U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 10-03-2013, 11:51 AM
 
15,720 posts, read 11,287,753 times
Reputation: 7007

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by txdave35 View Post
I wouldn't use the term "plenty" when the statistics are saying 90%. We shouldn't be promoting the lifestyle, period.
What statistics?

New Study Of Gay And Bi Men's Sexual Behavior Has Implications For Health Advocacy | ThinkProgress

Of all sexual behaviors that men reported occurring during their last sexual event, those involving the anus were the least common [less than 40 percent]. There is certainly a misguided belief that ‘gay sex equals anal sex,’ which is simply untrue much of the time.

Anal Sex More Popular Than Possibly Expected Among Heterosexual Couples: Center for Disease Control and Prevention Report
Rate this post positively

 
Old 10-03-2013, 11:52 AM
 
Location: Middle of nowhere
24,223 posts, read 13,422,906 times
Reputation: 9847
Quote:
Originally Posted by txdave35 View Post
Nice try, but you can't get around the fact that 90% of gay men are engaging in a highly risky activity that spreads disease. Do you really think 90% of heterosexuals are doing this well? I don't think so.
Lesbians certainly risk transmitting the HPV virus which we know now can cause cancer.

Are you really suggesting we should have a gay society with no reproduction? If you can show me that heterosexual sex is just as risky and costy as homosexual sex then you have an argument.
However, if you have a married heterosexual couple who obeyed God's laws and married as virgins, practically zero health risks with intercourse. But if they engage in anal sex, there is danger even if they are both disease free.
First let's look at some stats.
Quote:
data for males and
females 15–44 years of age on the
proportion who have ever had specified
types of sexual contact. Among males
15–44 years of age, 91 percent have had
sexual contact with females. Among
adults 25–44 years of age, 97 percent of
males had had vaginal intercourse with
a female, 90 percent had had oral sex,
and 40 percent anal sex with a female
So 40% of males have had anal sex with a female.

Quote:
Overall, and in most of the
adult age groups, about 5–8 percent of
males had had oral or anal sexual

contact with another male at some time
in their lives
5-8% have had anal sex with another male.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/ad/ad362.pdf
Which number is higher 40% or 5-8%?

There are health risks of heterosexual intercourse.
Penile fractures, and vaginal tearing, Cervical bruising, and vaginal prolapse. Not to mention back injuries, neck injuries, etc.

So if health conditions due to sex are an issue for marriage, then no group can get married.
Or do you YET AGAIN want special rules for heterosexuals?
Rate this post positively
 
Old 10-03-2013, 11:56 AM
 
Location: Middle of nowhere
24,223 posts, read 13,422,906 times
Reputation: 9847
Quote:
Originally Posted by txdave35 View Post
No, if I were a troll, I would be on here purposely trying to antagonize you. I'm just here expressing my opinion why I don't agree with SSM. I have every right to do so. I even agreed that gays should have equal legal rights.


And yes, gay education. STuff like this:




Middle School Anti-Bullying Lesson Includes Lesbian Role Play | FOX News & Commentary: Todd Starnes


I think the kissing part was refuted, hard to say since the liberal media refuses to report on this stuff, but there was definitely role play involved.
The girls and boys were separated for the sex ed class. The class was dealing with how to say no to being pressured. Part of that was role play. If there are only girls in the class, who were they going to role play with?
I have seen just say no lectures where they role played a drug pusher and a kid. Did that mean the teacher was teaching a student to be a drug dealer? No, it was learning to say not to peer pressure.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 10-03-2013, 11:57 AM
 
511 posts, read 772,172 times
Reputation: 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheepie2000 View Post
Then why aren't you promoting the hell out of same sex marriage and monogomy? If those 90% of gay men were married and monogamous, they wouldn't be spreading diseases, would they? Monogamy seems to be an issue with married heterosexual couples too, so we'll have to see how it works out.
If they are engaging in anal sex, there are still the other health risks. From what I've read, gays are much more likely to have multiple sexual partners than straight people too especially when you consider that a large number of lesbians have a history of male partners.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 10-03-2013, 11:57 AM
 
Location: Type 0.7 Kardashev
10,915 posts, read 8,956,069 times
Reputation: 39004
Quote:
Originally Posted by txdave35 View Post
Small mutations and changes within the same species is a fact. When I started playing guitar, it hurt like hell on my fingers. Then my body adapted and created thick calluses so I could play pain free. That's evolution.

