Brokeback Propaganda

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
886

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Anal sex can be dangerous. PERIOD[/quote]

Anal sex doesn’t have to be dangerous. Your quote only says:

Anal sex doesn’t have to be aggressive, nor does it have to be unsafe. For example, here is a quote from sexhealth.org:

[quote]Anal sex is not experienced exclusively by gay men; it is a facet of our collective sexual identity which has been explored by previous cultures and continues to be explored today. Men and women of all walks of life enjoy anal sex as an alternative to everyday lovemaking. Its not for everyone, but anal sex may be what you’re looking for if you want to try something completely different.

Anal sex is enjoyable because of the rich body of nerve endings in the anus. While people often experience pain when first attempting anal sex, as a person learns to relax, the pain often subsides into pleasure. For men, anal sex also offers stimulation to the prostate, an organ that provides the rush of pleasure during orgasm. Anal sex for many seems like a taboo activity, and much of society still shuns it. But statistics show that roughly 35% of heterosexuals and 50% of the gay community practice anal sex at least occasionally…

Anal sex can be a perfectly safe activity as long as you take the necessary precautions. You should remember that your anus and rectum do not have their own natural lubrication nor the kind of elasticity the mouth and vagina enjoy. That is why anal sex must be practiced with care. There are three things that should always be used whenever anal penetration is taking place; lubrication, condoms and common sense.[/quote]

Another quote from Jack Morin, PhD, author of “Anal Pleasure and Health: A Guide for Men and Women”:

[quote]Anal sex can be perfectly safe, even beneficial.

The taboo against anal eroticism is perpetuated by the almost universal belief among physicians that anal sex is inevitably dangerous. No physical injury from anal stimulation results if both partners refuse to tolerate pain, never use force and avoid the use of drugs.[/quote]

887

[quote]ZEB wrote:
You have skillfully avoided answering the following question:

“87% of male homosexuals have stated that they have had sex with a female.”

Now if someone is truly “homosexual” how is it that they can have sex with a female?[/quote]

I can’t speak for everyone else, but in my case the motivation for having sex with a female was a combination of cultural and religious influences. I grew up in a society that presented a heterosexual model for happiness. My church told me that it was wrong to have homosexual relations. My only choice, according to my belief system, was to have sex with a woman.

If you were to look at a utopian society where sexual orientation was completely divorced from the expectations of religion and society, I think you would find a much lower incidence of gays having sex with women.

888

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Yes, there are exceptions to every rule. However, the exceptions do not prove the rule do they?
[/quote]

The exceptions prove that the rule need not always apply. When you tell gays that they must live according to your religious beliefs in order to be happy, you fail to recognize that fact.

889

[quote]terribleivan wrote:
Thank you for clarifying the point. While anal sex is dangerous in homosexual and heterosexual circles, it is clearly more dangerous in homosexual circles.[/quote]

That is only true if a) you don’t take adequate precautions to ensure that you and your partner are disease free, and b) you don’t use a condom.

Here’s a real life example for you. I know a couple, Ian and Ambrose, that have been together for more than 50 years. They are monogamous, they practice safe anal sex, and they have never had any health issues due to their sexual orientation.

Please explain to me how Ian and Ambrose are living a “more dangerous” life than the typical straight couple.

890

[quote]forlife wrote:
terribleivan wrote:
Again, I have not said homosexuality is a mental illness. I have just said that gay sex is destructive.

I thought you said that aggressive anal sex is destructive. You do realize that both heterosexuals and homosexuals can engage in aggressive anal sex, right? And you do realize that gay sex doesn’t have to include aggressive anal sex? I’m still waiting for evidence that gay sex is destructive.[/quote]

I already answered this assertion by saying that I agree with you. Any anal sex is damaging and destructive, not to mention unnatural. That is why it is bad for heterosexuals and homosexuals alike.

Stop trying to evade the point by restating your claim.

