[quote]ZEB wrote:
There could be a genetic factor, I never said otherwise. But, I’m not sure how much that plays into it as compared to environmental.
[/quote]
The evidence proves that there IS a genetic factor, not that there COULD BE a genetic factor.
Again, how else would you explain the results of the twin studies, for example? It’s obvious that genetics play a clear role, although environment probably plays a role as well.
[quote]forlife wrote:
ZEB wrote:
There could be a genetic factor, I never said otherwise. But, I’m not sure how much that plays into it as compared to environmental.
The evidence proves that there IS a genetic factor, not that there COULD BE a genetic factor.
Again, how else would you explain the results of the twin studies, for example? It’s obvious that genetics play a clear role, although environment probably plays a role as well.[/quote]
I agree there is evidence that there is a genetic factor. But, as you know evidence of something is not necessarily proof.
What can I say? Sure there could be a genetic factor, but maybe not. Would having genetics being the primary factor somehow make you feel better? I’m sorry I can’t give you that validation no one can at this point and that includes the twin studies. There simply is no solid proof.
Shall we keep this up or drop it? I have some extra time this week so it’s up to you.
Homosexual Activist Agenda Pressures Red Cross and FDA
HOMOSEXUAL ACTIVISTS AGAIN PUT AGENDA OVER PUBLIC HEALTH In another example of the gay agenda’s threat to undermine sound public health policy, the Red Cross is coming under pressure to reverse its policy of refusing to accept blood from men who have sex with other men because of the risk of HIV infection. Now the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has announced rules prohibiting men who have had sex with other men within the past five years from making anonymous donations to sperm banks. Predictably, gay activists claim that the policy is “discriminatory” and evidence of “bigotry” towards homosexuals. However, a spokesman for the FDA defended the new rules, pointing out that laboratory testing is not foolproof: “For that reason, we routinely exclude populations where sound scientific evidence shows that there could be a risk to the person receiving the donation.” In fact, this has been the de facto policy followed by most sperm banks for more than a decade. â??We applaud the FDA for refusing to put the demands of homosexual activists above the nation’s health.â?? [FRC, Washington Update, 25May04] "
The above is the sort of thing that the powerful homosexual lobby is quite good at. It is also legitimizing homosexuality is more about politics than science. When science is involved homosexuals usually lose the debate.
Forlife I came across this article regarding gay marriage in Canada. Skip down to the area that I have highlighted. Tell me what you think of that statistic. Until today I was unaware that homosexuals represented a disproportionate amount of child molestors, if true this is shocking don’t you think?
Homosexual â??Marriageâ?? a Health Risk, Doctors Warn Parliamentarians (2/05)
A group of physicians has presented to Canadian Parliamentarians scientific evidence that homosexual marriage is a health risk to Canadians.
The heavily referenced brief titled “Gay Marriage and Homosexuality, Some Medical Comments” warns that the new law will result in the further normalization of homosexual sex which has already resulted in severe health risks and related costs to care for and treat persons affected by risky sexual behaviour.
The document, signed by doctors in different disciplines from family medicine, dermatology and neurology, warns that anal sex as practiced by most gay men, has a large number of diseases associated with it, â??many of which are rare or even unknown in the heterosexual populationâ?? such as: anal cancer, Chlamydia trachomatis, Cryptosporidium, Giardia lamblia, Herpes simplex virus, HIV, Human papilloma virus, Isospora belli, Microsporidia, Gonorrhoea, Syphilis, Hepatitis B and C and others.
Doctors who spoke with LifeSiteNews.com also warn that this dangerous sexual practice has spread to the heterosexual community as well.
â??There is a significant increase in the risk of contracting HIV when engaging in anal sex,â?? the paper warns. It cites studies indicating that â??Young homosexual men aged 15-22, who had anal sex had a fivefold increased risk of contracting HIV over those who never engaged in anal sex.â??
The brief notes also that â??Over 70% of all AIDS diagnoses in Canada in adults over the age of 15 up to June 2004 were in homosexual men (13,019 out of 19,238).â??
The brief warns â??Any attempts to legalize gay marriage should be aware of the link between homosexuality and pedophilia. While the majority of homosexuals are not involved in pedophilia, it is of grave concern that there is a disproportionately greater number of homosexuals among pedophiles and an overlap between the gay movement and the movement to make pedophilia acceptable.â??
