I speak of individuals' morals, the morals of the majority is just the official one.

You can't find 20 weird pictures of heterosexuals displaying their sexuality because heterosexuality isn't weird.

The only reason homosexuality is weird is because of bigots such as yourself. You bring such behaviour upon yourselves by not even attempting to be tolerant. It's the same reason for the existance of organizations such as the Black Panthers and the Black Muslims. They were opressed, having their inherent rights denied of them for so long, that they eventually gave up on attempting to be 'white' and went to being proud of being 'black'.

The same situation exists today, some gays are so tired of trying to be straight to fit in and constantly being mocked whenever they reveal their homosexuality that they go for pride of their gayness.

Lesbians almost never contract HIV too. Maybe they're God's chosen people. :D

most likely.

It's ridiculous to completely dismiss the religious argument. One of the justifications for an opposition to homosexuality is the notion that sin (as defined by Judeo-Christian or Islamic doctrine) has a weighty impact on the nation as a whole. Many people believe that there is some divine hand of providence hanging over this nation, and if enough people believe that, should they not have the ability to define the laws and values or their own country?

John Locke and Thomas Jefferson argued that if a nation does not reflect the will of the people, then revolution is in order. If the citizens of the United States want laws and values that reflect Judeo-Christian or spiritual principles, then they should be allowed to have their government reflect those laws and values.

Secondly, it is true that you cannot empirically prove that God exists or that homosexuality is sin...but, at the same time, you cannot empirically prove the immorality of denying somebody civil rights either. Secularists would argue that morality is defined by the values of a given society...if that is so, then how can a secularist argue for the morality of something that has only about 20% popularity?? (Like gay marriage)

Finally...you cannot dismiss the *possibility* that Christians have it right...that God says that homosexuality is a sin. We have no concrete proof that it is true, but you have no concrete proof that it is untrue. We must therefore conclude that the issue is 'unclear' ...with no side being on the obvious side of truth. You have as little justification for asserting the morality of homosexuality as we have for asserting its immorality.

On the sin issue: never did God said that homosexuality is a sin. The only passage that says so in the bible is from a rather dubious part of the old testament that also says that slavery is ok, that you should never touch a dead pig, that you should never wear clothes made from two different fabric, and other very conservative views.

Now find me a passage from the new testament that says that god consider homosexuality as a sin, and i'll listen.

It's sick and it's wrong. Forget about the whole religious arguement, and it's still wrong. I think it's a mental disorder.

Are you any type of DR that can even come close to making this claim? And as Planta Genestae asked ytou, how does someone being gay effect you? Fact is people just need to mind their own business and "Focus on their own danmed family" not anyone elses. That's whats wrong with this nation and world today, too many people worry too much about how others live and don't spend enough time bringing up their own kids the way they should. Being gay isn't a choice, Trust me I should know!

It's ridiculous to completely dismiss the religious argument. One of the justifications for an opposition to homosexuality is the notion that sin (as defined by Judeo-Christian or Islamic doctrine) has a weighty impact on the nation as a whole. Many people believe that there is some divine hand of providence hanging over this nation, and if enough people believe that, should they not have the ability to define the laws and values or their own country?

John Locke and Thomas Jefferson argued that if a nation does not reflect the will of the people, then revolution is in order. If the citizens of the United States want laws and values that reflect Judeo-Christian or spiritual principles, then they should be allowed to have their government reflect those laws and values.

Secondly, it is true that you cannot empirically prove that God exists or that homosexuality is sin...but, at the same time, you cannot empirically prove the immorality of denying somebody civil rights either. Secularists would argue that morality is defined by the values of a given society...if that is so, then how can a secularist argue for the morality of something that has only about 20% popularity?? (Like gay marriage)

Finally...you cannot dismiss the *possibility* that Christians have it right...that God says that homosexuality is a sin. We have no concrete proof that it is true, but you have no concrete proof that it is untrue. We must therefore conclude that the issue is 'unclear' ...with no side being on the obvious side of truth. You have as little justification for asserting the morality of homosexuality as we have for asserting its immorality.

There are...oh...maybe 3 religions that say homosexuality is a sin? and oh...in the neighborhood of a few dozen that say it's superior? and the rest largely don't care? Even WITH religion figured in, it's fine.

