• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Homosexuality doesn't exist

Paraprakrti

Custom User
painted wolf said:
ok, this is all well and good for some religions, but what about the rest of us?

Creator/'God' told my people to enjoy sex as a union between two people, or simply to have fun depending on the tribe/culture. Idealy you had sex with your husband/s, wife/ves but for many nations pre-marital sex wasn't a sin.

Spirituality is about a personal connection with creator not depriving the sences. You can be serious spiritually and still enjoy sex.

wa:do


It's all about attachment. One remains amidst that which one is most attached to. Where is the philosophy that explains unrestricted sex life to be godly? Spiritualistic life means sacrificing materialistic life. I have seen the concept of sacrifice in practically all major and a lot of minor religions. The only one I can think of that is specifically unrestricted is satanism.

Yes, spirituality is a personal connection with God. But, the more one is attached to material sense gratification, the less they are attached to God. Enjoying the senses means enduring karma. Seeking to connect with God means transcending karma. You cannot endure and transcend karma at the same time. That is like trying to eat your cake and then have it too. After you eat it all you may get in return is sh*t (karma). Actually, the method is to neither seek eating it or having it, but instead, offering it to God.
 

Ardhanariswar

I'm back!
you can still be spiritual and live in the world you know. its a balance that should be respected. no one can gain salvation by going to extremes (an example, Buddha).

and being gay means enjoying the senses.... but when two people fall in love. they fall in love with each other, not thier bodies. so homosexuality does transcend the body and reach the soul, where the pure love exists.
 

Paraprakrti

Custom User
Gerani1248 said:
you can still be spiritual and live in the world you know. its a balance that should be respected. no one can gain salvation by going to extremes (an example, Buddha).

Yes, I agree that one can live a spiritual life and still reside in this world. I think a Christian would say, "to be in the world but not of the world". There is perfect balance on the spiritual platform. One can be on that platform even while residing here. But indulging in sense-gratification is detrimental to one's spiritual path. To say that there should be a balance between materialistic life and spiritualistic life is like saying there should be a balance between ignorance and knowledge.


Gerani1248 said:
and being gay means enjoying the senses.... but when two people fall in love. they fall in love with each other, not thier bodies. so homosexuality does transcend the body and reach the soul, where the pure love exists.

But the homosexuality preference is based on bodily conception. How can you say that it has nothing to do with their bodies?
Homosexuality doesn't transcend the body, it is a preference based on the body. Heterosexuality is also a preference based on the body.
You may call this love, but I define any attachment based on such bodily preferences as lust. A man can love another man, for example, without the carnal desire to enjoy the genitals.
 

painted wolf

Grey Muzzle
Heterosexuality is based on bodily conception just as much as homosexuality.
men can love women without the carnal desire to enjoy the genitals...

so why not artifical insemination then?

Isn't the Kama Sutra about how sex can be a celebration of religious piety? If sex is made better/more enjoyable in humans by the grace of god, then who are we to deny that?

Sex (especally when love is involved) is the union of two souls as well as two bodies.

wa:do
 

Paraprakrti

Custom User
painted wolf said:
Heterosexuality is based on bodily conception just as much as homosexuality.
men can love women without the carnal desire to enjoy the genitals...

Yes, I stated this already.


painted wolf said:
so why not artifical insemination then?

Simply unnecessary. It is not about completely eradicating all sense-gratification. It is about controlling the senses. There will still be sense pleasure, but it won't be the primary focus of life.


painted wolf said:
Isn't the Kama Sutra about how sex can be a celebration of religious piety? If sex is made better/more enjoyable in humans by the grace of god, then who are we to deny that?

I have yet to see the authority of the Kama Sutra. All the Sastras (Scriptures) explain that one who is serious about spiritual life will ultimately give up their material attachments. Personally I have not read the Kama Sutra and I would fail to see it as an authority on spiritual matters if it promotes illicit sex life. But if you want to use it to justify lust, then I am sure I won't stop you. Material attachment leads to material attachment. Spiritual life means transcending material attachment. This is the major point of the Vedic philosophy.


painted wolf said:
Sex (especally when love is involved) is the union of two souls as well as two bodies.

This so-called "union of two souls" has no spiritual value. Spiritual life means understanding one's relationship with the Supreme Spirit. Unless that union is between the individual soul and God, it is meaningless.
Real love is in connection with God. So if this so-called love is ignoring God then it is, by definition, not real love. It should be understood that sexual intercourse is primarily for procreation; that is how God has apparently ordained it. When that focus is turned toward the propensity for sense-gratification it becomes only lust, not love.
 