The doctors cite the Journal of Homosexuality in demonstrating an overlap between the homosexual activist movement and the promoters of pedophilia. Moreover, the paper references studies showing that while â??the number of homosexuals in essentially all surveys is less than 3%,â?? â??the percentage of homosexuals among pedophiles is 25%.â?? It concludes: “Therefore, the prevalence of pedophilia among homosexuals is about 10-25 times higher than one would expect if the proportion of pedophiles were evenly distributed within the (hetero- and homosexual) populations.”
[The authors of the report are John Shea,MD, FRCP (C), Radiologist; John K. Wilson MD, FRCP (C), Cardiologist; Paul Ranalli MD, FRCP (C), Neurologist; Christina Paulaitis MD, CCFP, Family Physician; Luigi Castagna MD, FRCP (C), Paediatric Neurologist; Hans-Christian Raabe MD, MRCP MR! CGP Internist; W. André Lafrance MD, FRCP (C), Dermatologist]
Here’s an interesting article from that bastion of conservatism, “The New York Times”
Sex Diseases in Many Gay Men Go Unfound, Experts Say
By LAWRENCE K. ALTMAN
Published: March 13, 2008
Many cases of sexually transmitted diseases are escaping detection because gay men are not being tested each year as advised, federal health officials said Wednesday. And if the men do show up, the officials added, many doctors and clinics are not following screening recommendations.
But more cases could be detected if the government approved new ways to use a type of DNA test that is already on the market, the officials and researchers said in a news conference at a scientific meeting in Chicago.
They said the test, used in new ways, could detect twice as many cases of gonorrhea and chlamydia as standard tests.
Those diseases, along with syphilis, whose incidence continues to increase, are â??a major threat to gay and bisexual menâ??s health,â?? said Dr. Kevin Fenton, a top official of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Dr. Fenton noted that such diseases increased the risk of contracting and spreading H.I.V., the virus that causes AIDS.
Screening for sexually transmitted infections is a critical part of medical care for sexually active men. The C.D.C. recommends annual blood tests for H.I.V. and syphilis, and other tests for gonorrhea and chlamydia.
Gonorrhea tests should include specimens from all potential sites of exposure â?? throat, genitals and rectum â?? because identifying and treating all such infections is essential for preventing spread of the disease.
â??There are circumstances where the recommendations are not being followed,â?? said Dr. John M. Douglas Jr., who directs the Division of S.T.D. Prevention at the disease control centers.
Dr. Douglas added that some doctors did not recognize the problem while others seemed to think â??that maybe the guidelines do not apply to my patient population.â??
Supporting evidence came from C.D.C. researchers, who reported three studies at the meeting showing that the screening rates were too low.
Dr. Kristen Mahleâ??s study found that among gay men who showed no symptoms of gonorrhea, more than a third of rectal infections with the disease, and more than a quarter of throat infections, were missed because many were not tested at all anatomical sites of recent exposure.
Dr. Eric Taiâ??s study surveyed non-H.I.V.-positive gay men in 15 cities from 2003 to 2005 and found that only 39 percent reported having been tested for syphilis, and only 36 percent for gonorrhea.
Dr. Karen Hoover found that while doctors tested 82 percent of H.I.V.-positive gay men in eight cities for syphilis in 2005, they tested 22 percent or fewer for gonorrhea and chlamydia.
One problem is that public health departments that run sexual disease clinics do not have adequate staffs and budgets to do comprehensive testing.
â??Letâ??s be honest, resources are a challenge at a federal, state and local level,â?? said Dr. Douglas, of the disease control centers. â??We are trying to be as innovative as we can with public health resources,â?? but â??we need help from others.â??
Another problem is that newer tests are not being used as much as they should be, Dr. Douglas said.
The DNA test that Dr. Douglas and others described as promising is called NAAT, for nucleic acid amplification test. It is generally more accurate and easier to use, and it can detect at least twice as many gonorrhea and chlamydia infections in the throat and rectum, according to studies by Dr. Julius Schachter of the University of California, San Francisco, and others. Moreover, it is faster than the traditional bacterial culture tests.
The Food and Drug Administration has approved three NAATs to screen for gonorrhea and chlamydia in the genitalia, but not the throat or rectum.
