Your message to homosexuals about their prospects for love and companionship

[NotAllHere]

So…should the govt cut off the food supply for our obese?
Send in the police when you have a cigar in your back yard?
Be careful what you ask for.

If health were not a concern for them, there would not be warnings on smokes, the CDC, hospitals with government funding, food stamps, etc., The issue really is, to what extent should the government be involved? Free gym memberships for the obese may be a good idea. Redefining smores is not.

 

[MacQ]

If health were not a concern for them, there would not be warnings on smokes, the CDC, hospitals with government funding, food stamps, etc., The issue really is, to what extent should the government be involved? Free gym memberships for the obese may be a good idea. Redefining smores is not.

Free gym memberships?
Nothng is free.
You want to pay for them?

Yes, the issue is to what extent.
I say policing your bedroom is way beyond that “extent”.

 

[MacQ]

Just to add, it isn’t required. Married couples can elect to file as “married filing separately.” Some couples who want to keep their finances separate do that. However, it’s usually disadvantageous.

Good to know.

 

[NotAllHere]

Free gym memberships?
Nothng is free.
You want to pay for them?

Yes, the issue is to what extent.
I say policing your bedroom is way beyond that “extent”.

keeping track of whom has what disease is in their interest, so in that sense they are in our bedrooms or wherever when that disease is sexually transmitted. I know I would not want them taking pictures of me in my bedroom because frankly, I would not want them to tear out their eyes.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Quote:
Originally Posted by MacQ View Post
None of the government’s business what they’re doing inside their bedrooms. I would hasten to add that neither should the state interfere with churches about how they confer their sacraments of matrimony.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NotAllHere View Post
When something does effect the health of citizens, it is in fact their business in the area of preventing disease.

So…should the govt cut off the food supply for our obese?
Send in the police when you have a cigar in your back yard?
Be careful what you ask for.

Sexual conduct has serious public health consequences which society has both a right and an obligation to regulate.

Today in San Francisco, the police can fine or even arrest you for smoking a cigar in your own back yard.

But more importantly…

Anyone who has any kind of infectious, communicable, or contagious disease in California commits a crime if that person exposes him or herself to others. This crime is punishable as a misdemeanor offense. You also commit this crime if you knowingly expose someone else whom you know has such a disease to other people. (California Health and Safety Code section 120290.)

It is also a crime in California to engage in unprotected sexual activity with someone else, knowing that you are infected with HIV. If you do so specifically to infect someone else with the disease, you commit a felony offense. (California Health and Safety Code section 120291.)

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

I agree. I hope this isn’t superficial but I think it would help if being single and chaste wasn’t seen as negative thing.

It would be very helpful.

Well, you can certainly understand our confusion when it is stated (an actual post on this thread) that there is nothing wrong with a same-sex romantic couple who remains sexually chaste. Or further, when I see a thread entitled “Where sin begins in same-sex physical intimacy.”

Did Merriam Webster print a new dictionary? I really do need the terms defined for me to end my confusion. What is a *romantic * SS couple? And what is same-sex physical intimacy without sin? A meeting of the minds, so to speak, or kissing – hugging without sexual arousal? Maybe it’s simply the “romance” part I don’t understand. We are entering a new and foreign era and I may use euphemisms in my bewilderment, but what I actually am wondering is… if there is not a certain amount of duplicity and guile in this debate. A pushing of the envelope of sorts to make non-acceptable (and sinful) behavior accepted. Or…maybe I’m just one of the obtuse ones as the previous poster suggests!

I cannot get the picture out of my mind of average (and older) priests hearing confessions these days. How ill-equipped they all must be!

I’m referring to things like cuddling, hand holding, hugs, etc. Once upon a time this stuff was fairly normal in friendships.

Not being funny. Glad you agree. That goes back to a statement I made for Joie:

I was agreeing with her…but she didn’t understand it that way and went off on a tangent.

True.

So maybe we can agree that homosexuality is NOT safe and healthy.

I understand the statistics. The CDC keeps them simple.