Pah

Uber all member
It is only the abuse of the body that constitutes sin and sin is only applicable to those that accept the "fallen" nature of humankind through the actions of Adam and Eve. The dicotomy of sin and free will in being gifts from a Christian god sticks no resonanence in most of the worlds population.

Your god made an abundance of pleasing tastes in plants and animals for little other purpose than enjoyment and diversity. Nurishment and procreation are but part of your god's gifts. Water is sufficent for the body but Jesus made wine for a wedding feast - a celebratory drink. Sex is available beyond the periods of fertility both in age and in the month cycle of women (procreation is only possible about 25% of the time during the month and is generally not possible following menopause which in todays longevity nearly equals the period of fertility) It is obvious that sex and "clean" food are not restricted.

Do you draw your conclusions, Paraprakrti, from the writings of Paul? - or at least in large part? There are some views that Paul was obsessed with sex and therefore not a relaible source for "pastoral" teachings. In many of his statements, Paul expressly expressed Paul and not his god's word.
 

painted wolf

Grey Muzzle
This so-called "union of two souls" has no spiritual value. Spiritual life means understanding one's relationship with the Supreme Spirit. Unless that union is between the individual soul and God, it is meaningless.

hmm... perhaps not to your spirituality, but you can hardly speak for everyones spirituality. Many faiths celbrate the union of opposites inherant in sex.

for instance an orthodox Jewish rabbi can not become a true rabbi if he isn't married.
Its also an important part of many 'pagan' faiths.

the individual spirit is but one piece of the whole, its relationship with the rest of creation is just as important as its relaitonship with creator. Creation is a circle, and we are all bound together through the hoop of creation/life.

The Kama Sutra doesn't promote 'illicit' sex(whatever that is), it promotes making sex a part of spirituaity... and the how to best enjoy (for both partners) the act of sex.

wa:do
 

Paraprakrti

Custom User
pah said:
It is only the abuse of the body that constitutes sin and sin is only applicable to those that accept the "fallen" nature of humankind through the actions of Adam and Eve. The dicotomy of sin and free will in being gifts from a Christian god sticks no resonanence in most of the worlds population.

Not that I am specifically Christian, but are you implying that whatever resonates in the world's population is the fact of the matter?


pah said:
Your god made an abundance of pleasing tastes in plants and animals for little other purpose than enjoyment and diversity. Nurishment and procreation are but part of your god's gifts. Water is sufficent for the body but Jesus made wine for a wedding feast - a celebratory drink. Sex is available beyond the periods of fertility both in age and in the month cycle of women (procreation is only possible about 25% of the time during the month and is generally not possible following menopause which in todays longevity nearly equals the period of fertility) It is obvious that sex and "clean" food are not restricted.

Even according to the Bible is one required to marry before engaging in sex. It is obvious, therefore, that sex is meant to be restricted. I have already addressed these arguments about sex being available even when procreation isn't a factor.


pah said:
Do you draw your conclusions, Paraprakrti, from the writings of Paul? - or at least in large part? There are some views that Paul was obsessed with sex and therefore not a relaible source for "pastoral" teachings. In many of his statements, Paul expressly expressed Paul and not his god's word.

No, I am not specifically basing this philosophy from the Bible. But the restrictions are still there.
 

Paraprakrti

Custom User
painted wolf said:
This so-called "union of two souls" has no spiritual value. Spiritual life means understanding one's relationship with the Supreme Spirit. Unless that union is between the individual soul and God, it is meaningless.

hmm... perhaps not to your spirituality, but you can hardly speak for everyones spirituality. Many faiths celbrate the union of opposites inherant in sex.

The union of opposites is there even in what I follow, but it is not an absolute necessity. It's purpose is for controlling the sexual desire. This is not the goal of spiritual life. It may be a factor of it in early stages of development, but living in our relationship with God is the summum bonum of spiritual existence.


painted wolf said:
for instance an orthodox Jewish rabbi can not become a true rabbi if he isn't married.
Its also an important part of many 'pagan' faiths.

That is fine. Different statuses of life require different requisites. I am not saying that marriage is bad.


painted wolf said:
the individual spirit is but one piece of the whole, its relationship with the rest of creation is just as important as its relaitonship with creator. Creation is a circle, and we are all bound together through the hoop of creation/life.

