Which websites shouldn't be on the net?

[Az]

wow, Diss, That wasn't graphical at all.

[Ben Kenobi]

"Why is homosexual sex too dangerous when heterosexual sex isnt?"
-Lorizael

I guess the real question here is what standard am I using? What is the measuring rod that both orientations have to measure up to?

My first criticism of homosexuality was promiscuity, which is my no means limited to homosexuality.

The first question then becomes, what is the safest form of sexual behavior?

The answer for this seems to be no sex before marriage, and then lifelong fidelity afterwards.

If both people meet this standard than there is no danger from STDs. There is much less psychological harm from breakups, divorce, etc. Everything else falls short of this.

Also, this arrangement seems best to raise children in a stable home. Most couples are happy and well-adjusted. It's not just about the danger, but also about the benefits to the couple and to society.

I have not seen any arguments as to the benefits of homosexuality other than as a relief of sexual tensions.

[Mercator]

Originally posted by obiwan18
I have not seen any arguments as to the benefits of homosexuality other than as a relief of sexual tensions.

Erm... How about the happiness of the two persons involved?

Or do you see everything in the light of "the greater good" and much rather see them unhappy in a heterosexual relationship?

If two persons are happy together and in love, who are you to decide they should go do something else?

[Lorizael]

But moderating people's behavior, especially when it concerns sex, is an extremely difficult thing to do. Unless you create detachable sexual organs, people will engage in sexual activity.

I'd rather just see advances in medical technology so that sexually transmitted diseases can be prevented and cured. This way regulating the actions of humans that aren't you doesn't have to happen.

Also, fidelity does not matter in the least bit. All that matters is that everyone involved in sexual actions is totally honest. If this can be achieved, which is probably just as unlikely as enforcing total abstinence, then sexually transmitted diseases will not spread.

One step towards that goal, however, is to teach sex in a more open way at an earlier age. If this can be done, the stigma around sex can be eliminated and people will be a lot more comfortable in sexual relationships.

Right now sex is a secretive and sinful thing that children must avoid, and even health class does not do much to get rid of this idea. IMO, sex should be discussed just as freely as any other subject, and as much should be learned about it as possible, considering that it is so important an activity.

I do certainly agree that children should grow up in a stable home, which is why protection and birth control need to be advocated. I'm on the edge of requiring a liscense for childbirth, still not sure if I want that or not (my random political thoughts, don't mind this (and yes, I know it's contradictory to what I said earlier in the post, but I have my reasons, and I'm not sure about it anyway so bla bla bla)), but I do believe that parents need to absolutely make sure they are cabable of raising children before they go ahead and do it.

As I said before, homosexuality isn't about sex, it's about relationships deeper than friendship between those of the same sex. This certainly can and most often does involve sexual activity, but the sex is not the center of the relationship, the bond between the people in it is.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by obiwan18

Flip this around Boris-

Oh no need to flip it around. I agree with you. What I was arguing with Dissident was his assertion he would never do it. Of course, if he didn't enjoy it at all, he should say so to his s.o. and not be compelled to do it anymore, or they can work out a compromise (such as, *ahem,* an artifical stand-in...).

This is a side issue though- "Homosexuality isn't defined by a particular sex act, after all." Here, I agree with you Boris.

The question now becomes what is homosexuality? Or for that matter what does sexual orientation mean?

While sexual orientation is a complex thing, I don't think it's necessary to treat it as such in a debate like this. It's simply a matter of what gender one is solely or primarily attracted to, if any.

From what I can see, it is not wrong to have homosexual proclivities, the question is whether you act on them or not. By proclivities, I mean having an attraction to men. I think people are all over the scale on this, some more than others. However, where the problem arises is acting on these impulses.