The only reason homosexuality is weird is because of bigots such as yourself. You bring such behaviour upon yourselves by not even attempting to be tolerant. It's the same reason for the existance of organizations such as the Black Panthers and the Black Muslims. They were opressed, having their inherent rights denied of them for so long, that they eventually gave up on attempting to be 'white' and went to being proud of being 'black'.

The same situation exists today, some gays are so tired of trying to be straight to fit in and constantly being mocked whenever they reveal their homosexuality that they go for pride of their gayness.

Yeah that's me, I find gay sex disgusting and I'm a bigot. Just the other day I oppressed some guys fucking in the park by yelling "There's kids here jackasses!".

Yeah that's me, I find gay sex disgusting and I'm a bigot. Just the other day I oppressed some guys fucking in the park by yelling "There's kids here jackasses!".

Three cheers for entirely irrelevent comments! Hip Hip, Hooray!

Yeah that's me, I find gay sex disgusting and I'm a bigot. Just the other day I oppressed some guys fucking in the park by yelling "There's kids here jackasses!".

Glad to see you're at least admitting it ;)

Yeah that's me, I find gay sex disgusting and I'm a bigot. Just the other day I oppressed some guys fucking in the park by yelling "There's kids here jackasses!".
So if it was you and your hrilfriend it would be ok? YOU ARE SICK! NOT ONLY ARE YOU A SEXIST, YOU DO ALSO THINK IT IS OK TO INDOCTRINATE CHILDREN BY HAVING SEX IN FRONT OF THEM!
Between, why haven't you posted, been to busy reading panzerfaust.com?

BTW, some claim the bible is against homosexuality. In fact that is wrong.

What does the Bible really say about homosexuality? Actually, very little. Jesus said nothing at all, which is most significant. Considering the relatively small amount of attention the Bible gives to the subject, we must ask ourselves why this is such a volatile issue while other subjects (e.g. judgment, pride, hypocrisy) about which the scriptures say a great deal, receive much less passionate attention.

Of thousands of Old Testament passages, only two make explicit reference to homosexual acts; Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13. Both of these passages are a part of the Levitical holiness code which is not kept by any Christian group. If it were enforced, almost every Christian would be excommunicated or executed.

In the context of the New Testament there is no record of Jesus saying anything about homosexuality. This ought to strike us as very odd in light of the great threat to Christianity, family life, and the American way that some would have us believe homosexuality is. Jesus saw injustice and religious hypocrisy as a far greater threat to the Realm of God.

Jesus did a great deal to change many social customs and ideas. He elevated the position of women, and they were ultimately his best and most faithful disciples. He did this by example and by commandments which were absolutely inclusive of the rights of all people. Yet, in the name of the Christ whose love encompassed all, the Church has been the most homophobic of all institutions. This should not be surprising when we realize that the Church is still the largest institution which is primarily racially segregated.

Immediate bleeding? did it ever occur to you people that maybe being gay isn't entirely about anal sex? maybe they actually love eachother, and maybe they aren't fucking like bunnies every night? That's like saying marriage is about vaginal sex...it's a gross degredation of the nature of the whole thing. Fucking a bleeding pisshole isn't exactly beautiful either.


Have you checked your knowledge of anatomy lately? I agree it isn't about what is "beautiful" but the meaning behind the union. But, really... "a bleeding pisshole?" That is vulgar and ignorant.

on the note of religious ideas on homosexuality - the reason christians are so against it is that it defies the idea of the union of opposites - a holy thing where two balanced forces come together. My parents are missionaries who work with family life, a conservative group focusing on lowering divorce rates and raising biblical families...so I'm pretty sure I know why they think the way they do.

So the union of opposites is holy, and men and women are spiritually balanced opposites. What about children born hermaphrodites? Obviously spiritual gender isn't exclusively tied to physical sex - unless you're going to say anyone without perfect male or female genetalia is a broken soul, going to hell?

The union of opposites, when two forces come together into one - one body in the consumation of marriage....

What if this union is acheived in persons of gay or lesbian orientation? That's what native americans have allways believed - one word for gay shamans in the Omaha language is "Mesoga", it means "instructed by the moon"...they viewed a gay man or lesbian woman as a person who had balanced the opposing forces inside their own bodies - making them holy in and of themselves...and any union which emphasized the charactoristics of the opposite physical sex in them was holy too, as it allowed the balance to be shown on the physical plane as well as the spiritual.

