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.
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
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...
Outstanding information. Very interesting.
It was straining the envelope of credibility until the author said that the vagina is impermiable to viruses. That's when the walls of credibility completely collapsed.
There is no such thing as a "two-in-one-flesh" chemical. The immunosuppressant does just that: it suppresses the immune system. This protects the sperm, but it does nothing to prevent other intruders from attacking. It in no way allows the woman's body to "recognize the sperm," it just knocks out the woman's defensive mechanisms, allowing the sperm, and anything else in the vicinity to have an easier time getting in.
If God really designed us, we should have some sort of "two-in-one-flesh" mechanism. We don't. We have an ad hoc solution, the kind of thing you would expect if sex organs developed in an evolutionary manner, rather than by top-down design.
This article is an attempt to put false motives on a simple biological phenomenon, so that it better "fits" with the fairy tale this professor is trying to sell people.
If we really were designed by a God, why did he put a big-ass bundle of nerves right around our assholes? If he doesn't want people to sodomize each other, why make it so enjoyable? (So I've been told, at least--I've never done it, but I'm sure some other FReepers can vouch for it.) Or does God want some people to sodomize each other, just so He has an excuse to smite them with horrible diseases? Is God a horrible twisted, serial killer who preys on the mentally weak? I don't know, and I don't care. There is no loving God who designed humans straight-out and interferes in our daily affairs, that much is obvious (there might be some other kind of God, but I doubt that as well...)
Homosexual Agenda Ping - This one escaped my notice. Looks like some good scientific/medical evidence why **** ******* is not a good idea for anyone.
I'll read it more closely and get back to the thread if need be... People should read this and digest the info (no pun intended - ;-))to better argue with those who haven't seen the light on this issue.
There is a difference between "Entrance" and "Exit".
Let me and scripter know if anyone wants on/off this pinglist.