One species changing into a completely different species over billions of years? Not so much fact.
No, it's not. That's Lamarckism. And it's been completely rejected since the 1930s (except in the Soviet Union, where it lived on in a fashion as Lysenkoism for a time, during which it devastated the field of Soviet genetics because, well, that's what happens when people prioritize what they want to believe - and it was approved as official doctrine because Stalin felt it properly idealized Marxist thought - over scientific evidence).

Evolution (the phenomenon) is the change in the frequency of alleles over time in a gene pool. You are clearly completely ignorant of this. Which, given what you espouse, is most fitting.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 10-03-2013, 11:59 AM
 
Location: Camberville
15,027 posts, read 20,042,379 times
Reputation: 26435
Quote:
Originally Posted by txdave35 View Post
That small number is bound to grow significantly if SSM laws are passed, and more and more "gay education" is introduced to young children in public schools. Yeah I can't complain about my tax dollars funding that, but it's ok to complain about a school showing a picture of Jesus? Our country is going down the toliet.
Jesus is a false Messiah. It is unbelievable that you could support our CHILDREN being exposed to such immorality!
Rate this post positively
 
Old 10-03-2013, 12:01 PM
 
Location: Middle of nowhere
24,223 posts, read 13,422,906 times
Reputation: 9847
Quote:
Originally Posted by txdave35 View Post
If they are engaging in anal sex, there are still the other health risks. From what I've read, gays are much more likely to have multiple sexual partners than straight people too especially when you consider that a large number of lesbians have a history of male partners.
Marriage promotes monogamous behavior. So if you want people to have less partners you PROMOTE MARRIAGE. By banning same sex marriage you are in fact doing nothing to promote monogamy.

I would really like to see you "I've read" facts.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 10-03-2013, 12:01 PM
 
1,111 posts, read 1,271,965 times
Reputation: 833
Here's what I don't understand about the religious argument.

Homosexuality is semi-sort of mentioned in the Bible.
Meanwhile sexual intercourse outside the bonds of marriage is STRONGLY frowned upon in many books of the Bible.
When a Bible thumper comes on here and says "gays can have their civil unions, but not marriages" are they not then FORCING gay people to commit an even greater sin. Sex outside of marriage?
Rate this post positively
 
Old 10-03-2013, 12:01 PM
 
511 posts, read 772,172 times
Reputation: 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by weltschmerz View Post
Lol! No, it's not. Your children won't be born with calluses on their hands. You don't understand evolution at all, so you?
Yeah I don't have a PHD in science like apparently EVERY atheist out here does. lol The arrogance from the atheist liberals is so nauseating.


Here's a hint. How about telling me exactly how I'm wrong instead of worthless banter saying I am so stupid and don't understand. Now that is trolling!
Rate this post positively
 
Old 10-03-2013, 12:03 PM
 
Location: Montreal, Quebec
15,084 posts, read 13,740,849 times
Reputation: 9779
Quote:

Originally Posted by txdave35


Small mutations and changes within the same
species is a fact. When I started playing guitar, it hurt like hell on my
fingers. Then my body adapted and created thick calluses so I could play pain
free. That's evolution.


One species changing into a completely
different species over billions of years? Not so much fact.
Riddle me this. Why do whales have pelvic bones? They once were land-dwellers. Why do people hiccup? We were once water-dwellers. Why do we get goose bumps? We were once covered in fur. Why are our jaws too small to accommodate wisdom teeth? Maybe you think it was God's sense of whimsy when he zapped us into existence?
Read a book. A science book, not the bible.
Rate this post positively
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:48 AM.

© 2005-2023, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top