891

[quote]forlife wrote:
terribleivan wrote:
Thank you for clarifying the point. While anal sex is dangerous in homosexual and heterosexual circles, it is clearly more dangerous in homosexual circles.

That is only true if a) you don’t take adequate precautions to ensure that you and your partner are disease free, and b) you don’t use a condom.
[/quote]
It has become a very sad day in our society that we now have to justify to our partner that we are disease free. Thank goodness for condoms, eh forlife?

I don’t know if Ian and Ambrose are real or ficticious, so I will answer this question in the aggregate.

People who participate in homosexual sex are more likely to have diseases, suicide, domestic violence, health problems, and more. If you would like more explanation on this, put up the “Proof Gay Marriage Is Wrong” thread. This has been adequately proven.

892

[quote]forlife wrote:
Zeb, I am going to make one final comment on the personal nature of some of your remarks and I will leave it at that. I have talked with people that disagree with me in this thread and elsewhere, and have maintained a civil discourse throughout. I don’t mind people disagreeing with me, as long as we keep our comments focused on the topic rather than making it personal.

Your comments would have more credibility if you avoided giving personal advice except when it is requested. I would never presume to tell you how to live your life.[/quote]

When you bring your “personal life” into a debate regarding homosexuality and attempt to use those personal instances to put forth your agenda, they become fair game for commentary!

We spoke in PM briefly and what you wanted was someone to agree with your actions. That person is not me!

And I’ll state once again that it is the very peak of arrogance to bring your personal life story to an Internet message board, attempt to use it to make a point and then not expect anyone to comment on those actions.

In fact, not only is it arrogant on your part but extremely immature!

All you have to do is leave your personal life out of it, and not use it as means to win an argument and I won’t comment on it.

In other words, if you use it so will I.

You are the one who used profanity and personal attacks, not me. You alone lowered the standard of debate on this thread. My comments were based solely on your very poor decision making regarding one situation. Which of course I would not have used if you did not attempt to use as a debating point.

Hopefully, you have learned something from this thread, but somehow I doubt it.

893

[quote]forlife wrote:
ZEB wrote:

Anal sex doesn’t have to be dangerous.[/quote]

Your philosophy on the matter is, if you pardon the pun: ass backwards!

You are looking for ways to make an inherenly dangerous act less dangerous.

Ask yourself this: why is it dangerous to begin with?

If you build in enough provisions you can make anything safer. But what does that really mean? Are you doing something that is inherently safe, or harmful? Obviously it’s harmful. Whenever we use something that was not designed by nature (what I meant to say was God but didn’t want to offend your sensitive nature) for that purpose we are opening up an unhealthy can of worms.

Why do you think that 66% of all new AIDS cases are homosexual men?

Do you think because the act of sticking your penis in someones rectum is safe, clean and healthy?

This is from the University of California Santa Barbara. You know that right wing group controlled by fundamental Christians…Oh no wait I guess that’s not the case at all. Just more evidence that the male on male primary sex act is an unsafe one:

"…For this reason, anal sex is the riskiest form of sexual activity when it comes to the transmission of HIV/AIDS. Tiny tears in the anal tissue are like giant superhighways for the HIV viruses, allowing them to get inside the body and enter the blood system. Anal tears provide an opening for all the other STDs as well. It may be possible for repetitive anal sex to lead to weakening of the anal sphincter, which is the muscle that tightens after we defecate. Once weakened, feces can escape the anus against our will.

(Try to look on the bright side, after a lifetime of pounding you will be able to fart in public and no one will even hear it :slight_smile:

http://www.soc.ucsb.edu/sexinfo/?article=faq&refid=125

We know that not wearing a condom exposes you to HIV, STD’s and a host of other contagious diseases to numerous to mention.

However, how many realize that even when wearing a condom anal sex is dangerous?

"…anal sex is the riskiest form of sexual activity because the skin inside the anus is highly susceptible to tearing, which can create openings for viruses and bacteria to enter the body.

