Originally posted by josephwhttp://www.cdc.gov/std/life-stages-populations/adolescents-youngadults.htm
http://www.cdc.gov/msmhealth/STD.htm
From the same website:
"15-24 year olds account for nearly half of all new STD infections"
Sex before you are 25 ain't healthy.
Oh, wait. That means the other half are over 25!
Sex in general ain't healthy.
Do you have sex josephw? You have heard of STD's right? They are diseases that are spread specifically by having sex. They are some of the most deadly diseases on the planet. Many of my heterosexual friends have died from AIDS (yes, here in Africa, AIDS is very real). Here in Africa more people die from heterosexual sex than from car crashes.
And do you want to know how many people have died because stupid american evangelists come to Africa and stop people from using condoms? Going near american evangelists ain't healthy. Seriously it can kill you.
07 Apr 16
Originally posted by twhiteheadThen I guess you'd have no problem with the concept of monogamy as proscribed by our creator. Sex between one man and one woman for life. That would effectively solve the entire problem of sexually transmitted diseases wouldn't it smart guy?
http://www.cdc.gov/std/life-stages-populations/adolescents-youngadults.htm
From the same website:
"15-24 year olds account for nearly half of all new STD infections"
Sex before you are 25 ain't healthy.
Oh, wait. That means the other half are over 25!
Sex in general ain't healthy.
Do you have sex josephw? You have heard of STD's right? They ...[text shortened]... le from using condoms? Going near american evangelists ain't healthy. Seriously it can kill you.
Originally posted by josephwYes, it would. Sadly humans are not monogamistic. I wonder why the creator did that?
Then I guess you'd have no problem with the concept of monogamy as proscribed by our creator. Sex between one man and one woman for life. That would effectively solve the entire problem of sexually transmitted diseases wouldn't it smart guy?
Another slight problem is that if you get divorced, remaining monogamistic essentially means no more sex for the rest of your life. I guess your creator didn't think about that one either. Much smarter would have been to not create all those nasty STD's.
I must also point out that monogamistic sodomy is also STD free.
Originally posted by FMFBanning things is more of a Dim policy, however, it would help for the state to not endorse gay sex via marriage. There is nothing like a President who calls people up and congratulates them for coming out of the closet and then lights up the White House like a rainbow at night. And there is nothing like a country that refuses to bake a cake with a Confederate flag on it but then sues those who refuse to bake a gay cake.
Do you want "Dim" cities to ban gay men?
But alas, the left wants us to embrace gay sex and promote it no matter the dangers to society. Maybe someday we will be like Sparta where all men engage in it. Those who refuse will be labeled hatemongers and bigots.
07 Apr 16
Originally posted by whodeyStates to not 'endorse gay sex via marriage'. They merely allow gay marriage. In addition, as josephw points out, when it comes to STDs marriage is actually better than just sleeping around willy nilly.
Banning things is more of a Dim policy, however, it would help for the state to not endorse gay sex via marriage.
07 Apr 16
Originally posted by twhiteheadMarriage is a "right" with state perks. Marriage also elevates a particular sexual practice by the state endorsing it. Why the state is involved in elevating sexual conduct remains a mystery to me. Originally I thought it was designed to promote larger families, but today having babies is seen as destructive to mother earth so now gay sex is all the rage.
States to not 'endorse gay sex via marriage'. They merely allow gay marriage. In addition, as josephw points out, when it comes to STDs marriage is actually better than just sleeping around willy nilly.
07 Apr 16
Originally posted by whodeyIt's good that gay people can get married and it's good that the government recognizes it. If you don't want to be gay, whodey, then don't be gay. If you don't want to "embrace gay sex", then don't "embrace gay sex".
Banning things is more of a Dim policy, however, it would help for the state to not endorse gay sex via marriage. There is nothing like a President who calls people up and congratulates them for coming out of the closet and then lights up the White House like a rainbow at night. And there is nothing like a country that refuses to bake a cake with a Confeder ...[text shortened]... ike Sparta where all men engage in it. Those who refuse will be labeled hatemongers and bigots.
07 Apr 16
Originally posted by whodeyThere's nothing wrong with the legal status, along with rights and responsibilities, of people who have entered into a marriage, regardless of their gender, clearly laid out and recognized. Why should what you personally feel about "a particular sexual practice" impinge upon gay people?
Marriage is a "right" with state perks. Marriage also elevates a particular sexual practice by the state endorsing it. Why the state is involved in elevating sexual conduct remains a mystery to me. Originally I thought it was designed to promote larger families, but today having babies is seen as destructive to mother earth so now gay sex is all the rage.