Dr. Schachterâ??s team, which included the San Francisco Department of Public Health, sought to determine whether the marketed NAATs were also effective in throat and rectal screening.
The C.D.C. is working with the food and drug agency and with test manufacturers to gather, analyze and coordinate the submission of data for federal approval of NAATs for use in the throat and rectum.
The San Francisco Department of Public Health has conducted a study that met F.D.A. requirements for such use. Now the health department uses NAATs to test for chlamydia and gonorrhea at all three anatomic sites.
It’s pretty obvious that you don’t care about the truth, only about pushing your anti-gay agenda.
I acknowledge the CDC link you provide, but you play games and refuse to acknowledge the link from the major medical and mental health organizations.
I acknowledge the role of BOTH genetics and environment in determining sexual orientation. You give lip service to the slight possibility of genetics, then constantly harp on environment as if it is the only factor.
Who’s the extremist here? When you see someone presenting such a black and white argument, with a complete unwillingness to recognize the gray areas, it’s obvious who has an agenda, and who cares about the actual facts.
ZEB, how about this?
[quote]StonesAreFun wrote:
ZEB, how about this?
[/quote]
Hey I think that’s great. Now all we have to do is wait another 20 years and interview the rest of them and see how well adjusted they are. Maybe every single one of them will be just fine, it’s a gamble.
[quote]forlife wrote:
It’s pretty obvious that you don’t care about the truth, only about pushing your anti-gay agenda.[/quote]
Hey I just laid out some information that I discovered and wanted to get your response. I guess you don’t want to respond, and I understand no problem.
What did you acknowledge? That I wasn’t posting information from a right wing nut factory? That the information that the government has collected is accurate? Well good for you forlife you are not in denial any longer, good.
If it isn’t how do you explain the former homosexuals who have gone through therapy and are now happily married to women? How can someone change if it’s genetic? I am asking you because I have no idea do you?
I don’t think either one of us is an extremist. I could be wrong but all of your many, many posts regarding homosexuality (which is about all you post on) screams of you wanting to to make yourself feel better for being gay. I have no problem with that but I cannot act as an enabler in areas where you are flat out wrong, but I do wish you well. Perhaps we should just stop talking as I don’t think you’re ever going to be satisfied with my queries or conclusions.
I posted what I think are facts and you didn’t respond to them. I also said that there is a possibility that it is partially genetic, but then I cannot square that with those who have gone through therapy successfully.
I’m being serious help me out here.
Also we’ve never really answered the question of how a true homosexual (male) is able to have sex with a female as 87% of all homosexual men continue to do.
Honestly, this is one very complex problem.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
forlife wrote:
I acknowledge the role of BOTH genetics and environment in determining sexual orientation. You give lip service to the slight possibility of genetics, then constantly harp on environment as if it is the only factor.
If it isn’t how do you explain the former homosexuals who have gone through therapy and are now happily married to women? How can someone change if it’s genetic? I am asking you because I have no idea do you?
[/quote]
Christ, do you understand what “partially genetically determined” means?
As for your “ex-gay” point, the plural of anecdote is not data. It would in fact be pretty easy to tell if “ex-gays” have truly changed sexual orientation or are just deceiving themselves - hook a blood-pressure device up to the penis, display straight or gay porn, and see which leads to an arousal. The match between professed orientation and arousal pattern is very, very close for the population at large. You’d expect that true “ex-gays” would have pattern identical to straight men. But I’m pretty sure that the studies of this nature that have been done indicate the exact opposite.
Given that identical twins (who have identical genes) are far, far more likely to share sexual orientation than fraternal twins (who don’t), how can you be only considering the “possibility” that there’s a genetic component? How could you conceivably interpret the results any other way?
That statistic is very dubious - you’re probably conflating “ever had sex with a woman” with “continue to have sex with women”.
But the answer to your question is quite obvious. How do straight men have sex with women they aren’t attracted to (or with men, in a prison- or army-type situation)? By picturing someone they are attracted to.
[quote]quidnunc wrote:
Sexual orientation is innate, immutable, and morally neutral.[/quote]
After claiming the above (with zero proof) you had the temerity to claim that every major medical authority in the world stated the above as well. When you were called on it you disappeared from the thread. I see you’re back again, but before I waste any time refuting more of your nonsensical assertions why don’t you first explain your original statement, the one you ran from?