Joie stated:

I was implying that if gay sex is not a health issue why does the Center for Disease Control maintain the statistics? It just seems curious to me.

I happen to agree with Joie. I don’t consider gay sex to be a health issue. I consider it to be a behavioral problem. So I guess the CDC monitors the gay community because their behavior has a serious effect on public health.

I was actually parroting you while replacing the object.

I notice you claim that…“Anal sex does not necessarily produce anal ruptures, bleeding or contribute to anal cancer,…”

You are being honest by including the word “necessarily” because the truth is that anal sex does produce anal ruptures, bleeding and it does contribute to anal cancer, whether it is practiced by straight or gay couples.

If you claim that it is an incorrect assumption that gay sexual activity is centered on anal sex, and “There are a lot of gay men who do not engage in anal sex.” I have no reason to doubt you. However you have to admit that gay men do, in fact, engage in anal sex with other men.

The word is “can” not “does”, they mean different things.

It is more correct to say “many gay men do, in fact, engage in anal sex with other men.”

Sorry, MacQ. I didn’t mean it that way.

There is a big difference between “scare tactics” and factual educational information

I do not consider providing factual information to be scare tactics. Granted some factual information may be scary, but as long as it is true and could save a life it should be provided.

Would you rather the subject of “health risks” relating to homosexuality, be eliminated from health and/or sex education?

I think we should make it clear that women engaging in heterosexual sex is over 1000% more likely than lesbian sex to result in death.

I’m going to go back to before this thread was derailed. I think this was a great answer, and as another single person living celibately, I totally agree.

I would also add that it is a lot easier (at least for me) to live celibately if I am very careful about what TV and movies I watch. I really have a low tolerance for watching other people pretend to have sex, and generally avoid R-rated movies unless there in a format where I can fast-forward through the sex scenes.
**
I know it’s a bit of a cliche, but it really is true that a lot of the reason that a lot of people think sex is some kind of necessity is because they’re seeing it all the time. For some people, they have this problem no matter what they watch. But a lot more people are affected by not only seeing sex everywhere but also by being continually bombarded by the idea that living chastely is unnatural and/or impossible.**

So I would also advise them to pay attention to what they’re watching and see if that helps them to live celibately.

–Jen

You neglect the fact that sex, even casual sex is often shown as a good thing, not just that it is shown.

Some in the US get a better tax deal because they are married. Why on earth? I am told it relates to helping with the coming costs of kids. I say, wait for the kids, rather than unjustly discriminate against single people.

It relates to how household incomes are calculated

Well, I never heard of that and don’t know what they are referring to. Many (most?) married couples would pay less tax if they could file singly instead of being required to file jointly. People euphemistically refer to it as the “marriage penalty”.

That is profoundly incorrect, if both of them were making $75k they would pay no additional taxes. $150k household income puts them at 91.90 percentile. Both spouses must earn more than $84575 ($169150 household income), less than 7% of American households make that much. If both are making $95k (enough to put them in the top 5% of households ) they pay $626 more in taxes.

 

[MacQ]

That is profoundly incorrect, if both of them were making $75k they would pay no additional taxes. $150k household income puts them at 91.90 percentile. Both spouses must earn more than $84575 ($169150 household income), less than 7% of American households make that much. If both are making $95k (enough to put them in the top 5% of households ) they pay $626 more in taxes.

I’m not sure “profoundly” applies, but ok.
I said “many couples” pay more tax filing jointly than they would filing separately.
I guess I should have said “some” do.

 

[MacQ]

The word is “can” not “does”, they mean different things.

It is more correct to say “many gay men do, in fact, engage in anal sex with other men.”

I think we should make it clear that women engaging in heterosexual sex is over 1000% more likely than lesbian sex to result in death.

.

Yes…apt clarifications, more accurately stated.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

The word is “can” not “does”, they mean different things.

It is more correct to say “many gay men do, in fact, engage in anal sex with other men.”

I don’t mind standing corrected. Allow me to re-phrase:

“…because the truth is that anal sex CAN produce anal ruptures, bleeding and it CAN contribute to anal cancer, whether it is practiced by straight or gay couples.”