On the contrary, spirit is not created, therefore the goal of spiritual life is not about establishing a relationship with created things. It is about each individual, infinitesimal soul rekindling the relationship they have with the Infinite Soul, God.
Allow me to make an analogy:
If a hand takes a morsel of food and keeps it under the illusion that it is owner of the food, it will suffer. If the hand learns to offer the food to the stomach through the mouth, then the whole body will benefit. Now, if the one hand decides to give the morsel to another hand, that also will not benefit anyone. So it is not merely the relationship between the two hands that is of significance. It is how the hands understand their relationship to the stomach. Similarly, our relationship with others is as good as suicide if we have no understanding of our relationship with God.


painted wolf said:
The Kama Sutra doesn't promote 'illicit' sex(whatever that is), it promotes making sex a part of spirituaity... and the how to best enjoy (for both partners) the act of sex.

Spirituality constitutes establishing a relationship between the part and the whole. It is because the part is currently indulged in relationships of the body that it has forgotten it's spiritual position.
 

Pah

Uber all member
Paraprakrti said:
pah said:
It is only the abuse of the body that constitutes sin and sin is only applicable to those that accept the "fallen" nature of humankind through the actions of Adam and Eve. The dicotomy of sin and free will in being gifts from a Christian god sticks no resonanence in most of the worlds population.

Not that I am specifically Christian, but are you implying that whatever resonates in the world's population is the fact of the matter?

No. I was explicit in addressing sin. Thank you for asking, but no thank you for the strawman.

pah said:
Your god made an abundance of pleasing tastes in plants and animals for little other purpose than enjoyment and diversity. Nurishment and procreation are but part of your god's gifts. Water is sufficent for the body but Jesus made wine for a wedding feast - a celebratory drink. Sex is available beyond the periods of fertility both in age and in the month cycle of women (procreation is only possible about 25% of the time during the month and is generally not possible following menopause which in todays longevity nearly equals the period of fertility) It is obvious that sex and "clean" food are not restricted.

Even according to the Bible is one required to marry before engaging in sex. It is obvious, therefore, that sex is meant to be restricted. I have already addressed these arguments about sex being available even when procreation isn't a factor.

In Biblical terms you are are correct that restriction is levied on sex. It is even true that extra-biblical societes restrict sex. But it is not ever restricted in amoral nature. There is no natural requirement to restrict sex but only a maleable social one. America's national policy is restricted only to consent.


pah said:
Do you draw your conclusions, Paraprakrti, from the writings of Paul? - or at least in large part? There are some views that Paul was obsessed with sex and therefore not a relaible source for "pastoral" teachings. In many of his statements, Paul expressly expressed Paul and not his god's word.

No, I am not specifically basing this philosophy from the Bible. But the restrictions are still there.

Restrictions for sex are morally based. What I see so far is a taboo from morality and not a philiosphical arguement. In assigning an academic area for restriction of sexual practise, sociology would be more apt.
 

Paraprakrti

Custom User
pah said:
Paraprakrti said:
pah said:
It is only the abuse of the body that constitutes sin and sin is only applicable to those that accept the "fallen" nature of humankind through the actions of Adam and Eve. The dicotomy of sin and free will in being gifts from a Christian god sticks no resonanence in most of the worlds population.

Not that I am specifically Christian, but are you implying that whatever resonates in the world's population is the fact of the matter?

No. I was explicit in addressing sin.

Oh, it just seemed you were explicit in saying that the fact of the matter is "only applicable to those that accept". I wasn't under the impression that this was a debate of whether or not such and such "resonates in most of the world's population". So, since you brought it up, I made sure to ask if this is what you were trying to imply. Because, of course, why else would you have stated the point of something resonating or not resonating amongst the majority?


pah said:
Thank you for asking, but no thank you for the strawman.

You're welcome.
The question ruled out the strawman.

pah said:
pah said:
Your god made an abundance of pleasing tastes in plants and animals for little other purpose than enjoyment and diversity. Nurishment and procreation are but part of your god's gifts. Water is sufficent for the body but Jesus made wine for a wedding feast - a celebratory drink. Sex is available beyond the periods of fertility both in age and in the month cycle of women (procreation is only possible about 25% of the time during the month and is generally not possible following menopause which in todays longevity nearly equals the period of fertility) It is obvious that sex and "clean" food are not restricted.