Thank you.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Hey I just laid out some information that I discovered and wanted to get your response.[/quote]
No. Per your usual tactics, you aborted the current discussion because you didn’t like where it was going.
I asked you to acknowledge the validity of the joint statement from the major medical and mental health organizations, in return for acknowledging the validity of the CDC statement.
In response, you crowed about how glad you are that I acknowledged the CDC link, and blatantly ignored the joint statement, based on 40 years of research.
It’s obvious to me that you have no interest in the objective facts. You cherry pick information that supports your agenda, and turn a blind eye to anything that contradicts your personal beliefs about homosexuality.
I have been a lot more honest about all of this than you have, and you know it. I am happy to acknowledge organizations like the CDC, but you don’t have the integrity to do the same in return.
Whatever.
On your other questions:
By your definition, I was one of those “former homosexuals who have gone through therapy and was happily married to a woman”. However, being married didn’t change my basic orientation, despite my wife and I wanting to believe otherwise. We were honest enough to admit it after 9 years of marriage. Some “ex-gays” do the same, and some stay married their whole lives…but those that are honest will typically tell you that their basic attraction to the same sex doesn’t change, even though they stay married.
If my wife and I had been truly happy in a mixed orientation marriage, why do you think we mutually chose to divorce after realizing it wasn’t going to work?
I don’t doubt there are some cases where people who are bisexual can be genuinely happy married to either gender, but that is a different situation.
By telling gays to marry someone of the opposite gender, you have no idea what kind of damage you are potentially causing to them, their spouse, and their children. I’ve been there, and you don’t have a clue.
You are hurting people, and in your arrogance you refuse to admit it because your fairy tale god has told you that everyone should marry someone of the opposite gender. I know, you like to pretend that your religious beliefs have no bearing on your anti-gay stance, but most of us know otherwise.
I couldn’t care less what you think about me. I do care about the people you are potentially hurting by guiding them down the wrong path.
The research has shown that gays who try to change their orientation are at DOUBLE the risk of suicidal thoughts, alcohol/drug abuse, anxiety, and depression FOLLOWING the therapy. No doubt you will read this and dismiss it like you always do, but it doesn’t change the facts.
Those are the people I’m fighting for. If there are any following this thread, I hope they will listen to the research instead of falling for your snake oil solutions.
Fine with me, but if you continue posting misinformation I will be there to call you on it. I have 40 years of research and the consensual conclusions of every major medical and mental health organization in the world on my side.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
quidnunc wrote:
Sexual orientation is innate, immutable, and morally neutral.
After claiming the above (with zero proof) you had the temerity to claim that every major medical authority in the world stated the above as well. When I called you on it you disappeared from the thread. I see you’re back again, but before I waste any time refuting more of your nonsensical assertions why don’t you first explain your original statement, the one you ran from?
[/quote]
For starters, you could read the joint statement from the major medical and mental health organizations, which despite being posted several times now you’ve continued to ignore. Here it is again:
http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/publications/justthefacts.pdf
A few more for you:
The American Academy of Pediatrics in its policy statement on Homosexuality and Adolescence states:
The Surgeon General’s Call to Action to Promote Sexual Health and Responsible Sexual Behavior (2001) asserts that homosexuality is not “a reversible lifestyle choice.”
According to the American Medical Association:
National Association of Social Workers:
From the Wikipedia on reparative therapy:
[quote]In 2001, Dr. Ariel Shidlo and Dr. Michael Schroeder found that 88% of participants in reparative therapy failed to achieve a sustained change in their sexual behavior and 3% reported changing their orientation to heterosexual. The remainder reported either losing all sexual drive or struggling to remain celibate. Schroeder said many of the participants who failed felt a sense of shame. Many had gone through reparative therapy programs over the course of many years. Of the 8 respondents (out of a sample of 202) who reported a change in sexual orientation, 7 were employed in paid or unpaid roles as ‘ex-gay’ counsellors or group leaders, something which has led many to question whether even this small ‘success’ rate is in fact reliable.
Schroeder and Shidlo found that the large majority of respondents reported being left in a poor mental and emotional state after the therapy, and that rates of depression, anxiety, alcohol and drug abuse and suicidal feelings were roughly doubled in those who underwent reparative therapy.[/quote]
[quote]forlife wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Hey I just laid out some information that I discovered and wanted to get your response.
