okay, how about everyone who has a disease stops having sex? homosexuals arent the only ones with STDs, and sure as hell are not the only ones spreading them.

its "hard to grasp" that homosexuals are your main target when its painfully obvious that they arent the only contributing factor to your overall statement...supposing that you actually mean your main point of sexually transmitted disease in general, rather than using disease as an excuse to pick at homosexuals specifically.

just trust me, you sound like less of an ass if you say "ooo ALL yucky people shouldnt do the nasty" instead of "ooo HOMO yucky people shouldnt do the nasty". unless of course, you really do mean to just target HIV/AIDS+ homosexuals, and not....yknow... HIV/AIDS+ straight people who also, just as unwittingly and flippantly, spread it.
just because they dont spread it the MOST shouldnt mean they get a free pass on criticism.

EDIT:

last i checked, you can also get STDs from mommy in the womb if she has them, or sharing needles with an infected person, so virginity doesnt mean much any more either.

What then is that the involved parties are still engaging in non-reproductive sex which will do more harm than good, especially if it involves the anal cavity. People seem to think (and I am not attacking you personally) that STDs seem to have developed from thin air, and that human beings are not the source of them. That diseases are simply "caught" by sexual activity and not created by it. But the truth is, when certain areas of the body (especially the anal cavity as it is a waste center) come into contact with other organs not intended to form contact, illnesses can result.

If two men want to marry each other and have a romantic, non-sexual relationship, I am all for it. I don't care at this point. But in the real world, this will almost never happen and they will end up having sex with each other the next day. Men are men.



If you read up on the CDC, you will find that mostly all articles are fairly current (this is a government funded organization, would they really post outdated material with the purpose of informing us?), and do not date into the previous millennium.

No where did I claim MRSA to be a sexually transmitted disease, exclusively. It can also take on the form of an airborne pathogen, hence the threat it poses to the public who have not acquired this host sexually. MRSA is usually contracted from skin-to-skin contact, and scientists have noticed that men who participate in anal sex have MRSA infections along the thighs and buttocks--coincidence? This survey was conducted in San Francisco, where the MRSA infection appears to be climbing, especially in men who have sex with men.

MRSA infection is like second-hand smoking:
If I smoke a cigarette, I am receiving the brunt of the blow (lung cancer, throat cancer), but the second hand smoke is also affecting those who do not smoke, including children. Is it then selfish of me to continue smoking knowing that it is harming innocents? Likewise, is it then selfish of me to continue having anal sex knowing that I'm denigrating my body into a breeding ground for pathogens like MRSA to flourish?



This is a most strange proposition--why would I propose a sexual union which can not procreate as the ideal? I am simply using lesbianism to create contrast--to show that it can not be that men are inherently "diseased" why HIV/AIDS are a more common diagnosis in males, but because of the sexual activity that can ensue between males.

Secondly, why do people need to have oral sex to feel satisfied? Does that not sound ridiculous? The goal of sex is reproduction, two consenting adults can not swap genetic material having oral sex, especially two same sex cohorts.



I am highly amused by this statement. I love how neo-liberals want to group all opponents of homosexual sexual activity in one group, and color us all the same fiery shade of red, yet you want myself to look at you as an individual. Double-Standard.

Quite frankly, I am under the opinion that homosexual behavior in the case of the male is genetic. He can however, choose not to act upon impulses than harm his health, same as how a smoker can go without giving himself lung cancer.



We are overall in agreement. However, females secret vaginal fluids when aroused, and somehow this material does not pose the same threat as male semen (as far as contracting disease is concerned). This is a mystery to myself. However, fact is fact, and gay men are at an increased risk given that there are two individuals dispersing semen involved (as opposed to the one in heterosexual unions)...



This is a lie. You can continue to believe in it if you want...

Do you honestly believe it is perfectly fine to "touch poo" and not get sick?

Let's not even delve into "rimming" which is a common sex practice among gays.

Does this sound healthy to you?!



In today's world of ever approaching and imminent destruction, why must "love" be expressed sexually? Do you not know of another way to connect with a human being on an intimate level? Is the "culmination of their love" to give another person an orgasm that lasts 10 seconds? Especially if that person is carrying a lethal virus that will shatter the quality of one's life?



