Homophobia

[metis]

Anal sexual intercourse is always unhealthy — that's the difference.

Thus, if you go to a gay bar, let me recommend that you not ask someone to push in your stool.

 

[Pawpatrol]

The point was simply that it's not "unnatural"

It is unnatural. My response was not meant to show agreement to it supposedly being natural, but to point out the fallacy in claiming something is natural to man just because some animal did it. That's false because we don't consider it natural to eat the corpses of humans, for example, and because with that logic we might as well say it's natural because human beings have done it. Then we might go on to say it's natural for a mother (human) to leave her baby alone to die of hunger and thirst because that's been done many times. The examples are innumerable.

 

[Pawpatrol]

I'm supporting the freedom of consenting adults to make love in the privacy of their own bedrooms and calling that reason.

You just put sodomy and love in one sentence.

But your objections are unfounded and thus dismissed.

That's a weird thing to say. Are you lying or just ignorant?

"Women in the UK are suffering injuries and other health problems as a result of the growing popularity of anal sex among straight couples, two NHS surgeons have warned.

The consequences include incontinence and sexually transmitted infections (STIs) as well as pain and bleeding because they have experienced bodily trauma while engaging in the practice, the doctors write in an article in the British Medical Journal.

Tabitha Gana and Lesley Hunt also argued that doctors’ reluctance to discuss the risks associated with anal sex was leading to women being harmed by the practice and letting down a generation of women who are not aware of the potential problems.

In the journal, they said “anal intercourse is considered a risky sexual behaviour because of its association with alcohol, drug use and multiple sex partners”."

Rise in popularity of anal sex has led to health problems for women

Incontinence, bleeding and STIs among the consequences, say two surgeons, who want doctors to have open chats with patients on the topic

www.theguardian.com

 

[Pawpatrol]

You originally argued that homosexuality is unnatural, so the counters to that argument are valid insofar as "being natural" is a positive thing which you seemed to originally infer and not the actual state of being. (What can actually be unnatural?)

So you are changing the intent of your argument, "moving the goalposts" as it were, making "natural" have a different connotation from your original argument.

Natural is something that is according to the nature of a thing or suitable for it.

Unnatural is something that is contrary to the nature of a thing or unsuitable for it.

For example, it is not natural for tigers to live in cages.

But some tigers do live in cages. It is not suitable for their nature, however, and they can't thrive in a cage.

 

[Pawpatrol]

Why should someone like me even consider someone who's "righteous"? It would have no benefit but cause needless stress to both.

You consider people's righteousness all the time. I don't know what stress you're talking about.

multiple times you have made vague claims about harmful effects and you have been asked many many times to state these effects but you consistently refuse to do so.

The harmful effects are well known and easily accessible through the internet which is why I haven't put great effort in posting them — if until now you don't know then you just don't care. Still, I did post some of them in one post and almost all of you ignored that entirely and continued to act as if I hadn't. Only one poster replied to that post and they merely link me an article on the "benefits" rather than addressing the harmful effects.

All I ask at this point is a little bit of integrity from you people.

Here:

Rise in popularity of anal sex has led to health problems for women

Incontinence, bleeding and STIs among the consequences, say two surgeons, who want doctors to have open chats with patients on the topic

www.theguardian.com

"Women in the UK are suffering injuries and other health problems as a result of the growing popularity of anal sex among straight couples, two NHS surgeons have warned.

The consequences include incontinence and sexually transmitted infections (STIs) as well as pain and bleeding because they have experienced bodily trauma while engaging in the practice, the doctors write in an article in the British Medical Journal.

Tabitha Gana and Lesley Hunt also argued that doctors’ reluctance to discuss the risks associated with anal sex was leading to women being harmed by the practice and letting down a generation of women who are not aware of the potential problems.

In the journal, they said “anal intercourse is considered a risky sexual behaviour because of its association with alcohol, drug use and multiple sex partners”."

 

[Subduction Zone]

Natural is something that is according to the nature of a thing or suitable for it.

Unnatural is something that is contrary to the nature of a thing or unsuitable for it.

For example, it is not natural for tigers to live in cages.

But some tigers do live in cages. It is not suitable for their nature, however, and they can't thrive in a cage.

Funny, then why is the male "g-spot" accessed most efficiently by anal sex?

All contact between other human beings includes some risk. Which is why certain precautions are used at all levels. Anal sex merely requires more precautions. Some people are into it, some people are not. And I have even heard that not all gay people are into anal sex. By the way, oral sex appears to be safer than vaginal sex. I do not hear you championing fellatio and cunnilingus here.

Hmm, interesting. I did not know that the numbers were this low. A US study shows that only a third of gay men engage in anal sex in either giving or receiving. Now when it comes to couples the figures will be higher since some only receive and some only give so theoretically for couples it could be as high as twice that.

Mythbusting: What Gay Men Really Do In Bed - Good

A study hopes to propose a more nuanced picture of what gay men actually do in bed.

www.good.is

EDIT: On the other extreme if all gay men did both then only a third of gay men would practice anal sex.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Natural is something that is according to the nature of a thing or suitable for it.

