Defending the Truth

gotcha

I'll never use Crisco to stuff a turkey

you like the free top offs best don't you

I don't agree. The point of the article you posted at the start of this thread stated that an emphasis on abstinence (purity pledges) was ineffective at decreasing risk. So I really don't understand why you are advocating abstinence. In fact, many of the studies that are coming out now about GW Bush's abstinence-only programs are showing that abstinence-only education either has no effect or increases children's likelihood of becoming pregnant or contracting an STD.

I think the problem is that this study and the discussion that has followed relate to homosexuality but you have not made a link to same-sex marriage, the topic of this forum. I would suggest doing so or starting another thread that does so if you're interested in discussing this further. (Besides, it seems this thread has degenerated into a discussion about how to properly lubricate a turkey with cinnamon oil...or something. Sounds disgusting.)

Oh STFU. If my thread about the FLDS can flop into a fight about abortion, I don't see anything wrong about a thread about gay sex practices actually talking about gay sex practices. Quit yer f'n whining.

From Deekers: Well the point of the article was to say that abstinence only curriculum was less effective than hoped. BUT that was also shown to be because the teens involved, then resorted to other forms of sexual activity, i.e. anal and/or oral sex.

Therefore, the rate of STD's was an issue . And since, as I have clearly seen and hoped to have clearly stated, these "alternate" sexual activities put the participants at risk of health matters, abstinence ought to be stressed to gay people as well, and these, not just teens.

OhDear

on your butt?

Sorry, I fail to see the logic in your point OD. If anal/oral sex presents a greater risk then it is only necessary to teach abstinence of anal/oral sex, which, if we even go by your own definitions, is a heading that homosexuality falls under. If homosexual sex is a subcategory then there is absolutely no need to single it out unless discrimination is your intention. (lets forget for a moment that teaching abstinence is ineffective).

In addition, I thought the point of abstinence classes were to only teach minors who are allegedly too young to make rational decisions about their sexuality?? To tell adult homosexuals what to do in their own bedrooms is blatantly overreaching and discriminatory.

Say what you want about a dangerous lifestyle, to assume a certain value and then tell what consenting adults should or should not do in their beds is highly outmoded. I for one can think of a number of dangerous lifestyles that are more enjoyable and worthwhile to me than 'the norm' (lets say hiking, mountain climbing, or even owning a gun??). I can understand putting restrictions in gun ownership on minors but I think we can all agree that outlawing gun ownership for adults is a repressive measure (well, minus Garry).

Your problem is you think too much. The government is there to do it for you. Your lifestyle is made safer and much more acceptable by obeying the government mandates as to what it should be. You have no right to engage in dangerous sexual behavior.

I did make a mistake: I quoted the wrong portion of OhDear's original post and misunderstood what she was saying. I thought she was asking why her post seemed just as off-topic here as it did wherever she had originally posted it. My point was not to deride her, but to offer an explanation.

While my response is admittedly irrelevant, I still maintain that a thread about gay sex practices is irrelevant in a forum discussing same-sex marrriage. Sex is a part of marriage, but as long as both partners are okay with it, sex is not a necessary part of marriage (civil or religious).

So simmer down.

You're alright in my book. You make me smile.