(February 11, 2013 at 10:03 pm)Violet Lilly Blossom Wrote:

Quote:Billings is what the Chinese use to police their "one child" policy - it works..

Firstly, no.
Thirdly, you missed that whole 'schooling' thing.

Hi there

Uh, "yes":

Quote:Since the official introduction of the Billings Ovulation Method (BOM) into China by the Chinese Ministry of Health in 1995, the method has been distributed to almost every corner of China, including the industrial and agricultural areas and the minority regions. Chinese women of different strata and ethnic groups readily understand the meaning of the mucus patterns described in the Billings books and all of them accept the method. After teaching, most subjects are able to recognize the peak symptom from the first cycle and the rest from the second cycle, except in a few (around 1%) having anovulatory cycles as confirmed by plasma hormonal assay.

http://www.woomb.org/bom/trials/chinaLaunching.html

You seem to live in a fantasy world. You deny reality, even when presented with clear, impartial evidence.

Your idea of debating is to close your eyes and desperately repeat "no, no, no" and do your best to ignore anything presented to you, which doesnt conform to your existing ideas.

You desperately attempt to ridicule your opponent, in lieu of having any points to make.

You prefer ignorance to enlightenment.

Regards
GS

---

(February 11, 2013 at 11:03 pm)Darkstar Wrote: How are homosexuality and AIDS related?

Hey,

HIV in the west is almost exclusively concentrated among homosexual men. This is a fact and is undeniable. Please dont fall into the trap of so many posters here of thinking that denying reality constitutes making a point lol

(February 11, 2013 at 11:03 pm)Darkstar Wrote: Is there somehow more chance of getting AIDS from anal?

Yes.

The anus is not a sexual orifice. It is a disposal chute for shit.

It is not intended to be penetrated by a penis, or any object. It is unable to self-lubricate itself (like a vagina can) and, unlike vaginas, its delicate tissue is not robust enough to stand up to the rigour of penetration.

This often causes cuts and tears to the tissue, exposing the bloodstream, which obivously increaes the risk factor by an order of magnitude.

Also, ejaculating inside someones anus means semen is deep inside their body, among tissue-types it was not intended to see, (intestines etc) where it can be easily absorbed, which also increases the risk.

All thsi is borne out by the figures showing how massively affected gay men are by HIV.

Think about it - is it really a surprise to you that mis-using your body can result in health defects?

When does the mis-use of something ever result in a good outcome?

(February 11, 2013 at 11:03 pm)Darkstar Wrote: I also notice you only speak of homosexual men...how much do you want to bet lesbians don't get AIDS so easily?

That is true, lesbians lack the physical characteristics to be as efficient spreaders of HIV as gay men are. However, compared with heterosexual women, they do face a panoply of exaggerated health risks:

Quote:Bacterial vaginosis, Hepatitis B, Hepatitis C, heavy cigarette smoking, alcohol abuse, intravenous drug use, and prostitution were present in much higher proportions among female homosexual practitioners.(ref 1) Intravenous drug abuse was nearly six times as common in this group.(ref 2)In one study of women who had sex only with women in the prior 12 months, 30 percent had bacterial vaginosis.(ref 3) Bacterial vaginosis is associated with higher risk for pelvic inflammatory disease and other sexually transmitted infections.(ref 4)

References:

1- Ibid., p. 347, Table 1; Susan D. Cochran, et al., "Cancer- Related Risk Indicators and Preventive Screening Behaviors Among Lesbians and Bisexual Women," American Journal of Public Health, 91(4): 591-597 (April 2001); Juliet Richters, Sara Lubowitz, et al., "HIV risks among women in contact with Sydney's gay and lesbian community," Venereology, 11(3): 35-38 (1998); Juliet Richters, Sarah Bergin, et al., "Women in Contact with the Gay and Lesbian Community: Sydney Women and Sexual Health Survey 1996 and 1998," National Centre in HIV Social Research, University of New South Wales, 1999.

2- Fethers, et al., p. 347 and Table 1.

3- Barbara Berger, Shelley Kolton, et al., "Bacterial vaginosis in lesbians: a sexually transmitted disease," Clinical Infectious Diseases, 21: 1402-1405 (1995).

4- E. H. Koumans, et al., "Preventing adverse sequelae of Bacterial Vaginosis: a Public Health Program and Research Agenda," Sexually Transmitted Diseases, 28(5): 292-297 (May 2001); R. L. Sweet, "Gynecologic Conditions and Bacterial Vaginosis: Implications for the Non-Pregnant Patient," Infectious Diseases in Obstetrics and Gynecology, 8(3): 184-190 (2000).

It is notiously difficult to examine lesbians health in some respects, because the majority of them also have sex with men, including with homosexual men - meaning it is hard to even establish who or what constitutes a lesbian.

Quote:Not only did lesbians commonly have sex with men, but with lots of men. They were 4.5 times as likely as exclusively heterosexual controls to have had more than 50 lifetime male sex partners. Consequently, the lesbians' median number of male partners was twice that of exclusively heterosexual women. Lesbians were three to four times more likely than heterosexual women to have sex with men who were high-risk for HIV disease-homosexual, bisexual, or IV drug-abusing men.

All from ref 1 above (ibid etc).

Homosexuality is not a healthy business my friend.

Ciao
GS

---

(February 11, 2013 at 11:22 pm)Darkstar Wrote: Depends on your wording. Sex is only allowed if it is procreative, though that technically is not the only purpose.

What I posted was correct. Note that sex is not guaranteed to be procreative, it only has the possiblity to be so. From your own post:

Quote:The Catholic Church teaches that the purpose of sex is both unitive and procreative

Thats what I said - end of story.

(February 11, 2013 at 11:22 pm)Darkstar Wrote: Now you're starting to sound like this guy

What I posted was correct.

Billings NFP is 99% effective, the exact same as artificial contraception.

Quote:success rate 99%

http://www.woomb.org/bom/trials/chinaLaunching.html

The awkward thing of long texts is that I am losing the overview, because my Ipad isn't that comfortable at all.

I just wanted to say that the statistics are;
1 not genuine because they are not representive for the US but represent

Quote:21 cities with the highest infection rate

2 do not prove monogamy will solve the HIV infections. A hint is given in the article; most people are not aware they are infected...testing and prevention is the solution.

I don't deny hiv infections are high among gay people, but that doesn't make the catholic monogamy story a solution to this problems. People have sex, if the church likes it or not.

Furthermore, please show me your truth on hiv & catholics in africa.

(February 12, 2013 at 5:55 am)Zen Badger Wrote: For the moment I'll just address one part of your bullshit

I think you mean:

"As you managed to construct a good argument - supported by impartial references (seperate post) - as to why homosexual people should be chaste, I no longer wish to dispute it and instead I will now conveniently change the subject, whilst muttering erroneously about "bullshit"".

Isnt that right?

(February 12, 2013 at 5:55 am)Zen Badger Wrote: So by that reasoning my wife and I, who are both incapable of having children should refrain from sex because it produces no benefit to society?

No.

As per my post to darkstar above, heterosexual intercourse has two inherent aspects:

1) Unifying act of love between partrners
2) Possibility of procreation

Somone who is incapable of having kids is no more to blame for that, than someone who is gay or who has downs syndrome is to blame for their condition. (ie not to blame at all).

A heterosexual couple who have sex but cannot conceive are not defying/misusing their bodies - their sex is still "ordered" (Homosexuality is disordered). Additionally, even if procreation is difficult or impossible, there is still the unifying aspect of the sex. And note that even if considered "infertile", there is always the slight chance the the couple might conceive.

In contrast, homosexuality has neither of these 2 aspects mentioned above.

- it is not genuinely unifying, as their bodies are not physically compatible
- they cannot - and can never -procreate.