Even according to the Bible is one required to marry before engaging in sex. It is obvious, therefore, that sex is meant to be restricted. I have already addressed these arguments about sex being available even when procreation isn't a factor.

In Biblical terms you are are correct that restriction is levied on sex. It is even true that extra-biblical societes restrict sex. But it is not ever restricted in amoral nature. There is no natural requirement to restrict sex but only a maleable social one. America's national policy is restricted only to consent.

Amoral nature... you mean animal life?
A dog sniffs butts and a pig often ****s where it rests, but should we adopt these ways of living as well? I have always noted a distinct realization in human intellect set apart from instinctive animal desire.
There need not be a natural requirement to restrict sex, but human life begins with self-sontrol. The requirement comes when one understands that material attachment leads to suffering the fruits of one's work. This is beyond sexual consent or even sexual preference. Despite what these things may be, sexual restriction is necessary for spiritual realization.


pah said:
pah said:
Do you draw your conclusions, Paraprakrti, from the writings of Paul? - or at least in large part? There are some views that Paul was obsessed with sex and therefore not a relaible source for "pastoral" teachings. In many of his statements, Paul expressly expressed Paul and not his god's word.

No, I am not specifically basing this philosophy from the Bible. But the restrictions are still there.

Restrictions for sex are morally based. What I see so far is a taboo from morality and not a philiosphical arguement. In assigning an academic area for restriction of sexual practise, sociology would be more apt.

Societal restrictions for sex may be merely morally based, but the philosophy behind it is more compelling for those who have ever suffered due to their uncontrolled desire to enjoy sense-pleasures. Even if you do not accept the spiritual resolution this philosophy holds of liberation from the material world, you should be able to understand the necessity of such restrictions on a more relative level, ie: unwanted population, (which often leads to irresponsible abortions), std's, etc.
In assigning an academic area to this topic, philosophy is just as apt, if not more than sociology. It is just that society in general is not aware of this philosophy. One could say that it does not resonate amongst most of the world's population.
 

Pah

Uber all member
Paraprakrti said:
pah said:
Paraprakrti said:
pah said:
It is only the abuse of the body that constitutes sin and sin is only applicable to those that accept the "fallen" nature of humankind through the actions of Adam and Eve. The dicotomy of sin and free will in being gifts from a Christian god sticks no resonanence in most of the worlds population.

Not that I am specifically Christian, but are you implying that whatever resonates in the world's population is the fact of the matter?

No. I was explicit in addressing sin.

Oh, it just seemed you were explicit in saying that the fact of the matter is "only applicable to those that accept". I wasn't under the impression that this was a debate of whether or not such and such "resonates in most of the world's population". So, since you brought it up, I made sure to ask if this is what you were trying to imply. Because, of course, why else would you have stated the point of something resonating or not resonating amongst the majority?

“Sin applies to those who accept sin” is the meaning of the complete quote.


pah said:
Thank you for asking, but no thank you for the strawman.

You're welcome.
The question ruled out the strawman.

A strawman is expressed as statement or question to the purpose of deflecting the topic.

pah said:
pah said:
Your god made an abundance of pleasing tastes in plants and animals for little other purpose than enjoyment and diversity. Nurishment and procreation are but part of your god's gifts. Water is sufficent for the body but Jesus made wine for a wedding feast - a celebratory drink. Sex is available beyond the periods of fertility both in age and in the month cycle of women (procreation is only possible about 25% of the time during the month and is generally not possible following menopause which in todays longevity nearly equals the period of fertility) It is obvious that sex and "clean" food are not restricted.

Even according to the Bible is one required to marry before engaging in sex. It is obvious, therefore, that sex is meant to be restricted. I have already addressed these arguments about sex being available even when procreation isn't a factor.

In Biblical terms you are are correct that restriction is levied on sex. It is even true that extra-biblical societes restrict sex. But it is not ever restricted in amoral nature. There is no natural requirement to restrict sex but only a maleable social one. America's national policy is restricted only to consent.

Amoral nature... you mean animal life?
A dog sniffs butts and a pig often ****s where it rests, but should we adopt these ways of living as well? I have always noted a distinct realization in human intellect set apart from instinctive animal desire.

