JVoV
Posts: 3657
Joined: 3/9/2015
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Greta75
quote:
ORIGINAL: JVoV
Now think about this for a moment: if HIV/AIDS were first discovered in heterosexual people in the US, how different would our government's immediate reaction have been? How soon would the CDC have been brought in? Impossible to know, but certainly a prime example of how dangerous 'otherism' can be.
Actually the real question why is aids more easily spread through anal sex than normal sex?
And why are gay men always having unprotected sex.
The fact that is was first found in gays, it is also like, it's a sign!
Information about the risks of HIV transmission through various activities is widely available online. This is a good place to start: https://www.poz.com/basics/hiv-basics/hiv-transmission-risks
You'll notice that vaginal sex is now the most common method of transmission, regardless of potential risks of anything else.
Why are alcohol and suppositories so effectively administered anally?
Most men I know simply do not like condoms. I certainly don't. Gay sex carries no risk of pregnancy, so condoms as birth control isn't necessary. If condoms have only been explained to you as a form of birth control, then you don't even know you need them. In the early days of HIV, most other STD's were curable with antibiotics, and there wasn't enough information available about any that weren't. Condoms cost money, most of the time. Being responsible enough to always have condoms readily available isn't really a thought for most guys, and in the heat of the moment, it's usually too late to run to the store and grab a box of rubbers. Alcohol and drug use also lower inhibitions and blur judgment.
There's also a bit of arrogance involved for a lot of guys. Either they think they can look at a guy and tell if they have HIV, or they think they're invincible and untouchable anyway.
Bleeding while receiving anal sex is a bit easier than receiving vaginal sex. Lubrication is obviously different too. But mostly, I think the prep work before penetration is much less common. Less oral and digital (finger) stimulation happens to prepare the receptive partner for anal sex than happens for vaginal sex, and then penetration itself can be much too vigorous too quickly.
For tops, there's already lower risk than being penetrated, but that risk is further reduced for guys that produce copious amounts of precum, although it increases the receiving partner's risks.
I honestly don't know what you would believe it to be a sign of. God's wrath? A Nazi-esque CIA lab experiment?
quote:
If it was first found in heterosexual, sex education on protection will be alot stronger than today. Just like when any infectious disease happen. Like Sars, like Zika, wide spread of full educational information about how to prevent it non-stop. But because it begin in gay people, they didn't aggressively educate the whole population about it.
I agree. And that seems like a blatant violation of the equal protections clause of the 14th Amendment to me. Very unAmerican. We lost so many great minds; artists, musicians, poets, writers, actors, dancers... Because of a lack of empathy from our own government. The Nazis killed about 15,000 gays in WW2. HIV/AIDS has been a holocaust of it's own.
quote:
quote:
And yes, in some States, you can be legally terminated from your job for being gay. In some States, you can be denied service at some businesses if you're gay too. I'm sure you remember the cake thing.
The cake thing, I felt was legitimate. If gay people bought off the shelves cake from that bakery, he would have sold it to them. The baker just does not want to design a cake that celebrates gay marriage which his religion is against. That to me is not discrimination. It's like telling a Muslim to sell me pork. Or make me a pork pie. I mean we got halal pie shops, and if I went in and ask the Muslim to custom-make me a pork pie for my birthday, they would refuse me 100% and I would understand. As it's against their religion.
But for it to be legitimate to refuse to sell things to gay people, I mean, normal things like you just browse the shop and buy whatever is on display there? That is unacceptable and I will be surprise if that is legal over there, because it's not legal over here, even though sodomy is against the law.
But custom-made things. A Buddhist can refuse to bake a Jesus Cake. That's okay. As the Jesus cake is customised design. No crime commited. As it's against their religion.
Custom made things can include a pizza with extra cheese, needing tailoring work to have a suit fitted before you buy it, and even having a house built to suit your needs or having a kitchen remodeled. Do you believe any of those things should be denied to anyone that can afford to pay?
Where is the line?
quote:
As for bestiality and marriage to my cat. I love my cat to death and I love sleeping with them and hugging them and kissing them. That's the extent of my "physical interaction with them". I also only have female cats. So my cats already love me and cuddle up with me, and lick me. My cats even love to lick my breasts, and my lips and my cheeks, I didn't train them to do that. I am always naked in my home, so when I sleep, they climb on me and lick me.
It's genuine mutual love for each other. I don't harm them. They don't harm me.
I mean there are ALOT of "Others" harmless type of love that are banned from marriage. That's what I am saying. So when only gay and lesbian couples get legalise, to me it's seen as special treatment. And not a win for marriage equality. There is no logic to this special treatment except this special group fought the loudest for their special rights and in the end, this is life.
That's anarchy isn't it? Yet, there are other laws that can prevent any of the marriage examples you give. How old are your cats? Legal age of consent is still a factor. Are they capable of giving legal testimony in court? Capable of saying their wedding vows, or even their own names? Can they sign their name on any legal documents necessary, such as an application for a marriage license? Do they have a proper birth certificate and a State issued photo ID to prove their identity? We can't have you marrying an illegal immigrant cat thinking that will give them citizenship. Might be Taliban.
quote:
If you really want something, you gotta fight for it. They got it. But is it fair? Is there truly equality? No. Because alot of out of normal heterosexual relationships are banned from marriage. Especially incest. Which I feel like animals themselves, cats and dogs, hamsters, rabbits, lots of incest happen if you leave them all un-neutered and naturally together. It's just made abnormal by humans.
But seldom do you see a gay cat or dog or hamster.
You realize that without being denied the ability to marry any of your furry friends, you have no legal basis to present a case to the court, right? Especially as a non-citizen living outside the US. You also have no actual interest in promoting interspecies love that I'm aware of. While I admit it is often fun to think outside the box, any of these issues would have to be dealt with by the courts when someone with a valid right to file a claim does so.
quote:
When it comes to incest, not all couples are heterosexual too. So not every couple can have kids naturally. And gay and lesbian incest couples can definitely have kids, without incest defect, since they need a sperm or egg donor anyway.
I am always like, treat ALL equally with a fair logic encompassing the "whys".
Courts can only decide that current laws are unjust when given appropriate evidence, after someone with an actual claim of personally being discriminated against files that claim in court.
They don't deal in theoretical justice, but actual justice.
quote:
Like being terminated at a job for being gay. I would fiercely fight against that bullshit. Being gay does not hinder their ability to do a fantastic job. If any shops or restaurant put out a poster which says, "No gays allowed in here", I would also fiercely object to that! As gay people can be good customers too.
We are fighting, and things have gotten a lot better in much of the country. But it ain't over yet.
quote:
But refusing to customise a cake to celebrate a gay marriage which is against your religion. That is fair. If we want to respect a person's religion, we shouldn't force them to bake customise cakes to celebrate something against their religion.
It's like forcing a jew to bake a hitler cake. Forcing a Muslim to bake a pork pie. It's just not right. That specific cake case really does not sit right with me. I do not think it's fair to the baker to condemn him for his religious beliefs.
No. It's really not. Like, at all.
It's like requiring a Catholic-owned bakery to bake a wedding for a Buddhist.
Requiring a Jewish designer to create a gown for a Muslim actress to wear on a red carpet.
Requiring a Baptist contractor to build a home for a Mormon.
It's almost like requiring that people in business actually do the job they're in business to do, for anybody that can afford them to do it.
< Message edited by JVoV -- 12/4/2017 12:03:02 PM >
|
RE: An American dialogue - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread