Posted on 06/17/2004 2:32:10 PM PDT by haole
boogie? thats nasty.
It is likely the moral injunction against anal sex arose from these medical realities. But it should also be noted that these conditions apply for ALL anal sex, whether between two males or a male and a female. While the only kind of intercourse between two males is anal, it is also possible in heterosexual intercourse as well. I wonder if the author intends to criticize the practice of anal sex, or whether he equates it with homosexuality.
Dr. DeMarco writes reasons why anal sex may be a health hazard. His example of homosexual acts as opposed the heterosexual acts may be from a sheltered personal life.
He may not be on the mail list of Vivid's new video releases.
From http://catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0082.html
The meaning of the word “natural.” Our nature is how God designed us, so what's "natural" for human beings isn't whatever you can find some animal doing; it's whatever fulfills our design. Men and women were plainly designed for each other — not men for men, nor women for women.
What harms whom. The idea that homosexual acts don't harm anybody isn't even close to being true; they harm those who commit them at every level, physical, emotional, and spiritual. To begin with the most obvious — the physical — how could it not harm a man to suffer rectal trauma because a large object has been repeatedly forced into an opening which was designed for a radically different function? Lesbian sex is no picnic either; the rate of syphilis among women who practice homosexual acts is nineteen times higher than the rate among women who don't.
Other levels of harm. At the emotional and spiritual levels, the damage of homosexual acts is less obvious but just as grave. Consider emotional harm. God designed the male-female pair to balance each other; by contrast, same-same mating drives the partners to extremes. Instead of balancing each other, they reinforce each other. If you want an example, think of the promiscuous tendencies of men in general. Unbalanced by women, these tendencies lead to the anonymous, no-brakes promiscuity of men who have sex with hundreds, even thousands, of other men. Now consider spiritual harm. In homosexual acts you're seeking union with someone who is only your own mirror image, so in a way, you're still trapped inside yourself. You haven't experienced the power of marital sex to take you beyond the Self; you're rejecting the challenge of union with someone who is really Other. In that way, homosexual acts are less like marital love than like masturbation with another body.
I think the below link is the publisher. I tried to search for the article. It did not show up. Yahoo search returned two results, one one was the above story. Anyone have a citation for this article to verify that it exists?
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/servlet/useragent?func=showIssues&code=icb
Very well put.
A two day old newbie...
This article seems to have highly agitated you. Facts you'd rather not face?
I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that these cites are taken way out of context, and that what is really being discussed is that anal intercourse is linked also to higher occurences of anal HPV infections (genital warts, also linked to cervical cancer). It has nothing to do with the totally bogus idea of sperm cells attempting to fertilize any human tissue they come across. (If that was true, every boy over 13 would have pregnant palms...)
By contrast, the rectum is designed to absorb up to the last possible useful nutrient that we have eaten.
I can't resist pointing out that this has given me a whole new idea about consuming some of the less-than-palatable cafeteria food I've encountered...
Please ignore any inadvertent puns that may be present; I only proofread for spelling...
As a self-professed gay person, explain to me (and everyone else) why gay sex is normal and natural, and not perverted against nature as stated in this article?
Don't get emotional or call names, just state biological factc please.
PC bioterror.
Hey, I agree with him, some of this stuff is scientifically questionable. The vagina is definitely *not* impervious to viruses, as the number of women infected with HIV through heterosexual intercourse attests. I'm also sceptical about the claim that sperm promiscuously fuse with any old cell, as that would pose an equal cancer risk to a woman's reproductive tract if it were true. In fact, the cell membrane of sperm contain markers that only will match with markers displayed on the membrane of an egg cell, so fusion with somatic cells should be impossible.
Anal sex does carry a higher risk of HIV infection than vaginal sex, but that has been attributed to tearing of the protective barrier of the mucous membranes.
I have full access to that journal here and I couldn't find that article or either of the authors. The title is odd, too, for the articles they usually publish.
I tried searching an online journal database for that title in case they mixed up the journal titles in their sources, but didn't get any hits. But it's not a comprehensive database. I did find a 2003 article in Preventive Medicine about an increased incidence of anal cancer among men in San Francisco, saying that this was due to the hypothesized high proportion of homosexuals in this group and citing several sources showing an increased risk. But sperm fusing with somatic cells wasn't among the likely explanations!
It just proves scientifically that there are rings around uranus
Sexually transmitted HPV (human papilloma virus) infects around 60% of all women of child-bearing age in this country (and that includes married women who aren't having sex with anyone but their husbands). One type of HPV has been shown to be responsible for virtually all cases of cervical cancer. The impermeability of the vagina to viruses should be big news to all the women who've died of cervical cancer, or had to have radical surgery for it to save their lives.
Hint to haole: Get your science from science publications, not from religious publications.
By contrast, the rectum is designed to absorb up to the last possible useful nutrient that we have eaten.
Another problem with this article--the small intestine absorbs nutrients, the large intestine's main absorptive role is to absorb water. *sigh*
Outstanding information. Very interesting.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.