The distinction is that, diseased or not, IV drug use is a serious issue that needs to be addressed. Sex can, however, be had by anyone with anyone with virtually anyone else with no chance of spreading disease, if you're making even half-hearted attempts to prevent it. I will certainly agree that it's quite stupid to engage in unprotected sex with anyone, unless you are married or intend to be in the near future. It's really stupid, because it's no secret unprotected sex spreads diseases. The point I'm making in this thread is that sex, of any kind with any one, should not be demonized and claimed to be immoral when the act of sex, no matter by whom, with whom, or how, is not a social issue if diseases and unwanted pregnancies aren't propagated. IV drug use often is. The reason I bring this up, is that too often people look at an issue, and say "well, I would certainly never do that, I thnk it's wrong, so why should anyone else be allowed to?" I expect it from non-thinking, regurgitating disciples like HellaDumb, but not from you Salty. I say I should be allowed to screw anyone in the butt I want to, provided we're practicing safe sex and/or a committed couple, because we aren't presenting any danger to others nor would we be degrading the supposed "moral fiber" of our society.

To further direct the the thread back on topic, yes, HellaDumb, **** sex is more likely to transmit diseases than vaginal sex. The walls of the rectum are mucus membranes designed to improve osmosis. No ****. However, I don't think that alone is grounds for telling the world that God says sodomy is bad and you shouldn't do it, for several reasons, not the least of which being many people's failure to accept your belief that there is a God, let alone that he cares how we **** enough to keep us out of Heaven.

Cliff notes: Being a hard drug user: bad. Spreading AIDS, other diseases and unwanted pregnancies through sex: bad. Having safe sex: not bad.


Okay okay, it's time for me to clarify some things personally here before I look like the kind of free-love radical hippie that half of those reading this forum think the other half are. Sex, before being in a mature relationship, is usually a bad idea for reasons wholly seperate from religion or biology. Religion and biology are just really bad arguments against sex in certain cases, like fudgepacking. I don't condone being promiscuous, even when having safe sex religiously. Pun intended. What I condone even less, are people who wish to regulate others to the exact same standards of behavior as themselves because of their own personal choices. Until the vast majority of humanity *truly* learns to be tolerant of differences in others, the world will continue to be a lesser place than it otherwise could be.

Also, I'm not gay. Really. Never have been, don't want to be. Completely without desire to have sex of any kind with a man. I just don't care if other guys do want to.

Plus I really dig girl/girl action.

 

^^^^ Well said BAN, Well said.

REALLY WELL SAID!

 

The problem is that you and others can't separate doing good things from religion, which does say a lot.

Teaching kids that **** sex is dirty, spreads disease, and is un-natural is not teaching religion, is it? Want hepatitus? Eat all the a_s you want!!! Want aids? Take it in the pooper.

Your hatred of religion is so blinding it makes me wonder if you'd rather see millions die than attain a little morality, especially if it aligns with religious teachings.

Dude, real people are dying here, and creating an anti-**** stigma would save lives. Are you with me?

 

I don't hate religion. I hate people who refuse to believe there is any other way to be a good person than to follow the teachings of one of the holy books to the letter, or suffer the fate of eternal damnation.

Do you honestly feel that I think an AIDS patient who has a lot of **** sex is better than a person who is completely healthy because they devotedly follow the teachings of Christ? No.

Dude, I don't hate religion, or people who have faith in God. I do hate those who believe they have to convince others that the consciuos choice they made to believe is the only good way to live, and that they must spread the gospel. I do not believe much of what I've read in the bible, but I do believe in a god of some kind who is responsible for existence. I believe I've said as much in the creationism thread. Why can't people who are strongly religious accept that others can be good people, even without church or the bible?

Teaching that it's dirty and spreads disease, no, that's fine because it's true. Teaching that it's "unnatural" and a sin? Completely unnecessary except in church and the home by parents who believe such things.

Yes, but you probably won't see it that way. You need to understand that you cannot project your personal moral stance onto people who don't believe in your God. Who don't care about the moral code written in the bible. Why should someone do what you say is moral, when you have given them no reason to agree with you? As such, arguing for safe sex, which accomplishes the goal of reducing and eventually eradictating disease, is a whole lot more likely to occur with the demographics that are, by and large, the problem with disease.

Here's the deal. Want people to join you in your views of what is morally and philosophically correct? Fat chance. Want people to take a little personal responsibility and prevent harm to themselves and others? A whole lot more likely.

 

But it is "unnatural" isn't it, but to admit that you have to admit tha oral is "unnatural" also and I'm not ready to go there yet

 

Oral is an input.
**** is an output.

'Nuff said?