Contour Enthusiasts Group Archives Forums General Common Interests Gay marriages?

Not sure where this comment would fit it, so I'll just add it here...

Advocates of homosexual behavior often claim that it is a completely healthy alternative to heterosexual behavior. They correctly point out that there is no specific STD that is limited to homosexuals. The claim is that homosexual sex isn�??t inherently more risky than heterosexual sex.

My position is that this claim is misleading. Compared to the alternative, homosexual relations between two males is unhealthy. True, there is no specific STD that is limited to homosexuals. However, this is not proof that gay sex is equally healthy as heterosexual sex.

Sex between two men at least occasionally involves penetration. The question is whether that penetration has any major health concerns not present when thinking of heterosexual penetration.

I would suggest that there are a number of health risks not normally present with heterosexual activities. And these are NOT what we normally call sexually transmitted diseases. Among these are:

--Pinworms
--Hepatitis A
--Thrombosed Hemorrhoids
--Intestinal parasites
--Anal fissures
--Ulcerative Proctitis
--Fungal infections
--Tears of the sphincter muscles
--Colon Cancer

There are many other concerns. And what these all have in common is that they are not major concerns for heterosexual couples. But they are MAJOR health issues among practicing male homosexuals.

Basically, it seems as if females are evolutionarily/anatomically equipped for sexual relations (with men) in a biological way that males are not. In the typical heterosexual relationship, women are less likely to have concerns about physical impaction injuries. True, if the act is rough, (e.g., rape), then such injuries can and do occur. But with homosexual men, even gentle relations seem to have a higher risk of fissures or breakages in delicate body tissues.

It�??s like trying to force a square peg into a circular opening (using a building blocks analogy). Some things just naturally �??fit�?� and others don�??t. Human anatomy is a lot like that. Sure, if one really wants to, one can push a square peg through a rounded hole. But that will create some breakage of the object.

Perhaps science and technology will one day discover ways to completely eliminate all of these risks. However, without artificial interventions, relations between two men are bound to result in some injuries. This is whey they are to be considered higher risk activities.

Let me close with a statement made by Dr. Harold Feinstein of the Centers For Disease Control: "From a purely biological perspective, sodomy is an intrinsically unsanitary and pathological act. Empirical medical evidence clearly demonstrates that the rectum is not designed for intromission by penises, fists, forearms, etc. Physiologically, the rectum is designed for the expulsion of feces. When sodomy is performed, the peculiar forced inward expansion of the anal canal results in a tearing of the lining as well as bleeding anal fissure.�?�

First off, thank you to all those that have added to make this a healthy discussion. All, please try to refrain from personal attacks as this has all in all been a very informative discussion. I would hate to see this thread locked over a few choice threads.

Originally posted by JaTo:

---

Redefining a religious and secular union whose very definition that has withstood millenia of change is messing something that has been commonly held by religions and secular/religions/pagan governments of the world throughout time. In short, marriage is religious and could be considered secular as well (not all that are married observe any religious practice or notion); it doesn't change the fact that the very definition of "marriage" has been known to be (1) man and (1) woman in secular, pagan or the most religiously-devout Christian civilizations that have existed on this planet.

In short, let's call something different than marriage, well, something different than marriage and give it the same status and rights as observed by law, i.e, civil unions, joinings, bonding, pairing, whatever, just call it something different because it is.

I totally agree that under current US law, gays and lesbians are discriminated against. I think this can be easily fixed without destroying/changing an institution that has ages of heritage behind it and alienating those with strongly-held religious beliefs.

Just call it something different than marriage and offer up the same rights, protection and punishment under law. I'm repeating myself here; let me know if I've misunderstood or misrepresented any point you were trying to make.

---

Jato, I understand your reasoning behind calling the it a civil union. However, isn't seperate hardly ever equal in this country? I fear that no matter how you try to spin it, it will always be seen as something less than a marriage. It is for this reason that I offer up another possible solution.

What would you think about calling all "marriages" as they are today as Civil Unions for legal and secular unions. As so many of our laws are tied to marriage, why not change this word throughout the lawbooks to Civil Union. Marriage, therefore, would be reserved for all religious or other spiritual unions. The government would no longer offer marriage licences, but rather ONLY civil union licences.

In addition, I must argue the point of past verse present. I understand that throughout much of our history marriage has lasted and is understood to be a union between man and woman, and that this is one of the longest held traditions in our history. However, this does not necessarily mean that it is appropriate for our society at this time. There are many traditions/rituals that took place in our past that would clearly be seen as savage in todays society. Is it possible that this is a tradition that may need to adapt to our modern society? I would like to hear your point of view on this?

"Well, what you said is all fine and dandy, except for that over 20% of heterosexual couples include anal sex in their "heterosexual activities."
---------------------------------------------------------

Well, that may be true. However, heterosexual sex (usually) is not exclusively anal sex. It may be more expirmental, from time to time. Homosexual sex is much more likely to involve a long-term pattern of such behavior. That is why I concluded that it is more risky than heterosexual relations.

Sincerely,

Scott

I got an Idea.

We have the "let them do it" crowd and the "Don't let them do it" crowd.

Well call it the Do's and Don�??ts

Let Gay marriages happen and see what happens.

If the world goes to [censored] , most likely won't happen, we really can't say for sure, The don�??ts can look and the do's and yell " I told you so " like a 4 year old

If the world doesn�??t go to [censored] , subjective to opinion where we are really headed with or with out Gay marriages, the Do's can look at the Don�??ts and yell " I told you so " like a 4 year old.

This is the only way to settle this argument.

Anal sex doesnt always hurt.

But that is not a topic for this forum.