When someone opens a topic concerning the increase of sexual promiscuity in heterosexual couples, I will gladly participate. However, promiscuous opposite-sex relationships are minnow-sized compared to the rainbow trout that is anal sex...



Because homosexual behavior is worthless. It does not produce anything. It does not better the species by creating new combination of alleles that could lead to a more advanced species perhaps; it does not sustain the longevity of the human race; it does nothing. Nothingness is a genetic disorder.

But there is more to a gay man than his orientation. Gay men still contribute to society in other ways, but having sex with each other is not one of them...



I have a relative who is a research nurse and works with HIV-positive patients to find a hopeful cure. It is this individual who has imparted much of my knowledge of the subject (in addition to my own outside reading), and both myself and this person have accepted anal intercourse as a leading cause and propagation of disease.



This is absolutely promiscuous behavior, one man is not enough? And I am highly curious as to why you need to have sex with men outside your marriage--doesn't this seem to suggest that the old adage that gay men do not honor monogamy is true?

Please debate without resorting to personal attacks.

Please be nice, even if you disagree!

This is officially a Gish gallop a la Duane Gish:



With that fact in mind, I move that we collectively ignore TheTrollIsNigh. All in favour?

Last edited by kiwi_tea : 20th Jun 2011 at 09:59 PM.

This behavior is typical of those who have been cornered and outnumbered, you can not possibly resist the immutable and so you choose to die in honor, you hurl insults and attack my person to hopefully ruin my day after your worldview has been challenged.

Is that not troll behavior?

Mocking my intellect is not abusive language? Stating that all I have to contribute to this discussion are lies, ignorance, and a diatribe on par with the mentally retarded is not troll behavior?

Is everyone who sees homosexual sex for what it is--unhealthy--a troll?



It seems you didn't answer my question because it answers itself...

You really have no basic grasp on how disease works do you?

If two people who do not have any disease (I don't mean no symptoms or the disease hasn't shown up yet, I mean NO DISEASE) a disease does not just occur in one or both because of sex. I'm no doctor but I do have an understanding of Science. There's my cred.



Could we refrain from reducing men to beasts with no control over their sexual impulses?



Quite often, the goal of sex is fun or pleasure or to express love or to just kill time while you wait for the dryer to buzz.

Are you suggesting that people who cannot have children should not have sex? Infertile couples? Post-menopausal women? People who are child-free by choice? People that have already had the children they desire and have chosen to become surgically sterilized?

Also, because as previously discussed here, I like to nitpick, this: "adults can not swap genetic material having oral sex, especially two same sex cohorts" is really bad science. There's no especially here - there's no chance of it happening at all between opposite sex couples or same sex couples- the chances of it happening doesn't significantly decrease just because they are same sex because it's not possible at all.



He can but he isn't required to just because you find it icky. And for the last blasted time, sex between two consenting people of the same sex is not inheritently harmful.




Because people can choose to express their love with each other in the way they choose to. And just because people are engaging in sex with each other as a way of expressing that love does not mean that they are incapable of expressing love in any other way. AND IT'S NOT YOUR BUSINESS.




Again with the not your damn business. You do not get to judge other people's choices. They are free to have the relationship that works for them. It doesn't matter that you don't get it because it is not you in that relationship. And no, their choices do not reflect that of an entire, wildly diverse group of people. They are individuals.

Last edited by wickedblue : 20th Jun 2011 at 10:51 PM.

I didn't attack your person. I attacked your style of debate, which is obfuscatory.

Whether my relationship "honours" monogamy or not is really besides the point that I was making. Is our behaviour as outlined above putting us (or the HUMAN RACE ITSELF *dramatic music*) at risk? What does "honour" have to do with it? It only reveals that this is a moral crusade on your part.

Ah! But then you see we get down the track of whether anal sex is spreading disease!

Well, then someone is liable to point out that anal sex carries a higher transmission risk because of tissue trauma, primarily, and also that heterosexuals very commonly engage in anal sex.