There need not be a natural requirement to restrict sex, but human life begins with self-sontrol. The requirement comes when one understands that material attachment leads to suffering the fruits of one's work. This is beyond sexual consent or even sexual preference. Despite what these things may be, sexual restriction is necessary for spiritual realization.

A dog licks its genitals as part of hygiene and it sniffs hands and butts as a means of identification and discerning intent. A infant defecates everywhere until controlled by diapers and potty training. Would you say that, in the case of the baby, it is a moral inherence?

Adoption of natural characteristic of other species is the wrong term in the sense of naturally occurring behaviors. Adaptation is better. We, as humans, already have the “set” considered immoral by some and amoral in nature - no need for biological adoption or adaption. What you seem to refer to is the moral prohibition which is variant among societies.

What humankind has is not a distinction from primate (and other species) intelligence but a differing degree. It is quantitative not qualitative. Many animal societies, in fact, exhibit a form of morality.

It is obvious from the example of the defecating child, that human life begins with little control (walking, talking, emotional expression, etc). Behavioral “self-control” is imposed in accordance with social custom. If innate self-control is the premise of your later statements, they fail. Spiritual realization is possible (if you believe in spirit) whenever attention is turned to it. The ascetic is not the only one able to reach a spiritual transcendence.


Societal restrictions for sex may be merely morally based, but the philosophy behind it is more compelling for those who have ever suffered due to their uncontrolled desire to enjoy sense-pleasures. Even if you do not accept the spiritual resolution this philosophy holds of liberation from the material world, you should be able to understand the necessity of such restrictions on a more relative level, ie: unwanted population, (which often leads to irresponsible abortions), std's, etc.

Philosophy is a “plaything” for the mind. There are as many philosophies as there are philosophers. I have never heard of a philosopher “A” who stated philosopher “B” is right without then proposing exceptions or “amplification” and they frequently start out in direct opposition to a previously stated philosophy. Whatever “truth” is derived from philosophy is certainly relativistic.

In assigning an academic area to this topic, philosophy is just as apt, if not more than sociology. It is just that society in general is not aware of this philosophy. One could say that it does not resonate amongst most of the world's population.

Being that philosophy is ethereal, most anything that considers facts from observation and is testable or able to be confirmed is better

Philosophy is discordant and creates a strident “harmony” and is no wonder not resonant in the world.
 

Mal

New Member
I hope that most would agree that causing harm to others is a bad thing. If someone hurts another living being for their own selfish reason then we usually look down on this. Racism is one of those things that is a bad thing because of the harm it causes.

Homosexuals will often compare racism to the lack of support they have in the community but there is a difference between the color of our skin and our activities. Homosexual activities causes harm to others, the back passage is a one way street and there are many health problems caused by trying to go the other way. If they really new what love is they would not harm each other by engaging in their activities.

We should love all living beings but we do not have to love their activities. We love our children but we do not let them do whatever they feel like doing if we think they will hurt themselves. Of course if you don't let children do something they may think that you do not love them. Homosexuals are like children that do not like being told to stop doing what they are doing.
 

Pah

Uber all member
Mal said:
...

Homosexuals will often compare racism to the lack of support they have in the community but there is a difference between the color of our skin and our activities. Homosexual activities causes harm to others, the back passage is a one way street and there are many health problems caused by trying to go the other way. If they really new what love is they would not harm each other by engaging in their activities.

....

I wonder if you would be so kind as to point a site where this information is.

I seem to remeber that my colonoscopy caused me no harm
 

Paraprakrti

Custom User
pah said:
“Sin applies to those who accept sin” is the meaning of the complete quote.

But if sin is an incurring fact then it is not applicable to merely those who accept it, just as 2 + 2 = 4 to everyone, not just those who accept that it does.


pah said:
A strawman is expressed as statement or question to the purpose of deflecting the topic.

This is assuming my question's purpose was to deflect the topic. Actually, I asked it because I was unsure of the topic you were trying to present.


pah said:
A dog licks its genitals as part of hygiene and it sniffs hands and butts as a means of identification and discerning intent. A infant defecates everywhere until controlled by diapers and potty training. Would you say that, in the case of the baby, it is a moral inherence?

The important thing to understand is that the stage of "baby" is not inherent. Also, the baby's tendency to defecate everywhere is directly proportional to it's self-realization.


pah said:
Adoption of natural characteristic of other species is the wrong term in the sense of naturally occurring behaviors. Adaptation is better. We, as humans, already have the “set” considered immoral by some and amoral in nature - no need for biological adoption or adaption. What you seem to refer to is the moral prohibition which is variant among societies.