This is a common argument, and it's seriously hypocritical and flawed coming from heterosexuals. Looks like you all get to have your cake and eat it too. There is no rational reason why a homosexual should deny himself intimate contact with people to whom he is attracted. It is one of our most basic and fundamental functions as human beings, and to suggest that you're allowed to do it but a homosexual isn't is self-righteous to the extreme. Beyond the fact that, being a heterosexual, you're ignorant of what it is like to be homosexual, it is also condescending of homosexuals and their relationships. It implies homosexual relationships are somehow inherently less complex, invovling and deep to gays as their heterosexual counterparts are. This is simply not true.

As for HIV transmission, the problem stems more from promiscuity than increased likelihood of transmission due to anal sex, although the vaginal walls seem more resistent.

Absolutely, it's about promiscuity, as well as unsafe sex practices. But heterosexuals are promiscuous as well, it seems, considering the skyrocketing rates of heterosexual transmissions.

Sorry Boris- condoms don't prevent HIV even for heterosexuals. Look at the difference in Africa between Uganda, and South Africa. South Africa preaches condoms, while Uganda preaches abstinence. Guess who has the worse HIV problem? Theoretically, condoms should protect people, but they break, leak, even when people use them properly.

Condoms are not 100% safe, but they are safer than unprotected sex by a huge degree, and it is damned irresponsible for people to assert otherwise. The problems in SA with HIV transmission aren't from breaking condoms, it's from a lack of education, willingness to use them and of the condoms themselves in many areas. It is irrefutable that condoms help dramatically in reducing HIV transmission.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by obiwan18
The first question then becomes, what is the safest form of sexual behavior?

The answer for this seems to be no sex before marriage, and then lifelong fidelity afterwards.

Marriage is neither a cure-all for safe sex nor an insurance of fidelity, alas. Also, people can have long-term, monogamous relationships without being married. Gays have been doing that for years (and yes, I know several longterm monogamous gay couples). Regardless, nothing here would automatically exclude homosexuals

If both people meet this standard than there is no danger from STDs. There is much less psychological harm from breakups, divorce, etc. Everything else falls short of this.

Huh? What is preventing divorce in this instance? Unless one is a prognosticator, no relationship is necessarily forever.

Also, this arrangement seems best to raise children in a stable home. Most couples are happy and well-adjusted. It's not just about the danger, but also about the benefits to the couple and to society.

And such arrangements are certainly possible for homosexual couples. There are several high-profile gay couples who are raising children in very healthy, happy environments. And statistically, surveys have shown that children of homosexual couples are very well-adjusted, certainly just as much as their counterparts raised by heterosexuals.

I have not seen any arguments as to the benefits of homosexuality other than as a relief of sexual tensions.

I've yet to see any arguments in favor of denying homosexual relationships equal status except archaic traditions and false assumptions.

However, you've ignored the chief reason why homosexual relationships should be accepted, which is the psychological health and well-being of two people who are in love and want to share their lives together without being constantly told that they are somehow lesser than others. How dare anyone denegrate the love between two people of whom they are ignorant? I wouldn't go around suggesting any heterosexual couple's relationship is somehow invalid based on their orientations, although I'm sure there are plenty of heterosexual marriages based on convenience and a blind following of tradition rather than love. But why the double standard against gays? It's irrational.

[Grrr]

Racism/ethnic/sexual/cruelty to animals.

The rest are all good IMHO. I would be really concerned if websites promoting terror/communism/fascism started to disappear ... talk about lack of freedom of speech.

[Lorizael]

Terrorism isn't about free expression, it's about using violence to send a message because you (not you) are too ignorant to think of a peaceful way.

[Grrr]

I'm not saying that terrorism is free expression ... or even that it is a good way of gathering attention.

But most terrorists DO have a cause ... which in the eyes of many paople can be seen as worthwhile ... and thus they shouldn't be muffled by some government.

[Lorizael]

My point is that promoting terrorism is different than promoting the cause or goals that terrorists may have.

[Datajack Franit]

Please stop using stupid terms as receiving oral sex because getting a deep blowjob is no way a vulgar phrase and you just don't go around telling your friends how your girl/boyfriend is good in performing "oral sex while swallowing semen"

[Lorizael]

Not your forum...