Ah! But then you're only interested in baiting for the switch, so upon that remark you'll proclaim: "They touch poos! POOS! Guys!!!!!OMG! You think that's not HARMFUL?"

Well. Faecal matter isn't particularly good for people, but it's not like anyone's BATHING in it. Or even eating it (I hope). And needless to say: HETEROS HAVE ANAL SEX TOO. And anyone who has anal sex who has half a brain works to mitigate the associated risks. That's what "safe sex" means. Condoms. Dental dams. A shower afterwards maybe.

But you're clearly not so worried about the risks (which judging from the gay guys I associate with and their sexual habits are fairly minimal), you're far more concerned with the disgust you feel.

Well. You're entitled to feel disgusted. You have every right.

But your desire to legitimise your feeling of disgust with Cold Hard Facts is hampered by a whole host of issues. For a start, you seem to think this is an argument:

This demonstrates only confusion about the role of science. Lots of behaviour is "worthless". Biology is exuberant. You're being a hyper-adaptationist, but science has shown very clearly for many decades that there are lots of non-adaptive behaviours and traits. Not everything is sexually-selected. Some traits crop up only because genetic change sometimes, by nature of its construction, can only flow certain ways. Some traits crop up through bizarre chance encounters with other organisms, horizontal gene-transfer.

You're trying to adapt science, and your whole argument, to a frustrating sense of disgust and moral outrage you have. It really is a Gish gallop. I have no idea where to start in addressing your points. You are too variously wrong to debate coherently.

You are, however, perfectly entitled as a human being to be disgusted by what I do in bed. That's the only valid point you've really made. That you feel that way. That's fine. I concede you that lonesome point: You find my sex life disgusting and that is your right.

Final warning!

Please debate the topic and not each other's personal attributes, sexual orientation or debating prowess.

Be nice- or you WILL receive personal warnings and be banned from this thread.

This is aimed at everyone who is posting here, not any one person.

To quote TVTropes, you fail biology forever. The organisms that cause disease do not spontaneously generate; Louis Pasteur had a pretty convincing experiment back in the 1800s. Sex cannot create disease. If you genuinely believed that, then you must genuinely believe that two virgins who have never had any form of sexual activity could, upon having vaginal intercourse (or heck, let's say anal intercourse) could acquire syphilis, because it somehow spontaneously generated.

You seem to believe that because fecal matter is yucky, it can contain just about ANYTHING. But you fail to understand that not all microbes survive equally well in all places. The gut is not a good home for most STIs. If I took a stool culture from you right now, it would grow a lot of shit (pun intended), but I will gladly bet you cold, hard cash that it would not grow Treponema palladium.



In addition to this being stereotype, you have apparently never heard of asexuality.



Which is why I made the cancer analogy. MRSA is seen in immunocompromised hosts, such as those who have HIV/AIDS. So is Kaposi's sarcoma. But the physical act of anal intercourse does not cause either MRSA or Kaposi's. Correlation does not equal causation. HIV infection causes an increased risk to develop MRSA and Kaposi's. HIV is high in people who have anal intercourse. But the act of anal intercourse itself does not cause Kaposi's sarcoma or MRSA.

MRSA rates are climbing EVERYWHERE in the US. There's this phenomenon known as antibiotic resistance. Also, you apparently fail to understand MRSA itself: MRSA isn't generally a community-acquired infection. It's found in hospitals. In fact, I could make a better argument for the statement "hospitals cause MRSA" than "anal intercourse causes MRSA," and the statement that "healthcare providers transmit MRSA to other people" is also more true than "gay men transmit MRSA to other people."



Ah, I did not realize you were of the procreation persuasion. In which case, are you anti-birth control? Anti-post-menopausal sex?

Also, because thus far I had only gotten the impression that health concerns and yuckiness were the two main pillars of your reasoning, do you also rely on a literal interpretation of the Bible, specifically Leviticus, as the foundations for your work? Or the literal interpretation of another Judeo-Christian-Islamic holy text?



So what about lesbians? (Are you only mildly anti-lesbian, as opposed to being vehemently anti-gay men? All your arguments are "gay men this" and "gay men that.")



If only one partner is infected, you're not doubling the risk.