And note that, homsoxuality doesnt just "provide no social benefit" - it actively harms public health. Infertile heteorsexual sex does not harm public health.

There is no comparison whatsoever between an infertile heterosexual couple and a homosexual couple.

Cheers
GS

(February 12, 2013 at 8:56 am)Gabriel Syme Wrote: HIV in the west is almost exclusively concentrated among homosexual men.

It's because gay men in the West have or at least had a habbit of not using condoms. Hetereosexuals in the West do tend to use them so that would explain the difference.

(February 12, 2013 at 9:40 am)Gabriel Syme Wrote: - it is not genuinely unifying, as their bodies are not physically compatible
- they cannot - and can never -procreate.

And note that, homsoxuality doesnt just "provide no social benefit" - it actively harms public health. Infertile heteorsexual sex does not harm public health.

1. Opinion. It would only be a fact if the only purpose of sex was procreation. But, since most people usually have sex for pleasure, not children, this has no foundation in truth. And who are you to judge what is "truly unifying"?
2. This is true. But most people don't have sex for procreation, so this is also a pointless argument which affects nothing.

Since your first point is nothing but an opinion and your second point doesn't apply to the argument at hand, I'll disregard them for your third.

Lastly, your stats about HIV/Aids. Are you aware that black people are 8 times as likely as straight white people and, in fact, even more likely than homosexuals to have HIV?

Should we consider black or interacial sex to be wrong, dangerous, and disgusting?

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillan...htm#hivest

(February 12, 2013 at 8:56 am)Gabriel Syme Wrote: Hi there

Uh, "yes":

Quote:Since the official introduction of the Billings Ovulation Method (BOM) into China by the Chinese Ministry of Health in 1995, the method has been distributed to almost every corner of China, including the industrial and agricultural areas and the minority regions. Chinese women of different strata and ethnic groups readily understand the meaning of the mucus patterns described in the Billings books and all of them accept the method. After teaching, most subjects are able to recognize the peak symptom from the first cycle and the rest from the second cycle, except in a few (around 1%) having anovulatory cycles as confirmed by plasma hormonal assay.

Uhhh... no. That's nonsense

Quote:You seem to live in a fantasy world. You deny reality, even when presented with clear, impartial evidence.

I may seem to, good sir... but the reality is that I embrace reality and make babies with it. You've shown me only jokes, and I will respond in kind until you stop being hilarious

Quote:Your idea of debating is to close your eyes and desperately repeat "no, no, no" and do your best to ignore anything presented to you, which doesnt conform to your existing ideas.

I haven't debated anything, so I wouldn't know where you got this idea. But you're correct: I am mocking you, and so is everyone else. There is *no* reason to present a counter argument, because there was never an argument made. It'd be as ridiculous as starting a war over a surrender for a war that was never fought

Quote:You desperately attempt to ridicule your opponent, in lieu of having any points to make.

I'm quite relaxed, I don't do desperation unless the situation calls for it. My point was crystal from the start, that you cannot see through the murk you've generated is not on me, lost one.

Quote:You prefer ignorance to enlightenment.

Regards
GS

I'm a fan of bliss, I won't deny... but I find bliss is better found in the light than in the shadow or under the veil. You've yet to show me the light.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLkni34o8uM


You could put up a light of learning... a ladder to ascend the rising dark. Instead, you've embraced and spread the darkness... descended into the pit of unfathomable wickedness.

I would ask why, but your words resound truthlessly, lesser demon.

(February 11, 2013 at 7:00 pm)Gabriel Syme Wrote:

(February 11, 2013 at 12:43 pm)festive1 Wrote: The Catholic church can't even keep it's own priests celibate, how can it expect anyone else to refrain from sexual activity?

The overwhelming vast majority of Catholic priests are celibate, but you will not read news stories about them.

Oh, really... then why:

Quote:One of the former priests ... did a study for the church to try to understand the sex lives of priests and found that over 50 percent of priests, that he could ascertain, were not observing celibacy.