News Flash: Most ancient cultures viewed homosexuality as a gift from the gods - allowing the receiver to focus on the spiritual world, instead of worrying about children and grandchildren and the matinence of the physical world. Think about it - if you HAD to find a spiritual person, would you be more likely to look in a GSA meeting, or out on the street? Show me a group more in tune with the arts and subtle nature of the universe - Homosexuals seem VERY in touch, to me - and with the idea of INTERNAL union of opposites, what's wrong with it?

BTW, some claim the bible is against homosexuality. In fact that is wrong.

What does the Bible really say about homosexuality? Actually, very little. Jesus said nothing at all, which is most significant. Considering the relatively small amount of attention the Bible gives to the subject, we must ask ourselves why this is such a volatile issue while other subjects (e.g. judgment, pride, hypocrisy) about which the scriptures say a great deal, receive much less passionate attention.

Of thousands of Old Testament passages, only two make explicit reference to homosexual acts; Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13. Both of these passages are a part of the Levitical holiness code which is not kept by any Christian group. If it were enforced, almost every Christian would be excommunicated or executed.

In the context of the New Testament there is no record of Jesus saying anything about homosexuality. This ought to strike us as very odd in light of the great threat to Christianity, family life, and the American way that some would have us believe homosexuality is. Jesus saw injustice and religious hypocrisy as a far greater threat to the Realm of God.

Jesus did a great deal to change many social customs and ideas. He elevated the position of women, and they were ultimately his best and most faithful disciples. He did this by example and by commandments which were absolutely inclusive of the rights of all people. Yet, in the name of the Christ whose love encompassed all, the Church has been the most homophobic of all institutions. This should not be surprising when we realize that the Church is still the largest institution which is primarily racially segregated.

Leviticus 18:22 "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination" King James Version.

English Standard Version - "You shall not lie with a man as with a woman; it is abomination."

Revised Standard Version - "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination"

New International; Version - "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."

Leviticus 18:22 "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination" King James Version.

English Standard Version - "You shall not lie with a man as with a woman; it is abomination."

Revised Standard Version - "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination"

New International; Version - "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."

Yeah, so, isn't that exactly what he said?

Have you checked your knowledge of anatomy lately? I agree it isn't about what is "beautiful" but the meaning behind the union. But, really... "a bleeding pisshole?" That is vulgar and ignorant.

I was illustrating a point - it was a response, not a view I espouse.

the Founders specifically designed America as a Republic rather than a pure Democracy to avoid exactly the sort of tyranny of the majority that you are describing. any introductory Con Law text will introduce you to that fact.

all law is necessarily based on morality. morality is the basic human law. in order for there to be a common law there must be a common morality.

if i claimed that i believed murder was right and went ahead and killed someone for a sacrifice (even if they consented), i would be the minority, but i would not be protected under usa laws. i would be prosecuted as a criminal.

minorities within the same morality however, are a different thing, and THAT is what is protected by laws in any country.

anyone in the judeo-christian tradition will have the same basic morality.

technically the argument that a nation of judeo-christian background should base their laws on that morality is correct. if the majority of citizens of the usa were so horribly against homosexuality, and their politicians were too, then the state would be in its right to make a law against homosexuality. in fact, lots of states have that (against homosexual sex and marriage). however, now most people dont care as long as the issue doesnt come near them, and they are not strictly religious. thus, the majority does not rlly care.

Leviticus 18:22 "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination" King James Version.

English Standard Version - "You shall not lie with a man as with a woman; it is abomination."

Revised Standard Version - "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination"

New International; Version - "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."

Abomination meant you were a bad Jew. Jews do not do that. However, it is NOT a DAMNATION. Damnation meant you were pretty much doomed.

did it ever occur to you people that maybe being gay isn't entirely about anal sex? maybe they actually love eachother, and maybe they aren't fucking like bunnies every night? That's like saying marriage is about vaginal sex...it's a gross degredation of the nature of the whole thing.

You are correct, being gay is not all about sex, I should know as I am Gay! In the USA we have that jerk George Bush wanting to change the US Constitution to TAKE AWAY rights of the people, for only the second time, the first was prohibition and that too failed! He says it's "To protect marriage'? Is he kidding me? Marriages in the USA end up in divorce 52% of the time, and stopping gays from getting marriage is going to "save marriage?" Thank God we only have to but up with this jerk off for two more weeks!

If you go to ANY str8 nightclub you will find just as many str8 people out wanting sax as you do at gay clubs. You can also find just as many gay people (maybe more) who would want to settles down and live out their life with the one they love, not because of sex, but because they LOVE each other.

Some of the lost scriptures of the Bible such as the Gospel of Mary Magdalen tend to point out that Jesus "laid" with his own apostles.

Leviticus 18:22 "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination" King James Version.

English Standard Version - "You shall not lie with a man as with a woman; it is abomination."

Revised Standard Version - "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination"

New International; Version - "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."
So, when are you gonna sell me your daughter as per the same leviticus?

Abomination meant you were a bad Jew. Jews do not do that. However, it is NOT a DAMNATION. Damnation meant you were pretty much doomed.

That's funny I thought abomination meant disgust, I didn't know Jews were linked to words like loathing; abhorrence; disgust; aversion; loathsomeness; odiousness... but then again I'm not a Nazi.

Leviticus 18:22 "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination" King James Version.

English Standard Version - "You shall not lie with a man as with a woman; it is abomination."

Revised Standard Version - "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination"

New International; Version - "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."

A child who hits or curses his parents must be executed. Exodus 21:15, 17
Whoever works, or even kindles a fire, on the Sabbath "shall be put to death." 35:2-3

"And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he lives a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money." Ex.21:20-21

Peter orders all wives to be "in subjection" to their husbands. 1 Peter 3:1

Paul forbids women to teach or "to usurp authority over" men. Rather they are to "learn [from men] in silence with all subjection [to men]." 1 Tim 2:11-12

So what was your point with that? Excuse me while I go beat my slave - he's trying to get my wife to learn to read again...

Leviticus 18:22 "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination" King James Version.

English Standard Version - "You shall not lie with a man as with a woman; it is abomination."

Revised Standard Version - "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination"

New International; Version - "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."


Did you even READ my post? I say NO, as I did mention the LEV Holy Codes ONLY mentioned it twice, But I ALSO mentioned how people like to pick and choice what they want to follow in the Bible, such as the LIV Holy Codes.

As was in my last post "Of thousands of Old Testament passages, only two make explicit reference to homosexual acts; Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13. Both of these passages are a part of the Levitical holiness code which is not kept by any Christian group. If it were enforced, almost every Christian would be excommunicated or executed."


One thing people forget is it is an interpretation. Some words simply do not translate, Let's see how long it takes you, or anyone else to find what the Bible "REALLY" means by these two small things in the LEV Holy Codes.. Hint, it's not what you and many think.

That's funny I thought abomination meant disgust, I didn't know Jews were linked to words like loathing; abhorrence; disgust; aversion; loathsomeness; odiousness... but then again I'm not a Nazi.

What I mean is that abomination meant it wasn't cosnidered correct in the Jewish tradtional/religion. It made one a bad Jew because you weren't following religious pratices. It's like you're a bad Catholic if you eat meat on Fridays during lent. You're not going to hell for doing an abomination. You're going to hell for a damnation. I used 'Jew' based on the simple fact it's found in the OT and the Torah and not in the NT. Grow a brain.

Just remember, I will only be judged by one, as well as all of you. I think all of us should worry more about ourselves and how we are going to look in God's eyes rather than worry about what others do.

I tell you what you people love labels. I've been called a conservative, but I don't like George Bush - I've been called a Bible Thumper, but I'm Agnostic - next thing you know I'll be ******.

I tell you what you people love labels. I've been called a conservative, but I don't like George Bush - I've been called a Bible Thumper, but I'm Agnostic - next thing you know I'll be ******.


Is obnoxious PC enough for you?

BTW, some claim the bible is against homosexuality. In fact that is wrong.

What does the Bible really say about homosexuality? Actually, very little. Jesus said nothing at all, which is most significant. Considering the relatively small amount of attention the Bible gives to the subject, we must ask ourselves why this is such a volatile issue while other subjects (e.g. judgment, pride, hypocrisy) about which the scriptures say a great deal, receive much less passionate attention.

Of thousands of Old Testament passages, only two make explicit reference to homosexual acts; Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13. Both of these passages are a part of the Levitical holiness code which is not kept by any Christian group. If it were enforced, almost every Christian would be excommunicated or executed.