You would probably get sick, yes, especially if you didn't wash your hands before touching your mucus membranes. But you wouldn't get gonorrhea, syphilis, chlamydia, or HIV. (The fact that you seem to believe that touching fecal material to unbroken skin can transmit HIV demonstrates a marked lack of knowledge regarding the virus.)


Again, this is more your "I find this nasty, ergo it is evil."



Good luck with your Rapture.



Many cultures elevate sexual intercourse as special way of demonstrating love. "The Catholic Church considers the expression of love through sexual intercourse to be an elevated form of human activity, joining as it does, husband and wife in complete mutual self-giving." (redacted from Catechism of the Catholic Church; liberal theologians would expand this to include gay couples in committed relationships.)



Evidence?



Evolution does not produce a "better" species or "more advanced" species; it produces a species that is better equipped to survive in its current environment (at least until it can breed.) Also, many human behaviors are evolutionarily worthless.

Homosexuality may actually have benefit, by providing extra caregivers to nurture relatives' young. You don't have to reproduce to pass on your genes; if your sister produces 2 children and you produce none, pretty much the same genetic material is passed on.

*is tired of being science teacher.* Go read some Stephen Jay Gould, Dawkins (who is an arrogant annoying bastard at times, I grant you, but a brilliant science writer), and other good books.

Last edited by Julieryc : 20th Jun 2011 at 11:38 PM. Reason: trying to be nicer

I find it interesting that this is supposedly a "debate" about the causes of homosexuality, and yet, every person who sides in opposition of such unions occurring seems to be fighting proponents of gay marriage rather than having an actual debate thus far.

Is this thread a trap? Trying to find some "ignorant, anti-gay sex nitwits" to bash this afternoon, or do you want a conversation? I am all open for the latter...



How was HIV created? How was AIDS created? Where did these illnesses come from? How are pathogens created? Can human tissue cells become mutated? Why are STDs mostly transmuted through bodily fluids? You have an understanding of science, please tell me how sexually transmitted diseases are created and what they are, clearly I don't have a clue because I have the formal education of a pineapple.

I will presume by your statement that contrarily, I must not know the difference between a quark and an (Fe) molecule, I never research about sexually transmitted diseases, I never attended college-level courses on human biology, I've never spoken with a relative, who studies sexually transmuted diseases for a living, for the sake of acquiring more knowledge on the subject. These things never happened.



It is the principle which is being challenged by acknowledging homosexual unions as equal with to its heterosexual counterpart.

In the future, we may possibly have treatments which can heal all forms of infertility in heterosexual couples. There will never be a means through which gay men can procreate by having sex with each other.



It is my business when airborne pathogens like MRSA begin to infect everyday people. Gay men, due to having compromised immune systems on average, are a very attractive location for germs to fester--because their immune systems won't be able to kill them off.

Then what happens?

Mutations occur. Then the next super bug arrives and kills off even more people.

Do you want that?



I believe you are quoting the wrong user, as I would never stoop to using such ignorant drivel to exercise my point in a discussion...



Will it interest you to know I am not a follower of religions? Moral crusade? No. I am simply concerned about the health of the species.



I have actually stated in a post you replied to earlier that "anal sex is becoming increasingly more common in heterosexual couples."

Condoms Break. Then what? Now you probably have AIDS if you're with an infected partner.

Bacteria can still be transmuted through a dental dam. Plastic, rubber, silicon, bacteria can slide right on through it...



And you sir, need to revisit any notion you have on health in the gay community, read a few legitimate articles written by professionals about this crisis, and form a logical conclusion on whether or not gay sex (not gay men, but gay sex itself), is detrimental to one's health...


Lastly, I have nothing against gay men. They have contributed to the world in numerous ways. Some of our greatest thinkers may have been gay (according to speculation). They simply need to stop having anal and oral sex with one another, for the safety of all, and for their own benefit...

Julieryc, notice how I have ignored you as your entire post is rooted in emotion and does not contribute to the discussion in the least. You are not worthy even of admonition.

Oh, I just thought you were ignoring me because you fail to understand the science I'm quoting.