[Ben Kenobi]

I'm going to split my post. First up is Lorizael. I like saving the best for last.

"But moderating people's behavior, especially when it concerns sex, is an extremely difficult thing to do."

Lorizael, agreed. I do not say that the state should 'enforce total abstinence,' or even if the state can enforce total abstinence. I do believe the state should promote abstinence as a method of dealing with social problems.

"I'd rather just see advances in medical technology so that sexually transmitted diseases can be prevented and cured."

STD's that were once curable with antibiotics such as penicillin have grown resistent. We have always had STD's in one form or another, but never to the extent that we do now. No matter how much our technology advances, we will always face this problem.

"fidelity does not matter in the least bit. All that matters is that everyone involved in sexual actions is totally honest."

So long as STD's exist, unless you stick with one person, you are putting yourself at risk, and your partner at risk.

"One step towards that goal, however, is to teach sex in a more open way at an earlier age. If this can be done, the stigma around sex can be eliminated and people will be a lot more comfortable in sexual relationships.

Right now sex is a secretive and sinful thing that children must avoid, and even health class does not do much to get rid of this idea. IMO, sex should be discussed just as freely as any other subject, and as much should be learned about it as possible, considering that it is so important an activity."

Fine. This does nothing to fix problems such as increased STD transmission. Is our goal to encourage, 'comfortable' sexual relationships among minors or to promote the well-being of children?

Abstinence education does not treat sex as 'sinful,' just as a powerful force that has appropriate channels of expression. Appropriate in this case is to wait until you are in a committed monogamous relationship. They outline some of the hard facts, such as the chances of getting an STD, pregnancy, some of the emotional consequences as well. The kids need the facts to make an informed decision. They don't need more pressure to become sexually active.

[Maniac]

deleted

[Ben Kenobi]

Boris- good. All it took was a little flame to get to some of the better arguments.

"Absolutely, it's about promiscuity, as well as unsafe sex practices. But heterosexuals are promiscuous as well, it seems, considering the skyrocketing rates of heterosexual transmissions."

Agreed. Nowhere do I say all heterosexual sex is healthy or good. This is why this next part is so important.

"(and yes, I know several longterm monogamous gay couples). "

Boris- is this your ideal? Do you strive for this kind of relationship? I have heard some argue that it does not matter one bit. Why should gay people follow the old standards?

And what do you mean by longterm? I use lifelong as the ideal, the standard, 'till death do you part.

Finally, do you have the percentage that actually sustain a lifelong relationship?

"And such arrangements are certainly possible for homosexual couples. There are several high-profile gay couples who are raising children in very healthy, happy environments. And statistically, surveys have shown that children of homosexual couples are very well-adjusted, certainly just as much as their counterparts raised by heterosexuals."

Again, important point. Source? I have seen the opposite reported, that having two parents, a mother and a father works best.

In order to do a proper comparison, you have to compare those children raised by two homosexuals, with those who are raised by both the mother and father. If you compare a few gay families with all others you skew the results.

I will also ask about yourself- would you feel inclined to emulate this example?

"However, you've ignored the chief reason why homosexual relationships should be accepted, which is the psychological health and well-being of two people who are in love and want to share their lives together"

The key word here is 'accepted.'

If by accepted you mean treated on par with monogamous married heterosexual couples, than no.

If by accepted you mean treated on par with common law couples who most certainly are in love and want to share their lives together. Then you already have that, at least in Canada.

In either case I will still argue that to get married is superior to the other two, in terms of psychological, and physical well being of the parties involved. Marriage also encourages the production of children, something I don't see you arguing for monogamous homosexual couples.

"There is no rational reason why a homosexual should deny himself intimate contact with people to whom he is attracted."

Why is it hypocritical to argue the opposite? It is the same standard I hold for myself. There are good reasons to restrain oneself from having intimate contact with everyone whom he is attracted to.

As for all conduct, it is only rational if there is a better option out there. This is what I have been trying to argue all along. Many former homosexuals have testified that they are much happier in their new life than their old.