No. Per your usual tactics, you aborted the current discussion because you didn’t like where it was going.[/quote]
I addressed all of your points but had a few new ones of my own.
[quote]I asked you to acknowledge the validity of the joint statement from the major medical and mental health organizations, in return for acknowledging the validity of the CDC statement.
In response, you crowed about how glad you are that I acknowledged the CDC link, and blatantly ignored the joint statement, based on 40 years of research.[/quote]
I’m not as interested in what certain organizations say as much as I am in WHY they say it. I gave you the Red Cross example to point that out, you continue to ignore that however.
The CDC fact sheet on homosexuality is my “belief”? Odd thing to claim, but you’ve been strange about this argument from the beginning.
I acknowledge the CDC, I was the one who pointed it out.
[quote]
If it isn’t how do you explain the former homosexuals who have gone through therapy and are now happily married to women? How can someone change if it’s genetic? I am asking you because I have no idea do you?
By your definition, I was one of those “former homosexuals who have gone through therapy and was happily married to a woman”. [/quote]
Nope, I am talkig about those who have been and still are married to a woman.
I like that phrase “mixed orientation marriage”. Are you guys hoping that it will catch on sort of like “mixed race marriage”? Then you could continue to draw nonsensical comparisons between blacks and homosexuals. Nice touch.
[quote]
I don’t doubt there are some cases where people who are bisexual can be genuinely happy married to either gender, but that is a different situation.[/quote]
So very glad you brought up the bisexual thing. Tell me forlife is there a BISEXUAL GENE?
Really? Funny you would say that because the APA says that reparative therapy can do no harm and in many cases is worth a good try.
What say you about that one?
On the contrary I think it’s you who are hurting people. I’m just glad at this point that you are not as good as you think you are at defending your lifestyle. In fact, some say that you harm your own cause, with each post which is a good thing.
I’m sure glad that it’s okay to name call and poke fun at Christianity, but it’s wrong to do the same to homosexuals. Yes, it all makes sense.
[quote]
I couldn’t care less what you think about me. I do care about the people you are potentially hurting by guiding them down the wrong path.[/quote]
The wrong path? Which is what? My beliefs are basic. I am for God, country and family. I know that sort of crazy talk is dangerous but I guess we’ll just have to take our chances 
On the other hand it seems according to the CDC (which you have acknowledged as accurate) that 68% of all new HIV cases are from homosexual men. I think that’s pretty dangerous why do you want to lead peole down that dangerous path?
That’s funny you spent an entire post and didn’t address the fact that many men who seek reparative therapy come out of the homosexual lifestyle, marry a woman and live quite happy lives. Would you like me to post examples? No you wouldn’t like that would you?
[quote]Perhaps we should just stop talking as I don’t think you’re ever going to be satisfied with my queries or conclusions.
Fine with me, but if you continue posting misinformation I will be there to call you on it.[/quote]
Ditto my very confused friend.
You have been touting that but in reality what do they actually say? For example, how many of those organizations say that homosexuality is purely genetic? How many refute the fact that it anal sex is an inherently dangerous act? You don’t really post much about specifics do you? I guess when you lump it all together is sounds better huh?
First of all, forlife isn’t “leading” people to be gay. I doubt many straight men, no matter how committed to LGBT rights, could be persuaded to try sleeping with a man. He’s saying that people who are gay shouldn’t lie to themselves and their partners by trying to pass. You must realize it causes tremendous suffering when people do that.
I watched the documentary “Trembling before G-d” recently (free on Hulu and very good and sensitively done) which is about Orthodox Jewish gays and lesbians. The people interviewed found different ways to deal with the clash between their faith and their sexual orientation; some of them quit being religious, some of them lived (against great odds) as both gay and religious, and some of them were celibate. I found myself a lot more empathetic to those who sincerely believe that their faith requires them to give up their sexual lives. It’s not what I would do, and I think they’re mistaken, but I can respect it, and appreciate the impulse to do what they believe is right.
But the one thing that never works is faking it in a “straight” marriage. I think forlife’s experience ought to be enough to dissuade anybody, but we all have anecdotes about someone we know. It’s a horrible way to live. It’s how many people lived in the past, but there’s no reason to be nostalgic for it. The anti-gay movement wants gay people to be frightened and pressured into trying to be straight, or at least in hiding so “decent” people can’t see them. Do you not realize how inhuman that is?