To the other person: STIs originate through evolution. Tracing the origin of specific STIs can be difficult, especially for diseases that are thousands of years old. HIV probably originated from SIV in Africa, eventually acquiring enough mutations to jump to humans. The bushmeat trade allowed for SIV infection in humans; mutation and natural selection then allowed SIV to become HIV. Google "origins HIV" and read the first couple articles that come up, as long as they're not crazy government conspiracy theories. Note that any virus that can inhabit the host's T cells has a crazy survival advantage and that HIV would, once evolved, have a pretty wicked selective advantage.

Now I am really, really done with science education for the night, because I want to work on my new set of custom careers and the chance cards aren't going to write themselves.

Finally, I am glad you have presented material that promotes intellectual debate. Now let's dissect this opossum carcass you have presented me with:



Let's not forget that it was not until recent advancements in human history that we could even be aware of the existence of sexually transmitted diseases to the extent we do today. That being said, it is possible (just as anal sex has likely always been an activity among humans), that mutations similar to HIV/AIDS are not a recent phenomenon.



Why does this thesis seem to denote an almost biblical nuance to it? Am I to be persuaded by a story (which yes, I have heard countless times before). What story led to the creation of syphilis and gonorrhea?

Humans have been devouring the carcasses of other animals for centuries. Why is it that only rhesus monkeys have created a strain of viruses which continue to propagate in human blood?

I apologize if my tone comes off as vitriolic, I have often been accused of adopting a scholarly tone which presents itself as being very authoritative, but it is not my intention as this is simply my vernacular speech.

TheEndIsNigh, I could say a lot of things about your so-called-arguments, but I won't because I would never finish with it.
If you think that the only purpose of sex is and should always be reproduction you have clearly lost contact with the reality.

On the other hand, I don't know why you care about what another people do with their bodies... don't want to have anal sex with someone else? Don't do it. The fact that other people do it does not mean that you HAVE to. By the way, you are saying "there are investigations that prove.... whatever" please, link us to them, because most of the time it looks like you're making them out.

I have linked to statistics in previous posts. But same as how it is your right whether or not to participate in same-sex activity, it is also your right whether or not to actually read my sources...

The CDC is one of the most valid sources on human health in America:
"Gay and bisexual men of all races continue to be most severely affected by HIV in the United States. They are the only risk group in the U.S. in which the annual number of new HIV infections is increasing, accounting for more than half of all new HIV infections in the U.S. annually. The rate of new HIV diagnoses among gay and bisexual men is more than 44 times that of other men (range: 522–989 per 100,000 MSM vs. 12 per 100,000 other men)."

To read more: http://www.cdc.gov/msmhealth/HIV.htm

Many users have complained about my using the Center of Disease Control as a source, which confounds me. What source am I to use? Had I used a Christian or Muslim-oriented source, you'd all be quite content, because then you can assure yourself that I am simply a "homophobe" and have absolutely no credibility in my claims.

Before you can posit any assumptions, I am not a religious person.

For the record...

Gay Sex =/= Gay Men

A celibate gay man can be perfectly healthy. Healthier than any heterosexual having sex with 10 people in a week....

Okay, I asked nicely and now I am telling you all.


Julieryc, TheEndIsNigh, pinketamine, kiwi_tea, you are all asked to NOT POST in this thread or any debate on this forum regarding sexuality for 24 hours.

Please take this time to gain a fresh perspective on this, and to realise that sniping and accusatory tone are not the correct way to debate.

If you choose to ignore my instructions and post, you will receive a warning.

now that the fun has been killed ( thanks, simsample D: ), id like to take the moment to point out that all this talk of STDs is fine and dandy, but unless someone here thinks STDs cause homosexuality, its not really on topic, is it...? O_o

Well....I'm no expert...and I'm not fueled with the passion of those people up there....but in my opinion I think that homosexuality is something you have from birth. I don't know the cause, but logic tells me that with all the criticism and alienation they have to take in today's society, it'd be crazy to "choose" to be gay.