In the context of the New Testament there is no record of Jesus saying anything about homosexuality. This ought to strike us as very odd in light of the great threat to Christianity, family life, and the American way that some would have us believe homosexuality is. Jesus saw injustice and religious hypocrisy as a far greater threat to the Realm of God.

Jesus did a great deal to change many social customs and ideas. He elevated the position of women, and they were ultimately his best and most faithful disciples. He did this by example and by commandments which were absolutely inclusive of the rights of all people. Yet, in the name of the Christ whose love encompassed all, the Church has been the most homophobic of all institutions. This should not be surprising when we realize that the Church is still the largest institution which is primarily racially segregated.

I thought Jesus mentioned something about sins that could be forgiven, and homosexuality was in there... I could be wrong, though. I'll go look it up.

Edit: Nope. Some stuff in Romans and 1 Corinthians, but nothing from the mouth of Jesus, so...

Leviticus 18:22 "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination" King James Version.

English Standard Version - "You shall not lie with a man as with a woman; it is abomination."

Revised Standard Version - "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination"

New International; Version - "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."

these passages are a part of the Levitical holiness code which is not kept by any Christian group. If it were enforced, almost every Christian would be excommunicated or executed.
.

A child who hits or curses his parents must be executed. Exodus 21:15, 17
Whoever works, or even kindles a fire, on the Sabbath "shall be put to death." 35:2-3

"And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he lives a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money." Ex.21:20-21

Peter orders all wives to be "in subjection" to their husbands. 1 Peter 3:1

Paul forbids women to teach or "to usurp authority over" men. Rather they are to "learn [from men] in silence with all subjection [to men]." 1 Tim 2:11-12

So what was your point with that? Excuse me while I go beat my slave - he's trying to get my wife to learn to read again...

Thank you

Have you actually looked at the scientific research about what physically happens to a person after having anal sex? It's not pretty. Besides the immediate bleeding and such the first time, the semen starts to erode at the anal wall and significantly lowers the auto-immunological system's ability to stop diseases. Why do you think that STD's are so rampant among homosexuals? There's a lot more that could be said here, but I don't want to be too disgustingly graphic. Go look up the evidence for yourself.

And it's not just anal sex. If a woman has the semen of more than one man in her vagina, her body will physiologically change...permanently.

Of course, this all gets left out of virtually all sex-ed classes in high school.

That's what condoms are for. And also, being gay is about a hell of a lot more than taking it up the ass. Many of you seeem to ignore the fact that, beyond the physical attraction, there's also a romantic attraction. Just because we're gay doesn't make us incapable of love. I've been with my boyfriend for over a year now. Yeah, the sex is amazing, but i have just as good a time just going shopping with him or watching movies on the couch.

As for the people who think i have some bizarre disorder, homosexuality was removed form the APA list of mental illnesses looooooong ago. Even if I could be "cured" I wouldn't want to be. I'm very happy the way I am. Everyone should be free to be who they are without fear of discrimination. Be happy with who you are and let others do tha same. Thanks for listening and Blessed Be.

You can't help but notice the insanity of gayness.
http://www.photo.net/photo/pcd0155/gay-parade-20.3.jpg
He looks very happy (and gay)...I think that color is terrific on him.

Well, here’s my take on the whole issue...
A) Normally, I would say that being gay is a genetic issue, although I have seen far too many people play switch hitters for me to believe that fully. I do believe that people choosing to act on this role -DO- have a choice.
B) Secondly, those that I see openly saying they are gay/lesbian do it largely because it is a way to garner attention. For example, I've seen girls make out with other girls just to get all the guys to cheer them on, and guys dating other guys as a "hard to get" play to get more girls. And largely, both parties fall for it.
C) I do not see this as harmful at large. However, I do object to the "protected minority" status that comes tacked on with it. You can't say this because it might offend this group, that group, etc. This is pretty much an extension of B, and it's just plain stupid and offensive that you’re trying to force the majority at large to be like you, or at least conform to you. If you are -actually- gay, then be gay. You don’t have to try and broadcast it and force what you think is right on everyone else. For the most part we’ve stopped religion from doing that, nix the First Amendment. We don’t need gays trying to do exactly the same act that they seem to loath so much in religions doing themselves.
But, that is just my opinion.
~Yoshimbo

P.S – I’m surprised no one has called Godwin’s Law yet on this thread.