This was a study done by the Vatican, by a priest, who subsequently left the Church. I'm guessing he had a reason to misrepresent his fellow priests? http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/20...hurch.html

(February 11, 2013 at 7:00 pm)Gabriel Syme Wrote: The Church does not ask people to refrain from sexual activity. it simply, recommends that we enjoy sex only within committed relationships.

Committed relationships are denied priests, because their "committed relationship" is with god. I guess god doesn't put out much.

(February 11, 2013 at 7:00 pm)Gabriel Syme Wrote: It is not difficult not to have sex - we are not mindless-animals and neither do we actually require to have sex.

Two words: Nocturnal emissions. Men who don't have sex or masturbate, have wet dreams. I agree, we are not mindless-animals, but we do exhibit certain basic, animalistic qualities such as the fight or flight response, defending our offspring, and yes, the desire for sex, which can vary from individual to individual, some have stronger desires for sex than others, but most people have sexual desires.

(February 12, 2013 at 3:29 pm)Violet Lilly Blossom Wrote: I may seem to, good sir... but the reality is that I embrace reality and make babies with it. You've shown me only jokes, and I will respond in kind until you stop being hilarious

Now if only I could convince you to embrace and make babies with something else. . .




By the way, the link at the bottom of your post doesn't seem to be working.

(February 12, 2013 at 10:07 pm)Aegrus Wrote: Now if only I could convince you to embrace and make babies with something else. . .

Respect a lady, and one might find her willing to engage in a number of activities.

She doesn't have a womb though, sorry.

Quote:By the way, the link at the bottom of your post doesn't seem to be working.

I linked it metaphysically. It was for the demon's sake, not yours.

(February 12, 2013 at 9:40 am)Gabriel Syme Wrote:

(February 12, 2013 at 5:55 am)Zen Badger Wrote: For the moment I'll just address one part of your bullshit

I think you mean:

"As you managed to construct a good argument - supported by impartial references (seperate post) - as to why homosexual people should be chaste, I no longer wish to dispute it and instead I will now conveniently change the subject, whilst muttering erroneously about "bullshit"".

Isnt that right?

No, it means I'm heartily sick and tired of arguing with arrogant, self righteous arse holes who think they have the right to impose their bigoted hateful ways on others.

(February 12, 2013 at 5:55 am)Zen Badger Wrote: So by that reasoning my wife and I, who are both incapable of having children should refrain from sex because it produces no benefit to society?

Quote:No.

As per my post to darkstar above, heterosexual intercourse has two inherent aspects:

1) Unifying act of love between partrners
2) Possibility of procreation

Somone who is incapable of having kids is no more to blame for that, than someone who is gay or who has downs syndrome is to blame for their condition. (ie not to blame at all).

A heterosexual couple who have sex but cannot conceive are not defying/misusing their bodies - their sex is still "ordered" (Homosexuality is disordered). Additionally, even if procreation is difficult or impossible, there is still the unifying aspect of the sex. And note that even if considered "infertile", there is always the slight chance the the couple might conceive.

In contrast, homosexuality has neither of these 2 aspects mentioned above.

- it is not genuinely unifying, as their bodies are not physically compatible
- they cannot - and can never -procreate.

And note that, homsoxuality doesnt just "provide no social benefit" - it actively harms public health. Infertile heteorsexual sex does not harm public health.

There is no comparison whatsoever between an infertile heterosexual couple and a homosexual couple.

Cheers
GS

Hmm, let's look at these two points.....

1) Unifying act of love between partrners
And why should it matter what their gender is.

2) Possibility of procreation

Since there is NO possibility of us EVER having children for medical reasons ( Hysterectomony AND vasestomy) your argument is invalid.

And note that, homsoxuality doesnt just "provide no social benefit" - it actively harms public health. Infertile heteorsexual sex does not harm public health.

And this last bit.... Well, you'd better have some stats to back up your assertion or I'm calling you a fucking liar.