Why else would it be so hard to come out of the closet, you know? If you can just "change your mind" about it and go back to being heterosexual? haha

I just really wish people's attitudes towards homosexuality would change. They are no more dangerous than a heterosexual couple. And just throwing it out there, the whole "homosexuality is useless because it doesn't generate offspring" argument is a little silly in my opinion because homosexual couples are often the ones who adopt children who loving homes. That's far from worthless! And besides, it's kinda weird to be trying to use sex only to reproduce when the population is creeping toward filling the planet's capacity......I'm a exaggerating a little but hey.

Looks like I missed out on a good debate If people were getting thrown out, it must have been good...



From what I've gathered, the problem is not that the Earth has become over-populated, so much as our resources are divided mostly among the rich. In nations with more income inequality, poverty and crime run rampant. America is one of those nations, too.



Who would believe that? Being straight doesn't mean you're going to have a baby either...

oh, it was. *lays back and smokes a cigar with satisfaction*



rhetorical question was rhetorical.

ah though if someones going to go the route of "omgz homosexuality isnt good because no babies"--i can also point out that heterosexuality has its non-baby faults, too, namely on the points of in vitro fertilization, c-sections and surrogate mothers. youd never see stuff like that out in the wild between, say, raccoons or deer or lions. you could argue that its because animals arent technologically advanced, but im still pretty sure it constitutes as unnatural and only fuels this baby obsession that most procreation-ists seem to have.
infertile couples, women with oddly shaped uterus's/weak reproductive systems, health complications, etc all end up with babies where in nature they would have to either adopt or go without.
basically, if we went by only what comes naturally, there wouldnt be so many babies on the planet.

Last edited by SuicidiaParasidia : 23rd Jun 2011 at 09:15 PM.

Since 1500 animal species practice homosexuality for several reasons, why should human not follow the same pattern, we are mammals after all.
http://www.news-medical.net/news/2006/10/23/20718.aspx
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homose...vior_in_animals

Pixelhate, non-human animals also rape, kill, and steal from each other without any qualms. Appeals to nature aren't very useful in arguments. It doesn't matter that homosexuality is natural, however we might take that to mean. What does matter is that it's harmless.

Not an argument, just a fact : homosexuality is in our nature.
"What does matter is that it's harmless. " You've got a point.

nature loses its relevancy in our technologically advanced everyday lives anyway. i mean, its become more often a shallow justification for homophobia and/or dietary disapproval rather than a tangible reference.
who among us can really say they live in nature any more? who here lives the "natural" way of life? no plumbing, growing/hunting your own food and preparing it without any sort of electronic device, no cars, no starbucks, no homes with carpet or paint on the walls, no strollers or bottles or tv... no phones, and no computers? you wont find any of that growing off a bush in the wild. you wont see a lion pushing its cub down a cement walkway past manicured lawns.
and if youre going to use the "nature" argument, you may as well use it all. it does come with more than just picking and choosing what you do and dont want to be natural at that time.
you know what the REAL reason is that holds people back from embracing others' differences? "it makes me uncomfortable." "i dont like it." "i dont want it for myself, and if i dont want it, i cant imagine anyone else wanting it."
a terribly self-centered and prejudiced way of thinking that in this day and age are disheartening to behold.
the worst part is, "its none of your business" seems to have lost its ring of truth over the years. i say we get it back. |:

This was for me a trial to answer the starting question of this debate : "Do you believe homosexuality is a choice, caused by genetics, or something else? "
I believe homosexuality is part of our human nature but not only, as it is also part and component of other animals (mainly mammals) It means that anybody could develop an attraction for the same sex, at any stage of their life, for a short period or a lifetime.
It is interesting to note that this behaviour, in animal kingdom, has a function (among others) of helping solving conflicts. I don't think that the technologically advanced world we live in have suppressed our human nature, even if we like to think so. Many of our behaviours are still animal-like despite the modern packaging. Nothing wrong with that. We've an intellect but we still have emotions.
Now as why some of us develop this behaviour and lifestyle while others are horrified with it, I'm clueless. Probably a mix of many factors. Nevertheless, I tend to think that those who condemn homosexuality violently try to deny this component in them.

Last edited by Pixelhate : 29th Jun 2011 at 12:21 AM. Reason: typo