I am not denying that animalistic desires dwell even in humans. But that it is that higher realization that sets humans apart from creatures that act simply for eating, sleeping, defending and mating.


pah said:
What humankind has is not a distinction from primate (and other species) intelligence but a differing degree. It is quantitative not qualitative. Many animal societies, in fact, exhibit a form of morality.

That is fine. I am not disagreeing with you.


pah said:
It is obvious from the example of the defecating child, that human life begins with little control (walking, talking, emotional expression, etc). Behavioral “self-control” is imposed in accordance with social custom. If innate self-control is the premise of your later statements, they fail. Spiritual realization is possible (if you believe in spirit) whenever attention is turned to it. The ascetic is not the only one able to reach a spiritual transcendence.

When I say human life starts with self-control, I am speaking ideally. I understand that infants start with little control, that is not my point. My point is that as humans we have a higher level of self-realization and self-control is a factor that should not be ignored.
Self-control may be imposed in accordance to social custom, but there is a philosophy inherently supporting it as well.
Asceticism means self-control. Yes, that is very necessary for spiritual transcendence. Material attachments are a hindrance toward spiritual development.


pah said:
Philosophy is a “plaything” for the mind. There are as many philosophies as there are philosophers. I have never heard of a philosopher “A” who stated philosopher “B” is right without then proposing exceptions or “amplification” and they frequently start out in direct opposition to a previously stated philosophy. Whatever “truth” is derived from philosophy is certainly relativistic.

Well, first of all, I get this philosophy from the Vedas, which I accept to be final authority. Therefore, I would not count this amongst these speculative philosophies you are referring to.
Secondly, I have yet to see any proposed exception to this philosophy that has not been defeated. Of course this is all will seem as conjecture on our parts until we put our points into practice.

pah said:
Being that philosophy is ethereal, most anything that considers facts from observation and is testable or able to be confirmed is better

It is all imperfect speculation derived of imperfect sense perception.


pah said:
Philosophy is discordant and creates a strident “harmony” and is no wonder not resonant in the world.

Because most of it is imperfect speculation.
 

Pah

Uber all member
Paraprakrti,

The mention of the Vedas expalins a lot. We are talking at cross purposes because, I think, we are of different mindsets. I don't think you and I will ever agree especially when the words we use are particular to our separate cultural worldview.

I leave you to talk with Runt - she seems to have some insight that I do not comprehend. Good luck!
 

Mal

New Member
Pah,

You wrote "I wonder if you would be so kind as to point a site where this information is. "

here is one link for you http://www.rethinking.org/aids/cite/topic_120.html
also type in "Gay bowel syndrome" in your search engine and do your own research.

Below is a list from the link above of things that anal sex can give you.
"Anal Intercouse, Active: Nongonococcol urethritis, Escherichia coli, Gonorrhea, Hepatitis A, B, non-A/ non-B, Herpes, Warts -molluscum and condyloma, Syphilis, Trichomoniasis, Epididymitis/prostatitis, Fungal infections, Lymphogranuloma venereum, Granuloma inguinale, Chancroid, Cytomegalovirus. Anal Intercouse, Passive: Physical protitis, Rectal gonorrhea, Warts -condyloma and molluscum (rare), Nonspecific proctitis (Chlamidia and others), Herpes, Syphilis, Hepatitis B, Trichomoniasis, Corynebacterium, Lymphogranuloma venereum, Granuloma inguinale, Chancroid, Cytomegalovirus, Candidiasis. Analinction (dung-eating, "rimming"): Enteric diseases: Gay bowel syndrome (explained below) PLUS Escherichia coli and Helminthic parasites, Oral warts, Oral gonorrhea, Syphilis, Lymphogranuloma venereum, Granuloma inguinale, Chancroid."
 

Pah

Uber all member
Mal said:
here is one link for you http://www.rethinking.org/aids/cite/topic_120.html
also type in "Gay bowel syndrome" in your search engine and do your own research.

