Religion and LGBT people

[Gabriel Syme]

How much do you actually know about homosexual sex? Not vicious stereotypes, but actual homosexual sex, performed by real homosexuals. I doubt you have any real experience with it, which is why it's so great that you feel justified in making blanket statements about it.

Hi Esquilax,

I will answer the bits where you have posed a coherent and worthwhile question, below:

I have not used any "vicious stereotypes" to support my arguments.

I have used only facts, medical data and expert opinion (anything else would be irrelevant) and have supported these statements with references.

I know that it is true that homosexual acts are at loggerheads with the physical form and biological functions of all human bodies.

I know that it is true that many (not all) homosexuals (especially men) often have risky sexual encounters with strangers.

Additionally, the type of sex many gay men prefer - risky sex with others who are strangers (and so whose health status is unknown) - is very irresponsible.

Once again, stereotypes over facts. You clearly know a lot huh?

No, what I said is fact.

In all big western cities there are places, (often called "saunas" or - ironically - "health clubs"), for homosexual men to congregate and have risky sex with strangers.

I demonstrate this thus:

1) Customer reviews of "New Action" (a venue for gay sex) in Berlin, Germany:

"One of the best cruise bars in Berlin. Was there during HustlaBall 2011. Best part was the fact it was mostly bareback (hey your an adult and it's your choice, yes)"

"Was a major turn off to see many only wanted BB"

"The place was good but as it was mostly a bareback venue (one need to agree that it's a place for HIV+ men, so at your own risk, of course)"

http://berlin.nighttours.com/gayguide/new_action.html

2) Customer review of "Pipeworks" (a venue for gay sex in Glasgow, UK)

"Most of them are doing bareback and then sticking their cocks in anyone's mouth !"

http://glasgow.gaycities.com/bathhouses/...-pipeworks

3) Customer review of "Folsom Prison" (a venue for gay sex in San Francisco, USA)

"Folsom Prison is nasty, and it is primarily there for bareback hard core sex and many of the guys are on drugs and many are HIV positive"

http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/2094789

4) Customer review of "Headquarters" (a venue for gay sex in Sydney, Australia)

Altogether at the piss party I took 9 loads of cum, and countless loads of piss. I got fucked bareback by 12 people, and 1 guy tried to fuck me with a condom on, but when I realised it was covered I jumped off the sling, and told him to go fuck himself! That all within the 2 hours I was there.

http://internationalbbboy.blogspot.co.uk...ralia.html

All this is just from a 2 minute googling - obviously more detailed info could be found with a more detailed search.

Additionally, if you care to log-onto the site gaydar.co.uk, or similar, you will find that the majority of men who use these sites openly seek risky sex with strangers from the internet. I did this as a little experience and was quite shocked to see how the reality of homosexuality is markedly different from its sanitised, false public image.

We can see that - although 1 or 2 gay men say dangerous sex is a "turn off" - the reviews agree that the majority of the sex taking place is risky and irresponsible, even when it is known that HIV+ people are present.

We can see that irresponsible, risky sex with strangers is a very common feature of homosexual activity across the western world.

I am not here to promote lies or stereotypes, or to defame anyone.

I am here to speak the truth.

Care to comment on the gay marriage movement, in this case?

Different subject, different thread.

the highest rates of HIV infection tend to be in countries where homosexuality is criminalized. And why the US is the only western country where the predominant demographic for infection is gay men.

These are lies, Esquilax.

The pathologies associated with homosexuality (HIV etc) increase markedly in line with increased social toleration of homosexuality.

Much like how, if Heroin were legal, the amount of Heroin addicts would go up.

I have already posted data on this thread showing that in both the USA and the UK, gay men are the demographic worst hit by HIV.

It is also the case in Australia:

Gay men and other men who have sex with men are named as a priority population in Australia's Sixth National HIV Strategy because gay men (as a group) have a much higher risk of acquiring HIV than other people.

Between 2007 and 2011, 3,536 new HIV diagnoses were attributed to sexual contact between men, representing 66% of all HIV diagnoses.

The Sixth National HIV Strategy states that 'the highest priority is to address the resurgence of HIV transmission among gay men in Australia'.

http://www.afao.org.au/about-hiv/the-hiv...-australia

And in Canada:

In the period 1985-2001, the men having sex with men category accounted for 62% of adult HIV diagnoses for which exposure category was reported. The equivalent proportion was 31% in 2007. Men who have sex with men (MSM) remains the largest single exposure category.

http://www.avert.org/canada-hiv.htm

It is the case everywhere where homosexuality is legal. Unfortunately, language barriers prevent me for posting data for non-English speaking countries.

Who's denying reality again?

You are - obviously.

Despite clearly having a thing against homosexuals you presume to know everything about their intimate sexual habits. Something doesn't add up here; could it be that you're just full of shit?

I do not have a thing against homosexuals. I know several homosexual people and every last one of them is a kind and decent person. My wifes cousin is a lesbian and you could not meet a nicer young woman.

However, none of this detracts from the reality of homosexual sex.

I am not "full of shit", as the evidence I have posted shows.

Gonna go ahead and say the church spreading misinformation about condom use probably did have something to do about that.

The Church does not spread misinformation about HIV. I have already presented facts on the thread which show that expert public health opinion says that empirical data supports Catholic sexual morality.

Again:

When Pope Benedict XVI commented this month that condom distribution isn't helping, and may be worsening, the spread of HIV/AIDS in Africa, he set off a firestorm of protest. Most non-Catholic commentary has been highly critical of the pope. A cartoon in the Philadelphia Inquirer, reprinted in The Post, showed the pope somewhat ghoulishly praising a throng of sick and dying Africans: "Blessed are the sick, for they have not used condoms."

Yet, in truth, current empirical evidence supports him.

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2009-...-epidemics

Empirical evidence is a good thing, yah? It is what rational people base their opinion on.

The Catholic Church has many points. You, however, do not.

The information I have presented to you here clearly shows that I do.

I am now popping out for a while, however, I will be glad to return to the thread later.

Cheers
GS