As for disease risk, it isn’t relevant to normative questions. If Hispanics are more at risk for diabetes, that argues for doing more diabetes prevention work, maybe particularly among Hispanics. Gay men are a little more at risk sexually than straights (and lesbians a little less) and public health education is probably a good idea. Doesn’t have the kind of moral significance you seem to attach to it.
Hey Zeb, just to keep us on track:
Where is your proof that the American Medical Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, Surgeon General, National Association of Social Workers, etc. are so politically biased that their conclusions are worthless?
Oh that’s right…you don’t have any proof.
Nor are you honest enough to admit that their conclusions, based on 40 years of research, have merit. I’m honest enough to acknowledge your CDC link, why do you find it so difficult to show the same honesty in return?
[quote]AlisaV wrote:
As for disease risk, it isn’t relevant to normative questions. If Hispanics are more at risk for diabetes, that argues for doing more diabetes prevention work, maybe particularly among Hispanics. Gay men are a little more at risk sexually than straights (and lesbians a little less) and public health education is probably a good idea. Doesn’t have the kind of moral significance you seem to attach to it.[/quote]
Exactly. Maybe Zeb should spend more time reading his sources. His CDC link reaches a very different conclusion from him. The CDC doesn’t recommend reparative therapy. Directly contradictory to Zeb’s agenda, the CDC doesn’t try to change people’s sexual orientation. What they do recommend are programs that encourage safe sex behaviors that reduce the risk of HIV:
[quote]CDC offers effective interventions for MSM (http://www.effectiveinterventions.org). These interventions can be tailored to various audiences, such as African American or Hispanic MSM. For example,
Many Men, Many Voices, which is a group STD/HIV prevention intervention for gay men of color and men who have sex with other men but do not identify themselves as gay or bisexual
Mpowerment, which comprises HIV prevention, safer sex, and risk-reduction messages in a community-building format for young MSM
Popular Opinion Leader, which involves identifying, enlisting, and training key opinion leaders to encourage safer sex as the norm in the social networks of MSM
Healthy Relationships, which helps develop the skills and self-efficacy of MSM and other people living with HIV/AIDS
Peers Reaching Out and Modeling Intervention Strategies (PROMISE), which uses peer advocates (including men who do not identify themselves as gay) to help people adopt practices to reduce or eliminate risk factors for HIV infection[/quote]
The CDC concludes:
My partner and I are the model of what the CDC recommends. We are in a committed, long term monogamous relationship. We are at zero risk of catching HIV, despite Zeb’s claims to the contrary. Maybe he should encourage gays to embrace who they are and enter committed relationships, instead of selling snake oil solutions that everyone knows don’t work.
[quote]AlisaV wrote:
First of all, forlife isn’t “leading” people to be gay.[/quote]
I could argue that point with you because you and I don’t know why people are gay. But, that’s not what I said is it? If someone has the opportunity to leave that very destructive lifestyle they should take it.
Read up on the CDC information, men who have sex with men (as the CDC terms it) are in the most danger from a list of diseases both physical and mental.
Here you go:
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/msm/resources/factsheets/msm.htm
[quote]forlife wrote:
Maybe Zeb should spend more time reading his sources. His CDC link reaches a very different conclusion from him. The CDC doesn’t recommend reparative therapy.[/quote]
I was not quoting the CDC because they believed in reparative therapy. I was pointing out the dangers that men who have sex with men are in.
I have pointed out other sites (not Narth buddy) which speak directly to the benefits of reparative therapy. In fact the APA states that it’s perfectly fine to seek reparative therapy and it will do NO HARM, so why are you lying about it?
Here you go:
"The American Psychological Association admits reorientation therapy is not harmful. Dr. E. Mark Stern, Ed. D. Fellow of the A.P.A. and Professor Emeritus of The Graduate Faculty of Arts and Sciences, Iona College N.Y., has acknowledged that “the APA [American Psychological Association at its summer 2001 meeting] did admit that there was no body of evidence to prove that reorientation therapies are harmful.”
The Executive Director of the American Psychological Association, Raymond Fowler states:
The APA’s position on reparative therapy is that those who wish to explore developing heterosexual feelings or behavior have a right to do so as part of every client’s right to self-determination. If an individual is comfortable with homosexuality, it is not the role of the therapist to convince the client otherwise. If one’s feelings are ego-dystonic and there is a desire to talk about changing, that is an acceptable choice and a psychologist may participate if he or she desires. â?? Ray Fowler, CEO, APA"
We’ve had this talk before, there is no safe way to continually have anal sex and be safe.
As it states on all the MAJOR MEDICAL sites the lining of the sphincter is too thin to take that sort of abuse. The lining tears easily and when it does very bad things happen
Here you go you can read all about it:
Two muscle rings called sphincters surround the anal opening. Each functions independently.
If you insert a finger about one half-inch into your anus and press your fingertip against the side, you can clearly feel the two sphincter muscles. There is less than a quarter-inch between them. The external sphincter is controlled by the central nervous system - just like the muscles of the hand, for example. You can readily tense and relax this sphincter whenever you want.
The internal sphincter is quite different. This muscle is controlled by the involuntary or autonomic part of the nervous system, which governs such functions as heartbeat and stress response.
The internal sphincter reflects and responds to fear and anxiety during anal sex. It will cause the anus to tense up automatically even if the passive partner is trying to relax. Thus, precautions about safety and comfort are essential here.
Even if a person does feel comfortable during anal sex, he or she may still need to learn voluntary control over his or her internal sphincter in order to relax it at will.
Doing so requires regularly inserting a finger, perhaps in the shower each day, and feeling the internal sphincter. The muscle changes spontaneously and in response to behavior. In this instance, simply paying attention is more important than trying to relax. Anyone can gradually learn to control the internal sphincter at will.
The rectum does not produce lubrication like the vagina but only a small amount of mucus. Therefore, rectal penetration always requires a lubricant. Chemical additives should be avoided
Since intercourse can be vaginal or rectal, many people assume the the same rules apply for the penetration of the vagina and rectum. Although both are lined with soft tissue and are capable of expanding, they are radically dissimilar.
The rectum is not straight. After the short anal canal which connects the anal opening to the rectum, the rectum tilts toward the front of the body. A few inches in, it curves back - sometimes as much as 90 degrees. Then, after a few more inches, it swoops toward the front of the body once again.
All the other risks center on sexually transmitted diseases. Each of the common STDs - gonorrhea, syphillis, herpes - can affect the anus. Intestinal parasites, bacteria or tiny bugs are usually passed along when fecal matter finds its way into someone’s mouth or vagina, most likely through rimming.
AIDS has complicated the matter. The HIV virus can pass from the semen or blood of an infected person to the bloodstream of a partner through a tiny break in the rectal tissue during anal intercourse.
There are several complications to anal sex:
Pain from hemorrhoids. Hemorrhoids can be fragile and prone to bleeding, although they don’t usually cause the kind of pain you’ve described. You can frequently feel a hemorrhoid as a swollen, tender lump in the anal area. You’ll often notice blood from a bleeding hemorrhoid on toilet paper after a bowel movement, or on the stool itself.
Pain and bleeding can also occur when there’s a small tear in the lining of the anus called an anal fissure. Even small fissures can be pretty painful because they often cause spasms of the opening of the anus. They heal slowly because they’re irritated repeatedly during bowel movements. With anal fissures, you may also see blood on toilet paper or on the stool itself.
A rare, but serious, complication after anal sex is a hole (perforation) in the colon. This dangerous problem requires hospitalization, surgery to repair the hole, and antibiotics to prevent infection. A colonic perforation will usually cause fever and severe pain and pressure in the abdomen. This condition requires immediate medical attention, either through your health care provider or your local hospital emergency department.
Sexually transmitted diseases can infect the anus in much the same way as vaginal intercourse.
CDC SITE STATES:
unprotected (without a condom) anal sex (intercourse) is considered to be very risky behavior. It is possible for either sex partner to become infected with HIV during anal sex. HIV can be found in the blood, semen, pre-seminal fluid, or vaginal fluid of a person infected with the virus.
In general, the person receiving the semen is at greater risk of getting HIV because the lining of the rectum is thin and may allow the virus to enter the body during anal sex. However, a person who inserts his penis into an infected partner also is at risk because HIV can enter through the urethra (the opening at the tip of the penis) or through small cuts, abrasions, or open sores on the penis.