Unnatural is something that is contrary to the nature of a thing or unsuitable for it.

For example, it is not natural for tigers to live in cages.

But some tigers do live in cages. It is not suitable for their nature, however, and they can't thrive in a cage.

Humans naturally manipulate their environment, so are atomic bombs natural?

Homosexuality refers to humans developing romantic relationships with other humans. Is that natural?

 

[Father Heathen]

It is unnatural. My response was not meant to show agreement to it supposedly being natural, but to point out the fallacy in claiming something is natural to man just because some animal did it. That's false because we don't consider it natural to eat the corpses of humans, for example, and because with that logic we might as well say it's natural because human beings have done it. Then we might go on to say it's natural for a mother (human) to leave her baby alone to die of hunger and thirst because that's been done many times. The examples are innumerable.

But upon what do you base that presumption? The words of ancient primitives who also thought people should be stoned to death for eating shrimp, wearing mixed cloths, or rotating crops?

 

[Father Heathen]

You just put sodomy and love in one sentence.

Yep. In fact, a lot of married heterosexual couples partake in oral and anal sex.

That's a weird thing to say. Are you lying or just ignorant?

Neither. I impart wisdom upon you. Lift your arms up and shout "Halleluiah!" as you soak it in.

"Women in the UK are suffering injuries and other health problems as a result of the growing popularity of anal sex among straight couples, two NHS surgeons have warned.

The consequences include incontinence and sexually transmitted infections (STIs) as well as pain and bleeding because they have experienced bodily trauma while engaging in the practice, the doctors write in an article in the British Medical Journal.

Tabitha Gana and Lesley Hunt also argued that doctors’ reluctance to discuss the risks associated with anal sex was leading to women being harmed by the practice and letting down a generation of women who are not aware of the potential problems.

In the journal, they said “anal intercourse is considered a risky sexual behaviour because of its association with alcohol, drug use and multiple sex partners”."

Rise in popularity of anal sex has led to health problems for women

Incontinence, bleeding and STIs among the consequences, say two surgeons, who want doctors to have open chats with patients on the topic

www.theguardian.com

Vaginal injuries also occur for the same reasons; inadequate lubrication, excessive roughness, size disparity, inadequate preparation, etc.. This is why education and communication are key.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

You just put sodomy and love in one sentence.

What of it?

You consider people's righteousness all the time.

No, I have not considered such a thing in decades.

 

[Pawpatrol]

Many heterosexuals engage in anal intercourse about 1 week in 4 as a contraceptive method. No joke.

Particularly those sects and faiths that have a downer on unnatural contraception methods.

"Many" in a world of 8 billion is meaningless. Try bringing some facts to the table.

And you're contradicting yourself in this response. I've made no distinction between natural parent and step-parent. Your words "especially if her children are small because they do need both a father and a mother."

Kids needing a mother and a father does not make it obligatory for a woman to remarry if she's left a widow. I don't know why you insist I said something I didn't say.

Nevertheless, these people's happiness or pursuit thereof is simply none of your or my business.

So you give up all responsibility for the well-being of your society — got it.

You're a zealous Abrahamist, and you believe that you god wants these people married and having children regardless of how that makes them feel or impacts their lives.

Why would I think God specifically wanted disbelievers having kids? Make it make sense. If they don't believe in God it doesn't matter what they do from that perspective.

It's a statistical fact that unmarried men are actually the most burdensome on the society compared to unmarried women or married men and women.

Humanists don't do that. I haven't told you how you should live.

Because you don't care. Hate isn't the opposite of love — indifference is.

Others aren't really interested in what you consider clean

Then why is everyone so upset when I state what I consider clean?

It's clear what your values actually are, and they're not the ones you claim. You talk about contraception, but if you cared about that, you'd accept sodomy as a form of that, as is oral sex and masturbation. But you likely disapprove of all of that, and I imagine you don't like birth control pills much. What you want is for people to conform to an arbitrary and ancient religious code that YOU chose for yourself and would like to choose for others: Sex is between a married man and a woman, should be limited to vaginal intercourse, and probably never for pleasure.

You don't understand much about my views.

 

[McBell]

It's a statistical fact that unmarried men are actually the most burdensome on the society compared to unmarried women or married men and women.

Source?

 

[ChristineM]

"Many" in a world of 8 billion is meaningless. Try bringing some facts to the table.

After you.
You made an unsubstantiated claim, i followed suite

 

[We Never Know]

Many heterosexuals engage in anal intercourse about 1 week in 4 as a contraceptive method. No joke.

Particularly those sects and faiths that have a downer on unnatural contraception methods.

To each their own own but I'm not one to go playing in the poop hole.

 

[ChristineM]

To each their own own but I'm not one to go playing in the poop hole.

Your choice

 

[We Never Know]

Your choice

Yep. To each their own.

 

[Argentbear]

The harmful effects are well known and easily accessible through the internet which is why I haven't put great effort in posting them — if until now you don't know then you just don't care.

WHat you find on the internet on the topic of the supposedly harmful effects of homosexuality are the postings of hate groups

 

[Argentbear]

Kids needing a mother and a father does not make it obligatory for a woman to remarry if she's left a widow. I don't know why you insist I said something I didn't say.