Translation: Even if you wear a condom you can still create tiny tears in your partners rectum.

http://www.soc.ucsb.edu/sexinfo/?article=faq&refid=473

And of course it’s not “just” tiny tears you have to worry about. Many other things can happen even if you do wear a condom.

Homosexuals have a far higher rate of anal cancer than the general population?

Now why do you suppose that is? It’s starting to look like the anus/rectum is not meant as a sperm depository…huh?

Here are more facts which you will hopefully learn from:

"In the general population anal cancer is fairly rare; about one in 100,000 people.

In men who have sex with men, the incidence climbs to about 35 in 100,000.

35 times greater in the homosexual population than in the heterosexual population.

Coincidence? I think not.

MSM who are HIV positive are twice as likely to get anal cancer than MSM who are HIV negative."

It’s not something that you want to get that’s for sure:

“One of the things that makes anal cancer so dangerous is that many people who have it show few or no symptoms prior to diagnosis.”

Here you go read all about anal cancer:

894

[quote]forlife wrote:
ZEB wrote:
You have skillfully avoided answering the following question:

“87% of male homosexuals have stated that they have had sex with a female.”

Now if someone is truly “homosexual” how is it that they can have sex with a female?

I can’t speak for everyone else, but in my case the motivation for having sex with a female was a combination of cultural and religious influences. I grew up in a society that presented a heterosexual model for happiness. My church told me that it was wrong to have homosexual relations. My only choice, according to my belief system, was to have sex with a woman.

If you were to look at a utopian society where sexual orientation was completely divorced from the expectations of religion and society, I think you would find a much lower incidence of gays having sex with women.[/quote]

That does not answer the question as to how a true homosexual (if there is a such thing) can become aroused with a female.

I ask again, how many heterosexual men can become aroused and actually have sex with another man?

Most heterosexual men would not be able to do such a thing…physically incapable!

87% of all homsexual men have stated that they had sex with a female.

Now, tell us all how is that possible if you are truly “homosexual?”

895

[quote]forlife wrote:
When you tell gays that they must live according to your religious beliefs in order to be happy, you fail to recognize that fact.[/quote]

This debate can be held on several different levels. I don’t even have to mention “religious beliefs” and have not relied on that much during this debate.

There is enough evidence available to pummel you with facts, figures etc. without the mention of religion.

Matters not if you are Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, Atheist or whatever, the homosexual act is dangerous and the lifestyle that many partake simply adds to that danger.

You are in the position of having to defend something that really has no defense…

You might do better if you were trying to defend alcoholism, drug addiction or obesity.

896

[quote]forlife wrote:
terribleivan wrote:
Thank you for clarifying the point. While anal sex is dangerous in homosexual and heterosexual circles, it is clearly more dangerous in homosexual circles.

That is only true if a) you don’t take adequate precautions to ensure that you and your partner are disease free, and b) you don’t use a condom.

Here’s a real life example for you. I know a couple, Ian and Ambrose, that have been together for more than 50 years. They are monogamous, they practice safe anal sex, and they have never had any health issues due to their sexual orientation.

Please explain to me how Ian and Ambrose are living a “more dangerous” life than the typical straight couple.[/quote]

LOL…and my uncle Harry drank two six packs per day of Beer until the day he died at the age of 97.

So according to your logic 12 cans of beer per day is a good thing to do!

Ha ha…you are one funny individual…Please name more of your gay friends as examples. I need the laugh!

897

[quote]terribleivan wrote:
forlife wrote:
terribleivan wrote:
Thank you for clarifying the point. While anal sex is dangerous in homosexual and heterosexual circles, it is clearly more dangerous in homosexual circles.

That is only true if a) you don’t take adequate precautions to ensure that you and your partner are disease free, and b) you don’t use a condom.

