Debating Christianity and Religion

I often encounter arguments that argue homosexuality is immoral based on the idea that anal sex is bad for you.

This is a incomplete and failed idea specifically because anal sex is not the only form of homosexual intercourse nor is it limited to homosexuality.

[Replying to post 20 by DanieltheDragon]

It's easy to find shock videos on the internet but it's harder to actually sort through the data.

Shock videos? I linked Wikipedia and the facts in the video I linked are still facts.


[qutoe]While it is true MSM relations have a higher risk of transmission of HIV and syphillis overall these transmission rates are down from the past 50 years. [/quote]

Not so fast . . .

Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with mena account for 70% of new HIV infections in the United States.

In 2014, gay and bisexual men made up an estimated 2% of the U.S. population, but accounted for 70% of new HIV infections. Approximately 492,000 sexually active gay and bisexual men are at high risk for HIV

Gay and bisexual men accounted for 82% (26,376) of new HIV diagnoses among all males aged 13 and older and 67% of the total new diagnoses in the United States.f

Gay and bisexual men aged 13 to 24 accounted for 92% of new HIV diagnoses among all men in their age group and 27% of new diagnoses among all gay and bisexual men.

• A much higher proportion of gay and bisexual men are living with HIV compared to any other group in the United States. Therefore gay and bisexual men have an increased chance of having an HIV-positive partner.

• 1 in 6 gay and bisexual men living with HIV are unaware they have it. People who don’t know they have HIV cannot get the medicines they need to stay healthy and prevent transmitting HIV to their partners. Therefore, they may transmit the infection to others without knowing it.


• Most gay and bisexual men get HIV through having anal sex without condoms or medicines to prevent or treat HIV. Anal sex is the riskiest type of sex for getting or transmitting HIV. Receptive anal sex is 13 times as risky for getting HIV as insertive anal sex.

• Gay and bisexual men are also at increased risk for other sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), like syphilis, gonorrhea, and chlamydia. Condoms can protect from some STDs, including HIV.
https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/group/msm/index.html

Anal penetration is not inherently immoral between two healthy adults.

That is your opinion. We can know what is right/good based on shape/form/function/design/consequences/harm/biology/science/the way the world works, etc. By acknowledging the facts/science we can know what is right/good and in man’s best interest. From observation, reason, and logic we can conclude anal sex is disordered and not in man’s best interest.

Which would be fine if you hadn't misrepresented my words

I did not misrepresent your words – you misrepresented mine. Your comments that since there is some research that shows animals can think and reason somehow ought to suggest the same rules that apply to animals should apply to humans does not logically follow. A 5th grader could appreciate the unreasonable of such a suggestion

Let's stick to the topic and not have a flame war eh?

One man’s flame is another man’s zeal and passion. Many enjoy a good heated debate – to those who don’t perhaps the old expression, “If you can’t stand the heat . . . could be good advise.

[Replying to post 21 by RightReason]

With a roughly 480,000 sexually active population of MSM partners the 26,000 infections leads to about 5%risk. Digging a little deeper 4,100 infections were for African American heterosexual women. Compared to 968 white heterosexual women. Even though African American women only represent 13% of the female population they are 4 times the infections. Given your standards it should be immoral for African American women to have heterosexual sex.

[Replying to DanieltheDragon]

Given your standards it should be immoral for African American women to have heterosexual sex.

You mean given your straw man. Not once have I argued harm done is the sole basis to determine right/wrong. Something can be wrong whether we see immediate/measurable harm. Once again, my argument is based on observation of this world we live in, how it works and man’s relationship with the world he lives in.

My statistics came straight from the CDC website and they are factual. It is a disservice to hide/downplay them.

[Replying to post 23 by RightReason]

Not hiding or downplaying them and I used the same cdc statistics. Your case against gay men and anal intercourse centered around sterility and risk for disease.

Sterility is a non factor because men and women who are physically sterile still have sex. Sexual intercourse is more than reproduction it has physiological, psychological, and sociological benefits.

Leaving risk for disease. Your argument in this area centers around the idea that MSM partners are at a far greater risk than MSW partners. An initial glance at the data and basic biology would agree. So we must determine how much greater risk it is. For certain diseases like HIV it is for others it is not. Additionally we must look at practices at sociological impact. Is it just specifically the act of anal intercourse? Or are there other factors. Given the high rate of anal intercourse among MSW it would occur that the disparity of HIV infection rates in the gay community cannot be explained by anal intercourse alone.

I bring up African American infection rates not as a straw man but a parallel. As another social group that also have a disproportionately high rate of HIV infection. Specifically I brought up heterosexual women as a control. It appears that sociological and practices such as condom usage might be the primary drivers of HIV infection rates in the gay community. This also appears to be the case when you look outside the US AND COMPARE INFECTION RATES AMONG COUNTRIES.

You are cherry picking data on a specific disease to scare people.

[Replying to post 23 by RightReason]

One more point you should have no issue then with two men who are monogamous and have no std's from havi anal intercourse. As it stands they are at no risk for disease hence there is no harm involved.

DanieltheDragon wrote: I often encounter arguments that argue homosexuality is immoral based on the idea that anal sex is bad for you.

This is a incomplete and failed idea specifically because anal sex is not the only form of homosexual intercourse nor is it limited to homosexuality.

Those that fear this type of activity often speak out against it and, many times, long for it.
In America, so much of one's life is centered around sexual activity. And while that is a big part of humanity, it's not the whole.

But let's say this activity is harmful to those who partake in it. Why does it matter to those who don't partake?
Why does one person care what harm happens to someone they don't know enough to go to means to make, whatever activity you want to reference, wrong?
Running a red light can harm you and me if I'm going through that intersection.
Stealing can harm me if I'm stole from.
But two (or more) people having whatever kind of sex they want without me has zero impact on me and thus, none of my business.

Christians need to worry about their lives and not the lives of others. If God is real like the bible teaches, we will each answer for our own actions and not the actions of those we haven't met or know.

DanieltheDragon wrote: ↑Tue Oct 31, 2017 3:51 pm I often encounter arguments that argue homosexuality is immoral based on the idea that anal sex is bad for you.

This is a incomplete and failed idea specifically because anal sex is not the only form of homosexual intercourse nor is it limited to homosexuality.

If someone needs this concept explained to them, turn around and run.
Run fast and run far.
This idea of 'homosexuality is only about anal penetration' is so beyond common sense it's past laughable and borders on dangerous.