Make a declaration about it when your 60 years old and your sphincter doesn't work from all the abuse you've given it. Have fun wearing Depends.
"Results 1 - 10 of about 711 for "anal sex" "fecal incontinence". (0.41 seconds) (http://www.google.ca/search?q=%22anal+sex%22+%22fecal+incontinence%22)"
(Narth, Paul Cameron, and a bunch of random 'net homophobes claim that anal sex leads to fecal incontinence. A Peter LaBarbera (http://www.cwfa.org/articles/3395/CFI/cfreport/) actually quotes a book, “The Ins and Outs of Gay Sex":
Pages 21 and 22:

In one medical study of men who practice anoreceptive intercourse [that is, men who are on the receiving end of anal sodomy], 25 percent reported at least isolated episodes of fecal incontinence. An age-similar group of heterosexual men had only a 3 percent incontinence rate. … What does this mean to men who enjoy anal sex? Although the threat of incontinence is small, it is present nonetheless. Incontinence in men who practice anal sex is thought to result from repeated injury to their internal sphincter muscle.(what study this is I don't know.)

And that's about it. A quote of someone (who is at least credible)[1] saying a medical study can cause "at least" isolated episodes of fecal incontinence. I've been able to find plenty of abstracts on nih.gov on fecal incontinence, but it seems none relate to anal sex.
[1]Whether the quote is made up or not I can't tell.

Now I have found out on reasonably credible websites that (sexually-transmitted) HPV can cause anal cancer, which can cause anal incontinence. And anal cancer is "somewhat common" in gay men.

Have you actually looked at the scientific research about what physically happens to a person after having anal sex?I've run across scientific-sounding articles describing the effects of anal sex. Most if not all written with Paul Cameron. But I'm having a bit of trouble finding scientific research. So far I've found that anal sex can cause anal fissures, hemmorhoids, and (rarely) can even perforate the colon. But the big worry with unprotected anal sex is sexually transmitted diseases. I found no credible source mentioning semen eroding the anal wall. And the scientific research I found closest to the point is:
"Emerg Med Clin North Am. 1988 Aug;6(3):439-66. Sexually related trauma. Geist RF.", of which I only have the summary (medical articles are mostly available on the web only with a subscription).
The abstract (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=3292221&dopt=Abstract) states in part: "Many men and women practice a broad range of voluntary sexual activities, most of which are harmless. The only erotic activities that have an unacceptable risk for injury are vaginal insufflation during pregnancy, and fist fornication. ... Following anal sex, minor rectal bleeding from anal fissures or small mucosal tears is neither uncommon nor serious."

As for the various medical organizations, they don't seem to like mentioning anal sex at all for some reason. It makes it a little hard to find independent information.

Thank God we only have to but up with this jerk off for two more weeks!


oh dear, i hate to be the one to break this to you
but he will be president until january.
*shudder*

Well, here’s my take on the whole issue...
A) Normally, I would say that being gay is a genetic issue, although I have seen far too many people play switch hitters for me to believe that fully.

It's called "bisexuality," and it's also largely genetic and entirely unalterable.

B) Secondly, those that I see openly saying they are gay/lesbian do it largely because it is a way to garner attention. For example, I've seen girls make out with other girls just to get all the guys to cheer them on, and guys dating other guys as a "hard to get" play to get more girls. And largely, both parties fall for it.

They don't seriously campaign for rights, and I don't want rights for them. Just because they're engaging in same-sex relations doesn't make them gay/bi.

C) I do not see this as harmful at large. However, I do object to the "protected minority" status that comes tacked on with it. You can't say this because it might offend this group, that group, etc. This is pretty much an extension of B, and it's just plain stupid and offensive that you’re trying to force the majority at large to be like you, or at least conform to you. If you are -actually- gay, then be gay. You don’t have to try and broadcast it and force what you think is right on everyone else. For the most part we’ve stopped religion from doing that, nix the First Amendment. We don’t need gays trying to do exactly the same act that they seem to loath so much in religions doing themselves.

What? Do you think gays are trying to force you to be gay? Or do you think that gays campaigning for freedom from verbal, physical, and legal abuse is too much of an infringement on your rights?