It has become a very sad day in our society that we now have to justify to our partner that we are disease free. Thank goodness for condoms, eh forlife?

Refer to my previous post on anal sex. Condoms DO NOT assure safe anal sex.

NOTHING ASSURES SAFE ANAL SEX

898

This thread is heading in the wrong direction. Excuse me for being so blunt, but this debate has nothing to do with homosexual rights or if homosexual or heterosexual sex is more or less safe.

Once again we are in the realm of “What Is Absolute Truth?” I know people will start throwing things at their computer screens, but think about it.

The debate is whether or not this so-called movie has as its ulterior motive, an indoctrination of society to accept the homoxexual lifestyle as both “normal” and “equal” to the heteroxexual lifestyle.

This debate has nothing to do with what people do in the privacy of their homes, etc. Actually, they can do whatever they wish in their bedrooms. I may not like it or condone it, but this is the U.S. after all.

What this debate boils down to is that the intent of movies like this and messages like this is to further the breakdown of the FUNDAMENTAL UNIT IN OUR SOCIETY, namely, THE FAMILY.

For if the homosexual lifestyle becomes “normal” and “equal” to that of heterosexuals, then homosexual families, homosexual gym teachers, homosexual sports events, school clubs, etc. become the norm of society. This flies in the face of the entire human experience thus far to date. No society, nowhere has ever before the recent events in Europe, Canada, and now in the US, has ever considered homosexuality normal or equal.

To further breakdown the family unit in this country, will further erode the moral compass that we have already lost. In short, we are morally doomed and this is what the debate is about.

Again, for those who will flame me, let me be clear on the following points:

a) I don’t “hate” Gay people. God loves all people, and as His follower I must also. I just don’t agree with their choices, and do not want to be forced to officially recognize their aberrant behavior.

b) I am not saying that people cannot love whomever they wish and have sex with whomever they wish (although we do have laws limiting sex to certain age limits, family relationships, etc).

c) My main point is if you are “gay” then be ‘gay.’ Just leave me out of it.

899

[quote]terribleivan wrote:
I already answered this assertion by saying that I agree with you. Any anal sex is damaging and destructive, not to mention unnatural. That is why it is bad for heterosexuals and homosexuals alike.[/quote]

You could use a course in reading comprehension. I never said that any anal sex is damaging and destructive. To the contrary, I provided quotes from medical experts to the effect that anal sex can be perfectly healthy and safe as long as common sense precautions are taken.

900

[quote]terribleivan wrote:
I don’t know if Ian and Ambrose are real or ficticious, so I will answer this question in the aggregate.[/quote]

Why would you question whether Ian and Ambrose are real? Is it because you have such a hard time imagining a committed gay couple that has been together for over 50 years, and that strikes down every stereotype you’ve heard about gays?

You see, the problem is that you are perpetually trying to “answer this question in the aggregate”. More specifically, you are generalizing certain unsafe behaviors to the entire homosexual population, and conveniently ignoring that a significant portion of the heterosexual population also engages in those behaviors.

Discuss the behaviors all you like, but you are incorrect when you try to apply those behaviors to everyone within a particular sexual orientation.

901

[quote]ZEB wrote:
You are looking for ways to make an inherenly dangerous act [b]less dangerous.[/quote]

Anal sex is not inherently dangerous. When common sense precautions are taken, it is completely safe. Blather all you want, but you can’t deny this fact.

902

[quote]forlife wrote:
anal sex can be perfectly healthy and safe …

[/quote]

lol…

903

[quote]forlife wrote:
ZEB wrote:
You are looking for ways to make an inherenly dangerous act [b]less dangerous.

Anal sex is not inherently dangerous. When common sense precautions are taken, it is completely safe. Blather all you want, but you can’t deny this fact.[/quote]

Oh darn you forgot to read this:

If you build in enough provisions you can make anything safer. But what does that really mean? Are you doing something that is inherently safe, or harmful? Obviously it’s harmful. Whenever we use something that was not designed by nature (what I meant to say was God but didn’t want to offend your sensitive nature) for that purpose we are opening up an unhealthy can of worms.