How is that?

I would add that anal sex IS NOT a natural form of human sexual intercourse and it IS NOT a healthy form of sexual recreation.

Would that be acceptable?

I will also re-phrase my other comment:

“**many **gay men do, in fact, engage in anal sex with other men.”

However, since anal sex is the sine qua non of sex for gay men, would it not be more accurate to say:

“The VAST MAJORITY of gay men do, in fact, engage in anal sex with other men.”

I think we should make it clear that women engaging in heterosexual sex is over 1000% more likely than lesbian sex to result in death.

Do you make up the figures that you post? 1000% ???

I agree with you. Women engaging in heterosexual sex are more likely (than lesbians) to contract an STD that will result in death.

But for some reason lesbians don’t live as long as heterosexual women. Why, I wonder?

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

I don’t mind standing corrected. Allow me to re-phrase:

“…because the truth is that anal sex CAN produce anal ruptures, bleeding and it CAN contribute to anal cancer, whether it is practiced by straight or gay couples.”

How is that?

I would add that anal sex IS NOT a natural form of human sexual intercourse and it IS NOT a healthy form of sexual recreation.

Would that be acceptable?

That is better however you fail to note that anal sex can contribute to anal cancer if it spreads HPV as that is the only way it can increase the chance. It increases the chance for anal cancer the same way that women engaging in vaginal intercourse with men raises their chance of vaginal cancer.

I will also re-phrase my other comment:

“**many **gay men do, in fact, engage in anal sex with other men.”

However, since anal sex is the sine qua non of sex for gay men, would it not be more accurate to say:

“The VAST MAJORITY of gay men do, in fact, engage in anal sex with other men.”

Given that 1/4 sexually active gay men have never engaged in anal sex it cannot be “the sine qua non of sex for gay men”.

Do you make up the figures that you post? 1000% ???

I agree with you. Women engaging in heterosexual sex are more likely (than lesbians) to contract an STD that will result in death.

But for some reason lesbians don’t live as long as heterosexual women. Why, I wonder?

Given that vaginal intercourse with men can result in pregnancy (which lesbian sex can’t) which may be fatal and is far more likely to spread deadly STDs such as HIV (there has been exactly one case of a lesbian transmitting HIV to her partner and that was the result of not sterilizing sex toys) I am probably underestimating the chance by several orders of magnitude.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

…
Given that 1/4 sexually active gay men have never engaged in anal sex it cannot be “the sine qua non of sex for gay men”.
…

Even so, Zoltan is correct in stating “The VAST MAJORITY of gay men do, in fact, engage in anal sex with other men.”

Accordingly, it was openly homosexual documentary writer Gabriel Rotello who claimed that anal intercourse is the sine qua non of many gay men in his book Sexual Ecology: AIDS and the Destiny of Gay Men.

It is not inconceivable that 1/4 of gay men have modified their sexual behavior to avoid high risk anal-genital sex since extensive research and scrutiny have been conducted of the AIDS epidemic in the West in the early 80’s. The information (on the dangers of anal sex to health) is also readily accessible to actively gay men who might have been too young then or were born after the epidemic, that they consciously exclude anal sex in their sexual acts with their partners.
,

 

[MacQ]

The information (on the dangers of anal sex to health) is also readily accessible to actively gay men .
,

Let’s hope it’s also available to heterosexual women…

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Let’s hope it’s also available to heterosexual women…

I can’t see that reasonably literate and halfway intelligent heterosexual women do not come across the information that anal sex as foreplay or done to its conclusion is not good for her health. Why else is the use of condom and lubrication a must in such act as precautions recommended by the medical profession, even for those in monogamous and married state?

My impression is young sexually active women may be experimenting but would not normally prefer to engage in such act as they gain experience. Although some more experienced, perhaps older women, are said to enjoy it, It would be hard to believe that it is prevalent. The male and female sexual organs are perfectly designed for opposite sexed partners.

If a husband were to insist in engaging in said act with his wife, I would think she would have reason to want to leave the marriage. Just my opinion, of course.
,