The first site given in this search yeilded the following:
This term refers to a collection of sexually transmitted enteric infections in HIV infected homosexuals.
Gay Bowel Syndrome


Mal said:
Below is a list from the link above of things that anal sex can give you.
"Anal Intercouse, Active: Nongonococcol urethritis, Escherichia coli, Gonorrhea, Hepatitis A, B, non-A/ non-B, Herpes, Warts -molluscum and condyloma, Syphilis, Trichomoniasis, Epididymitis/prostatitis, Fungal infections, Lymphogranuloma venereum, Granuloma inguinale, Chancroid, Cytomegalovirus. Anal Intercouse, Passive: Physical protitis, Rectal gonorrhea, Warts -condyloma and molluscum (rare), Nonspecific proctitis (Chlamidia and others), Herpes, Syphilis, Hepatitis B, Trichomoniasis, Corynebacterium, Lymphogranuloma venereum, Granuloma inguinale, Chancroid, Cytomegalovirus, Candidiasis. Analinction (dung-eating, "rimming"): Enteric diseases: Gay bowel syndrome (explained below) PLUS Escherichia coli and Helminthic parasites, Oral warts, Oral gonorrhea, Syphilis, Lymphogranuloma venereum, Granuloma inguinale, Chancroid."

This list you quote is derived from a study by Ostrow, Sandholzer, and Felman, entitled Sexually transmitted diseases in homosexual men : diagnosis, treatment, and research. This laundry list is specific to site of transmission but readily occurs in heterosexual intercourse in those sites with the addition of the vagina. Of the ones I recognize, the transmission can be controlled overwhelmingly with the use of condoms (exceptions are rare).

Perhaps, from the list, you can tell us, without including the diseases associated with HIV or AIDS, what is specific to anal intercourse?

You realize, of course, that there are other avenues for transmission of HIV. In fact, heterosexual sex, by itself, is responsible, world-wide, for more HIV and AIDS than homosexual sex. Add to that in vetro transmission, contaminated needles and inter-species transmission.

Mal said:
...Homosexual activities causes harm to others, the back passage is a one way street and there are many health problems caused by trying to go the other way. If they really new what love is they would not harm each other by engaging in their activities...

You have not shown that the anal cavity is a "one way street" nor have you included lesbianism is demonstration of "harm". The repeating of uncritical information in your list is a bit disenguous in discussion.
 

Mal

New Member
Pah,

Public health records demonstrate that homosexuals, representing 2 percent of America's population, suffer vastly disproportionate percentages of several of America's most serious STDs, with incidences among homosexuals of diseases like gonorrhea, syphilis, hepatitis A and B, cytomegalovirus, shigellosis, giardiasis, amoebic bowel disease and herpes far exceeding their presence in the general population. These are due to common homosexual practices that include fellatio, anilingus, digital stimulation of the rectum and ingestion of urine and feces.

An exhaustive study in The New England Journal of Medicine, medical literature's only study reporting on homosexuals who kept sexual "diaries," indicated the average homosexual ingests the fecal material of 23 different men each year. The same study indicated the number of annual sexual partners averaged nearly 100. Homosexuals averaged, per year, fellating 106 different men and swallowing 50 of their seminal ejaculations, and 72 penile penetrations of the anus. (Corey, L, and Holmes, K.K., "Sexual Transmission of Hepatitis A in Homosexual Men," New England Journal of Medicine, 1980, vol 302: 435-438; as quoted in "Homosexuality and Civil Rights," Tony Marco, 1992).

A study by McKusick, et al., of 655 San Francisco homosexuals reported that only 24 percent of the sample claimed to have been "monogamous" during the past year, and of this 24 percent, 5 percent drank urine, 7 percent engag-ed in sex involving insertion of a fist in their rectums, 33 percent ingested feces, 53 percent swallowed semen and 59 percent received semen in their rectums in the month just previous to the survey ("AIDS and Sexual Behavior Reported by Homosexual Men in San Francisco," American Journal of Public Health, December 1985, 75: 493-496; quoted in "Homosexuality and Civil Rights," Tony Marco, 1992).

Lesbians show similar patterns of high venereal disease incidence relative to the general population. They are 19 times more likely to have had syphilis, twice as likely to have had genital warts, four times as likely to have had scabies, seven times more likely to have had infection from vaginal contact, 29 times more likely to have had oral infection from vaginal contact and 12 times more likely to have had an oral infection from penile contact ("Medical Aspects of Homosexuality," Institute for the Scientific Investigation of Sexuality, 1985, Jaffe and Keewhan, et al.; quoted in "Homosexuality and Civil Rights," Tony Marco, 1992).