Why do you think that 66% of all new AIDS cases are homosexual men?

Do you think because the act of sticking your penis in someones rectum is safe, clean and healthy?

This is from the University of California Santa Barbara. You know that right wing group controlled by fundamental Christians…Oh no wait I guess that’s not the case at all. Just more evidence that the male on male primary sex act is an unsafe one:

"…For this reason, anal sex is the riskiest form of sexual activity when it comes to the transmission of HIV/AIDS. Tiny tears in the anal tissue are like giant superhighways for the HIV viruses, allowing them to get inside the body and enter the blood system. Anal tears provide an opening for all the other STDs as well. It may be possible for repetitive anal sex to lead to weakening of the anal sphincter, which is the muscle that tightens after we defecate. Once weakened, feces can escape the anus against our will.

(Try to look on the bright side, after a lifetime of pounding you will be able to fart in public and no one will even hear it :slight_smile:

http://www.soc.ucsb.edu/...e=faq&refid=125

We know that not wearing a condom exposes you to HIV, STD’s and a host of other contagious diseases to numerous to mention.

However, how many realize that even when wearing a condom anal sex is dangerous?

"…anal sex is the riskiest form of sexual activity because the skin inside the anus is highly susceptible to tearing, which can create openings for viruses and bacteria to enter the body.

Translation: Even if you wear a condom you can still create tiny tears in your partners rectum.

http://www.soc.ucsb.edu/...e=faq&refid=473

And of course it’s not “just” tiny tears you have to worry about. Many other things can happen even if you do wear a condom.

Homosexuals have a far higher rate of anal cancer than the general population?

Now why do you suppose that is? It’s starting to look like the anus/rectum is not meant as a sperm depository…huh?

Here are more facts which you will hopefully learn from:

"In the general population anal cancer is fairly rare; about one in 100,000 people.

In men who have sex with men, the incidence climbs to about 35 in 100,000.

35 times greater in the homosexual population than in the heterosexual population.

Coincidence? I think not.

MSM who are HIV positive are twice as likely to get anal cancer than MSM who are HIV negative."

It’s not something that you want to get that’s for sure:

“One of the things that makes anal cancer so dangerous is that many people who have it show few or no symptoms prior to diagnosis.”

Here you go read all about anal cancer:

http://aids.about.com/...ns/a/analca.htm

904

forlife:

It’s almost as if any data which you may read in my posts will never be quite good enough to demonstrate that the homosexual lifestyle that many lead, and the homosexual act are in fact dangerous.

“Rationalizing is a dishonest substitute for reasoning whereby we set out ‘to defend our ideas rather than to find out the truth of the matters concerned.’… You are reasoning if the belief follows the evidence–that is, if you examine the evidence first and then make up your mind. You are rationalizing if the evidence follows your belief - if you’ll first decide what you’ll believe and then select and interpret evidence to justify it.”

You have obviously first decided what you will believe. You are a homosexual, therefore you will not look at any data which demonstrates the homosexual act (or lifestyle) to be dangerous.

Fortunately those who are looking on who have an objective eye can see you doing this.

That you cannot recognize this fact is not surprising to me in the least given your history. But by all means continue rationalizing. As a result of this thread there might be someone who benefits from the mistakes that you have made, both in logic and deed.

905

[quote]ZEB wrote:
I ask again, how many heterosexual men can become aroused and actually have sex with another man?[/quote]

Kinsey surveyed approximately 5,300 white males and found that nearly 46% of the male population had engaged in both heterosexual and homosexual activities.

So if 5% of the male population is gay, that means nearly 41% of straight men have had sex with other men at some time in their lives.

If you don’t think straight men are every curious or aroused by other men, check out your local prison or military base.