Gay couples will have the right to adopt priests

[My Wife Hates CIV]

If you're active having sex with more than one person - or many. You'll catch something sooner or later.

Been to ER twice myself when I was single. No big deal... steroids for a week and a shot in the butt. Good to go!

[giblets]

If you're active having sex with more than one person - or many. You'll catch something sooner or later.

Been to ER twice myself when I was single. No big deal... steroids for a week and a shot in the butt. Good to go!

But that wasn't AIDS. Women should avoid penises.

[My Wife Hates CIV]

no not aids... but you never know. you cant tell by lookin either.

[Ben Kenobi]

Nevermind that you're teaching kids stuff their parents don't have time/will to teach them.

It's still a parental obligation. That some parents are unwilling, and bad, doesn't change this. There's lots of crappy parents out there, and you're right, my job is to teach their children as best I can.

I like my job, but I have to understand my role in how everything works. The parents come first, not me.

You aren't using facts.

Well, ok, I cited the CDC. Is the CDC not a reliable source for you?

You're using misconceptions based on bad understanding of what the facts mean.

The math works out to be 100x the incidence rate for a variety of STDs. I mean, to me that's a stunning number. 81 percent of syphilis infections are in gay men. 81 percent.

The conclusions you arrive at are simply wrong because of it. Though we all know you aren't arriving at those conclusions. you've started with them and then tried to misrepresent the facts in a way that appears (to you) to support your presupposition.

In what way is it a misrepresentation to state that gay men are a very high risk group for STDs?

The reality is being homosexual in and of itself is not a health risk. You can see this clearly by looking at a homosexual who abstains from sex completely. Their risk is exactly the same as a heterosexual who abstains from sex completely. (If the same gender. A man is less likely to get raped than a woman regardless of sexual orientation.)

Which is why I've been arguing that the act in itself is risky, like smoking is an act. You're arguing that a person can take steps to reduce their risk by changing their behavior. A smoker can stop smoking and reduce their cancer risk. I'm arguing the same can be done by homosexual men.

the impact using condoms has on the risks involved.

Well, sure, but you're still looking at an incredible 100x risk factor there. To me that's mindblowing. Condoms aren't perfect, Aeson. I wouldn't trust my life to them.

[Ming]

If you support teaching children to have safe sex then you should support teaching children that penis-in-vagina sex is safer than anal sex, because it is. If you don't then you don't believe children should be taught to have safe sex. Any doctor will tell you that anal sex is riskier that PIV sex.

Safe sex is more than just using condoms. It's about knowing your partner and not taking risks. If two people are healthy, there is no difference in the risks of anal vs PIV sex.

You are on the other hand want to go back to the dark ages and force your christian POV on everybody. Religious freedom in this country also means not being forced to believe what somebody else does.

People take risks all the time... what they eat, what they drink, how they drive... the list is endless. All I'm saying is that you should be made aware of the choices, and what those risks are, and how best you can minimize them.

[Ben Kenobi]

see... this is what i dont get - what were you before?

I was an agnostic depending on your definition of the term.

[Kidlicious]

Lesbians are less likely to have HIV than heterosexual women. It's immoral for women to sleep with men. Women should only sleep with other women.

How does that fit into your collectivist, PC worldview?

[My Wife Hates CIV]

I was an agnostic depending on your definition of the term.

so it's possible you could change again.

[Ming]

How does that fit into your collectivist, PC worldview?

Frankly, using your logic... maybe in the safe sex classes, girls should be taught to only have sex with other women, since it's safer
Maybe Christian should get on board with this trend. You know, because it's safer...
Because that what you are trying to tell us about PIV vs Anal...

[giblets]

How does that fit into your collectivist, PC worldview?

According to the collectivist, PC worldview, all men should be killed or enslaved.

[Kidlicious]

Safe sex is more than just using condoms. It's about knowing your partner and not taking risks. If two people are healthy, there is no difference in the risks of anal vs PIV sex.

You are on the other hand want to go back to the dark ages and force your christian POV on everybody. Religious freedom in this country also means not being forced to believe what somebody else does.

People take risks all the time... what they eat, what they drink, how they drive... the list is endless. All I'm saying is that you should be made aware of the choices, and what those risks are, and how best you can minimize them.

You are not educated on the subject. Anal sex is riskier than PIV sex, even for heterosexuals.

[My Wife Hates CIV]

and why is it that so many priests are gay?

[Ming]

You are not educated on the subject. Anal sex is riskier than PIV sex, even for heterosexuals.

Gee... not between two healthy adults

But I ask again... shouldn't you be supporting sex between women since it's less risky?

[My Wife Hates CIV]

you would think there would be no homosexual priests.

[giblets]

Masturbation is safer than having sex. No one ever died from masturbation (except for autoerotic asphyxiation). Stop having sex and just masturbate.