AIDS research by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control reported that the typical homosexual interviewed claimed to have had more than 500 different sexual partners in a lifetime. Considered by themselves, the AIDS victims in this study averaged more than 1,100 lifetime sexual partners. Some reported as many as 20,000. Studies reported by A-P. Bell, M.S. Weinberg and S.K. Hammersmith in the book "Sexual Preference" (Bloomington, Indiana University Press, 1981) indicated that only 3 percent of homosexuals had fewer than 10 lifetime sexual partners. Only about 2 percent could be classified as either monogamous or semi-monogamous (from "Homosexuality and Civil Rights," Tony Marco, 1992).

To the present time, 75 to 85 percent of AIDS cases reported are related to homosexual activity, promiscuous heterosexual sex and IV drug abuse. AIDS stubbornly refuses to spread into the population in general, even 20 years after its discovery, despite dire warnings to the contrary.

Here are some more facts for you if you made it this far--did you ever stop and think about the species that are attracted to faces like flies, maggots, pigs and homosexuals.
 

Pah

Uber all member
Mal,

The bulk of what you "wrote" was plagarized from an article by Brian J. Kopp, DPM - that is stealing intellectual property.

The article appears here

Kopp's primary source, a single article by Tony Marco in 1992 (that alone is suspicious - only one article and it seems with Kopp's medical credentials, Kopp would have had ready access to the medical journals and not used them as a secondary source) It appears unavailable on the internet but is referenced in Kopp and one other site

Kopp reports an exhaustive study by L Corey and KK Holmes but the actual study comprisesd 159 men of which 102 were homosexual . Diaries were kept by the homosexual participants - none, inferred from the abstract, were kept by the heterosexual participants. The purpose of the dairy was to document the incidence of homosexuality with the acqusition of hepititus Unless Marco had access to the diaries, he would not know the incidence of ancilliary practices

As a general discussion for what was just said and what follows, "scat" (feces as a sexual tool) and "golden showers" (urine as a sexual tool) is placed in the category of sadomasochism and sub-category of domination, and finally, humiliation. It is quite particular to S&M. Scat overwhelmingly involves the observation of defecation and the smearing of the feces - not ingestion. Golden showers is urination on the submissive and sometimes involes the face and mouth as a "target" - there would sometimes be ingestion in this practice. "Fisting" also includes large cylindrical objects other than the fist. But none of this is typical in homosexuality per se let alone in the numbers given in the article. It would correrspond to the frequency of heterosexual practice at any rate.

Ejaculation in the mouth and anus is fairly common for oral and anal sex for both heterosexual and male homosexual practice. Ingestion of semen is a sometimes yes, sometimes no proposition in oral sex. It is not a contribution to health effects and is more likely an appeal emotionaly to the "distatse" of "non-adventurious" participants.

The abstract for AIDS and sexual behavior reported by gay men in San Francisco
http://www.ajph.org/cgi/content/abstract/75/5/493
In November 1983, we surveyed 655 gay men in San Francisco regarding their sexual practices during the previous month and the same month one year ago. The sample was selected to include men in situations that would lead to high risk of sexual activities related to AIDS (acquired immune deficiency syndrome) transmission (i.e., men frequenting bathhouses and gay bars) as well as men in low-risk situations (those going to neither place and men in primary relationships). The Bath group showed little change in frequency of bathhouse use and in number of sexual partners from that location. The other groups showed substantial reductions in frequency of sexual contacts from bars, baths, T-rooms, or parks. Men in monogamous relationships showed little change in sexual behavior within their relationship. Men in non-monogamous relationships and men not in relationships reported substantial reductions in high-risk sexual activity, but not a corresponding increase in low-risk sexual behavior. Knowledge of health guidelines was quite high, but this knowledge had no relation to sexual behavior. Using sex to release tension, use of sex to express gay identity, and knowledge of persons with AIDS in the advanced stages of disease were related to frequency and type of sexual behavior.

There is no indication in the study of ancillary sexual practices by homosexuals. It focuses on the danger of AIDS from the places where it may be acquired.

I'm tired and the rest will have to wait but probably not necessary for the reader.

Mal said:
Here are some more facts for you if you made it this far--did you ever stop and think about the species that are attracted to faces like flies, maggots, pigs and homosexuals.

Please don't forget human infants and the dung beetle in your list and you really should remove homosexuals as it is not a homosexual practice any more than heterosexual.
 
Top