In this article, the sexual practices of the gay community are cited as those with greater risk. Both oral and anal sex are cited as what these young people are turning to in lieu of "vaginal sex"...

Do you agree that gay practices are of a higher risk for disease?

The article is saying that the riskier sexual practices are oral and anal sex.

That is the only kind of sex that gay people can engage in using their very own bodies, both being of the same sex. And if it is riskier sex for heterosexuals to engage in oral and anal sex, would it not stand to reason that it is also riskier for same sex couples to engage in as well?
. . . The mainstay of sexual practices within the gay community were cited. Reasonably, I could "and" together the fact that anal and oral sex were cited and anal and oral sex are the mainstay of sexual acts in the gay community.

It has been repeated over and over again here that the sexual practices of gay people are not of any higher risk than the sexual practices of straight couples. And yet here in this article, even when heterosexuals make use of anal and oral sex, it is stated as a fact that those particular sexual practices put young people at greater risk of STDs.

It is reasonable to conclude then that those same practices protected here ad nauseum in hundreds or thousands of posts by the gay members of the DTT are putting them and their community at a higher risk too. And since they cannot resort to vagina/penis sexual acts, they need to realize from the article cited that they too are in need of re-education concerning the safety of what they do. For their own sakes.


Now this is in the gay forums as appropriately requested, it is not about the sexual practices of heterosexuals, be they monogamous or promiscuous.


OhDear

The article quoted seems to be about heterosexual kids.
I'm not sure how this ties into homosexual sex practices.

But, in any case, lesbians (such as yours truly) have the lowest rates of infection and transmission for any sexually transmitted disease, compared with sex between any other combination of two people.

So, no, I definitely do not agree that homosexual sex practices are more risky.

So this is what you're going to do? Repost yet your original false claims, stating that the article CF provided, discussed homosexuality?

Again OD-wannabe....

The article DOES NOT CITE THAT HOMOSEXUALS ARE HIGHER RISK FOR STDs THAT PRACTICE ABSTINENCE ONLY EDUCATION...

The article ONLY addresses HETROSEXUAL RISKS FOR STDs WHO PRACTICE ABSTINANCE ONLY EDUCATION...

IF you want to discuss homosexuality, then do so NOT USING INFORMATION AND ARTICLES ONLY REFERRING TO HETROSEXUAL ACTIVITIES.

That's not what she is saying at all. The article discusses sexual practices mandated by homosexuality but are optional for hetero couples. It seems she has been infinitely clear in her intent.
Just as AIDS isn't a "gay" disease, but it IS a anal sex and drug addict one. One of which is relatively mandated by male homosexuality in the civilized world. And the statistics in most first world countries bear this out.
Or the Red Cross ban on MSM's isn't a ban on "homosexuals" but any man that has sex with a man.

I'm pretty sure that all sexual practices are optional for all people, and none are mandated for anyone.

Why do straight people insist they know what goes on in the bedrooms of gay people?
They have clearly never been there, so they clearly do not KNOW.

The CDC knows. And they say the same things. That "sexual practices are optional" crap is bullshit and you know it. Especially in the context of what we are discussing here.

OK, you caught me. It's true.
Every gay man MUST have anal sex, even if it's against his will.
It's mandated as part of the Gay Agenda.

That's not what I am saying, I am saying that if they DO decide to perform sexual acts on each other, by default it would HAVE to be oral or anal sex. Both mentioned in the article OD referenced. Considering for hets, those acts are optional, and not necessarily required since we have the ability to perform sex acts and anatomically indicated by the human species, OD's point is valid. She is saying and that article states that those sexual practices are more risky, whether practiced by hets or homos. It's just that a higher ratio of homosexuals are prone to those acts since they simply CAN'T perform vaginal intercourse the way humans/mammals beings are supposed to.

it seems to me that the message of the article is that abstinence only sex ed does not work. perhaps if they had recieved an education that included STDs and contraception rather than "just say no" they would have practiced safe sex, whatever kind of sex it was, and they would have had less problems.

i cannot see how this is relevant to homosexuality, but every thread here eventually ends up at homosexuality, so it isnt really that surprising.

It's absolutely amazing how people can put their blinders on for some things. This statement from that article clearly makes the statement that "alternative" forms of sex are INHERENTLY more risky than vaginal penile coitus.
"The sad story is that kids who are trying to preserve their technical virginity are, in some cases, engaging in much riskier behavior," said lead author Peter S. Bearman, a professor at Columbia's Institute for Social and Economic Research and Policy. "From a public health point of view, an abstinence movement that encourages no vaginal sex may inadvertently encourage other forms of alternative sex that are at higher risk of STDs."
The article clearly says "alternative" sex acts are more risky than coitus. There's not much wiggle room around that.

This thread IS about homosexuality though. And homosexual sexual relations, at least the male variant, require some kind of alternative sexual techniques. So you shouldn't be surprised that someone might talk about homosexuality in a thread entitled " Health Risk in Sexual Activity in Gay Practices".