What does the Bible really say about homosexuality? Actually, very little. ...
Homosexuality and Christianity (http://www.cathedralofhope.com/homosexuality/index.php), by Rev. Michael Piazza. If you weren't him, you should have indicated where you were quoting from.

B) Secondly, those that I see openly saying they are gay/lesbian do it largely because it is a way to garner attention.Such has not at all been my experience.
If you are -actually- gay, then be gay. You don’t have to try and broadcast it and force what you think is right on everyone else.Or force everyone else to agnowledge that gays come in great variety, including ordinary joe. That is one of the big reasons that there has been a great to-do about gays being publicly out.

Originally Posted by Yoshimbo
Well, here’s my take on the whole issue...
A) Normally, I would say that being gay is a genetic issue, although I have seen far too many people play switch hitters for me to believe that fully.

It's called "bisexuality," and it's also largely genetic and entirely unalterable.


I call it “Cry for attention”. These people can -choose- whatever partner they want, and seem to be within their own mental capacities. I don’t buy for a second that any gay person “doesn’t have a choice in the matter”. Grow up. As far as I can see, they just want the social stigmata that come with being “gay”.


B) Secondly, those that I see openly saying they are gay/lesbian do it largely because it is a way to garner attention. For example, I've seen girls make out with other girls just to get all the guys to cheer them on, and guys dating other guys as a "hard to get" play to get more girls. And largely, both parties fall for it.

They don't seriously campaign for rights, and I don't want rights for them. Just because they're engaging in same-sex relations doesn't make them gay/bi.


On point one, yes, they do. They have, and still make a point of attending the parades and such events. And on point two, both the dictionary and I both disagree with you.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Gay


C) I do not see this as harmful at large. However, I do object to the "protected minority" status that comes tacked on with it. You can't say this because it might offend this group, that group, etc. This is pretty much an extension of B, and it's just plain stupid and offensive that you’re trying to force the majority at large to be like you, or at least conform to you. If you are -actually- gay, then be gay. You don’t have to try and broadcast it and force what you think is right on everyone else. For the most part we’ve stopped religion from doing that, nix the First Amendment. We don’t need gays trying to do exactly the same act that they seem to loath so much in religions doing themselves.

What? Do you think gays are trying to force you to be gay? Or do you think that gays campaigning for freedom from verbal, physical, and legal abuse is too much of an infringement on your rights?


Read line two again. What your posts basically taunts me to do is get angry and make some derogatory reference, and then every gay activist in this board would pretty much be able to say whatever they want in rebuttal and be “right”. THAT is what I object to.

He looks very happy (and gay)...I think that color is terrific on him.

Those butch queens in the background all dressed in the blue fetish uniforms with the funny hats look pretty good too.

Well, it's almost pointless to debate homosexuality with such a cluster of bigotting nutjobs. Look at it this way. We had a civil rights movement for African Americans back in the 1960s. We also had one for women. Soon the same will happen with gay rights whether the morons like it or not. Don't let it get you down.

I call it “Cry for attention”. These people can -choose- whatever partner they want, and seem to be within their own mental capacities. I don’t buy for a second that any gay person “doesn’t have a choice in the matter”. Grow up. As far as I can see, they just want the social stigmata that come with being “gay”.

So let me get this straight: your opinion is worth more then scientific studies? Hot damn, that's some pretty heavy duty opinion.

Soon the same will happen with gay rights whether the morons like it or not. Don't let it get you down.

Did the whole Stonewall gay rights/sexual liberation thing in the late 60s pass you by completely?

Make a declaration about it when your 60 years old and your sphincter doesn't work from all the abuse you've given it. Have fun wearing Depends.So how is that different from a woman having to have surgery to tie her uterus, bladder and vagina back up inside her after screwing men and having babies, eh?
Newsflash... your piehole's way too busy without your brain being engaged.

It's sick and it's wrong. Forget about the whole religious arguement, and it's still wrong. I think it's a mental disorder.

And you're perfectly within your rights to be vocal about your own ignorance. Meanwhile, qualified people like those in the APA do the intellectual heavy lifting in the field. ;)

"Ooh, it's gross and I think it's a mental disorder!" Yeah, and you're an idiot.

You buttfuckers get so mad whenever us normal people disagree with you. We're obviously drawing out your own fears & doubts with our comments or you wouldn't respond so negatively.