Kids need loving and accepting parent it doesn't matter what gender that parent is

So you give up all responsibility for the well-being of your society — got it.

How does homophobia contribute to the well being of society?

It's a statistical fact that unmarried men are actually the most burdensome on the society compared to unmarried women or married men and women.

Because you don't care. Hate isn't the opposite of love — indifference is.

Hate is always active

Then why is everyone so upset when I state what I consider clean?

because what you say is based on hate.

You don't understand much about my views.

your views are very clear

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

So you give up all responsibility for the well-being of your society — got it.

Au contraire. It is in service to the well-being of society that I advocate for humanist values including tolerance, freedom to pursue happiness as one understands that withing the confines of the law, human development (education), human opportunity, discarding bigotries, and dignity for all.

Why would I think God specifically wanted disbelievers having kids?

I wrote, "You're a zealous Abrahamist, and you believe that you god wants these people married and having children regardless of how that makes them feel or impacts their lives."

I don't know. Probably for the same reason that you think a god cares who has sex with whom and under what conditions. Probably for the same reason that Muslims and Christians oppose abortion even in unbelievers.

It's a statistical fact that unmarried men are actually the most burdensome on the society

I don't know what you mean by burdensome, but I don't see why you want to make that point. They're living their lives as they choose, or at least within the constraints circumstances impose on them.

Because you don't care.

I wrote, "Humanists don't do that. I haven't told you how you should live."

Correct. As long as you don't break the law, how you choose to live is your business, not mine. That's works in reverse as well. You seem to think that the choices that others make are your business even though you are powerless to influence them, at least in the States and other Western democracies whose governments can remain secular.

Hate isn't the opposite of love — indifference is.

Indifference to trying to control your life is a loving choice. I wish you were more indifferent to how people choose to live.

Then why is everyone so upset when I state what I consider clean?

I don't recall anybody but me commenting on that, nor do I know just what you meant by clean here, but I'm assuming that you mean sex that doesn't conform to your standards for acceptable sex. Or maybe you just mean anal intercourse or homosexual sex. Here's what's transpired so far:

You: Ever heard of cOnTrACePtIoN

Me: I thought that you didn't approve of non-vaginal intercourse? It's more effective contraception than either condoms, birth control pills, or abstinence only advice. Just ask Sarah Palin and her daughter.

You: I don't see the need for any contraception for the majority of the married people, and as for those who aren't married, they should keep themselves clean.

Me: There you go again giving unsolicited judgment and advice. Others aren't really interested in what you consider clean. Your values come out of a book.

You don't understand much about my views.

That followed this: "It's clear what your values actually are, and they're not the ones you claim. You talk about contraception, but if you cared about that, you'd accept sodomy as a form of that, as is oral sex and masturbation. But you likely disapprove of all of that, and I imagine you don't like birth control pills much. What you want is for people to conform to an arbitrary and ancient religious code that YOU chose for yourself and would like to choose for others: Sex is between a married man and a woman, should be limited to vaginal intercourse, and probably never for pleasure."

I understand what you tell me. I also extrapolate to the views of other zealous Abrahamists, who are a fairly homogeneous lot. If you have any opinions atypical for your demographic, I'll know that when you express them.

I notice that you didn't actually contradict any of that, meaning that if any of it is incorrect, you made no effort to be understood. I have no reason to change my opinion because you gave no reason to do that.

Nor do I want you to stop posting your views. I come to RF (among other things) to read such opinions and comment on them. You probably see your effort as promoting your values, but I see it as promoting mine when I add them to my responses to yours.

I'm an antitheist, by which I mean not in opposition to theists, but to certain brands of theism, namely, those with theocratic proclivities which also teach people to be bigots, disesteem reason and science, vote for theocratic candidates, and see faith as a virtue - institution that churn out large numbers of people like that and distribute them through our neighborhoods, which degrades free societies in the view of others trying to promote the opposite.

Toward that end, I find it helpful to post comments like these, which showcase the differences between your tradition and mine. It's helpful that you called my tolerance indifference and distinct from love. Let people see the difference between our understandings of what love is. Under what other circumstances could I do that? I'm not going to start a thread on why I believe humanism to be a superior worldview to that of the zealous Abrahamist. Instead, I wait for opportunities like this to try to do that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

"Many" in a world of 8 billion is meaningless. Try bringing some facts to the table.

The reported results are going to vary a lot depending upon countries. One think that you can be sure of is that even in a private survey in countries where it is banned it will be underreported. But since you are probably American and there are no laws about it here you can expect people to be fairly honest when it comes to this question:

Prevalence and Correlates of Heterosexual Anal Intercourse among Men and Women, 20 U.S. Cities

Heterosexual anal intercourse (HAI) is not an uncommon behavior and it confers a higher risk of HIV transmission than vaginal intercourse. We examined data from heterosexuals recruited in 20 US cities for the 2013 National HIV Behavioral Surveillance ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

In the US 36% of women have done it and 44% of men have done it. That is a pretty substantial percentage.