You buttfuckers get so mad whenever us normal people disagree with you. We're obviously drawing out your own fears & doubts with our comments or you wouldn't respond so negatively.

You do realize that straight people have anal sex all the time, right?

Your logic is painful.

You insult someone, and then when they respond, you say "they responded-it must be TRUE!"

If I called you a liar, and you said "No I'm not," by your logic you would've just proved me right.

By the way, you're a liar.

Not all gay people are attention-seeking and "disgusting" as some of you think. :headbang:

Sure you dont.

But seriously, if they are two consenting males, alternating between placing their erect penis inside the other's anal tract or mouth and opening their anal tract in order to be entered by the other's erect penis, then how does that hurt you?
Considering your first two posts were openly insulting and ignorant in the extreme, I am amzed that all of a sudden you would choose to be serious.

In all seriousness, I think if you can find no better way to make your point than by insulting everyone who disagrees with you in your first post, than you are not worth my time.

You do realize that straight people have anal sex all the time, right?

Well, technically, we don't have it all the time, but yes, this point seems to have excaped him.

You buttfuckers get so mad whenever us normal people disagree with you. We're obviously drawing out your own fears & doubts with our comments or you wouldn't respond so negatively.

If you're talking to me, I just jumped into the argument when I saw yet another lay-idiot throwing around psychological terms with his head firmly lodged in his -ss. I've gotten pretty tired of such people stating such opinions as if it made a shred of difference. If you're ignorant on a subject and shooting off your mouth, you deserve to be ridiculed. Science works independently of what you think.

Nice flame, is this your idea of an intellectual debate? What's wrong, out of bigotted, flawed arguments to parrot? :rolleyes:

there are too many people for the Earth's sustainability. white men need to die out. homosexuality is evolution's attempt to control population growth.

and women, really, why would you chose a man of today's society over a woman of today's society? women are expected to be nicer, tougher, prettier, and smarter today. they're the better choice. :)

I call it “Cry for attention”. These people can -choose- whatever partner they want, and seem to be within their own mental capacities. I don’t buy for a second that any gay person “doesn’t have a choice in the matter”. Grow up. As far as I can see, they just want the social stigmata that come with being “gay”.

Science disagrees with you.

On point one, yes, they do. They have, and still make a point of attending the parades and such events. And on point two, both the dictionary and I both disagree with you.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Gay

I'm looking for the entry that disagrees with me, and not finding it. I find one that refers to "sexual orientation" and a few that refer to "homosexuality." None of them relate to sexual acts.

Read line two again. What your posts basically taunts me to do is get angry and make some derogatory reference, and then every gay activist in this board would pretty much be able to say whatever they want in rebuttal and be “right”. THAT is what I object to.

It's true that the queer rights movement is trying to stop baseless negative generalizations about queers. You, apparently, feel that you have a right to make baseless negative generalizations and not be insulted back. I disagree.

And I'm sorry if I made you angry (or you saw that as my goal). I merely wanted to pointed out how ludicrous your position was, or else prompt you to clarify it into something more credible.

Sure you dont.

But seriously, if they are two consenting males, alternating between placing their erect penis inside the other's anal tract or mouth and opening their anal tract in order to be entered by the other's erect penis, then how does that hurt you?

To paraphrase Henry Rollins: What do gay men and straight men have in common? They like to stick their pee-pee somewhere moist and warm and move it around until they cum with the force of God.

Rollins has an excellent point. Gay and straight men should be high-fiving all over the place for mutual joy in the orgasm induced by male ejaculation (or not, if you're in to that whole tantric thing).

'S all good. Go find the man, woman, tree, rock, or imaginary big pink rabbit who makes you happy.

Now, those people who like to dress up in the furry animal outfits in order to get it on... THOSE people are the ones who need help. :) I'm just kidding. Whatever floats their boats. So long as everyone's of legal age and capable of consenting, I couldn't give a flying rat's patootie over who sticks what in whom.

But if you start telling people whom they can and can't love, and which consenting hole they can and cannot stick their consenting extremeties/digits/tongues/sex toys in when they are in the privacy of their own home, then we are going to have a problem.

Seriously though, if you spend a lot of time getting worked up over what people you don't know do in the privacy of bedrooms you'll never be in, you have serious psychological issues, and you need help.

There's a line one doesn't cross in explicitness.

This thread crossed that line a long time ago.