The bible and homosexuality

Erm, anal intercourse is thought to be more risky as far as transmitting AIDS is concerned. There is more chance of abrasions and cuts opening, once direct access to the bloodstream is available it is a lot easier for the virus to transmit. Blood to blood transmissions are the most common to occur, IF all transmission modes were practiced equally by HIV positive people.Statistics your using for HIV being primarily transmitted by heterosexual intercourse are probably extremely biased. Because as far as i am aware homosexuals are still in the minority (by a large degree) so obviously once HIV enters the heterosexual pool then its going to cause more cases, simply through larger number.Of course not just homosexuals engage in anal sex (if they do), however it still stands that the anus, whilst being capable of taking a penis, still does take damage.One last thing, even tho you appear to be an extremely regular poster,you seem to be not taking much notice of the rules by being slightl insulting to Mike, "Keep my big mouth shut" could easily have been put better.Plus as mike said, as far as hes concerned he might not want to do that, but its what his diety says he should do. Personally ive found mike to be one of the most reasonable preachy types, and dont mind listening to his arguments. Perhaps you should try and learn some of that patience also.Unseul

---

Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life....

OK, the statistics you've used later on in your quote with percentages of how HIV occured does just go to show my point. It doesnt make any adjustments for numbers, and there are about half as many occurences through homosexual behaviour as heterosexual. Now im willing to bet that there arent one homosexual couple for every two heterosexual couples. Suggesting that it is transmitted more easily, and more often in contention to the population sizes. It is transmitted more through heterosexual sex, as i agreed, but because theres a lot more heterosexuals.OK, my statement did indeed give the impression that i believed that it started in the homosexual population. I know that this isnt true. But it is associated more often with homosexuals, because of its more rapid spread.Right im defining damage as causing cuts, any open wound. Not very large ones, nothing dangerous, that wont heal, they probably arent even noticed, but still an open wound. To get aids you need to have your bloodstream exposed to the virus, the virus however is carried in most the body secretions, but in the highest concentration in the blood. So anything which is a lot more likely to causes an open wound is a lot more risky.OK, the thing thats been annoying me so far is somehow you have become convinced that i believe the USA is the centre of the world. I do not live in the US, i live in England, OK, and England is most definitly the centre of the universe. Also i suspect that 40 million is quite a low figure for the total number. I have been to Africa where its a real problem, seen the effects, its not pleasent. So no, i dont think particularly highly of the US in many ways. No perhaps you can stop using your fixation of the US on me.Unseul

---

Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life....

What? i never said that cuts etc upset god. Im an athiest! I was just offering Rrhian a definition of damage in the way i was using it in a previous post.Im not saying aids is related to homosexuality, i accepted that a previous statement of mine seemed like i believed that it started in homosexuals, but i realise that it didnt. It is primarily a heterosexual disease yes, im not arguing with this point, but it spreads more easily with anal sex. Now although i am not aware of how many male homosexual couples have anal sex, it is one of the easiest ways for aids to be passed on, in both heterosexuals and homosexuals. Damage can be easily caused, if semen is then introduced to the open wound aids can be passed (obviously assuming that whoever is producing the semen is HIV positive.)I dont believe in god, i have stated this very often, in many of my posts. So i dont believe that any sexuality is more pleasing to god. I dont have a problem with people sexual attitudes, im just stating that anal intercourse is a lot riskier.I get the feeling that some people may have got the impression that i am against homosexuals (so far they have managed to get the impression that im american and that i believe in a god also) Can i just state for the record that i am not homophobic, heterophobic, sexist, racist or almost any other sort of ist or phobic that someone may come up with. I admit that i get annoyed at some people, but thats just an incompatibility of attitudes nothing else.

---

Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life....

Basically yeah. However i admit that i may have gone slightly ott on the homosexual thing to try and make my point to Rrhain who seemed/seems to not see this at all.I can understand why people would try and steer clear of this topic. But i try to think to myself as long as i feel what i am writing is justified (not emotionally, but physically (probably a better word, but im too tired to think of it)) then its safe to tread as such.Unseul

---

Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life....

OK, firstly your direct question. The lesbian thing. Originally you were asking me if god should condone this and no other, and telling me how silly i was for believing this. I replied saying that i didnt believe in god, and so it didnt make a difference to me. To answer your adapted question, I dont prevent anyone from having sex, and dont see why anyone should.Right you keep jumping between Western Europe (and countries) and worldwide, and so your figures can jump around too. Now your western europe numbers do indeed point out that it spreads more through heterosexual contact. I havent disagreed with this. What i have disagreed with is that this means that it is more likely to spread through heterosexual contact. If the numbers are 2:1, i dont think there is a 2:1 ratio between heterosexual men and homosexual men, suggesting that in proportion to numbers it spreads fast in homosexual encounters. (your previous stats were saying 44% hetero and 26% homo werent they?)Now we jump to the world picture. Once again i agree fully that it spreads most because of heterosexuals. And the reason i suspect it is higher than this as i have said is because i know the west isnt the world, ive seen the effects in the third world, ive seen the big billboards with familys on asking the men to be loyal, so that aids doesnt spread anymore, or if there not loyal then at least wear a condom. Can you please stop insisting that you know the way i think of the world.As far as i am aware, vaginal sex is not more damaging that anal sex. Now if a heterosexual couple engage in anal sex, then their at just as much risk.Anal sex is where increased risk occurs. I am assuming (possibly incorrectly) that proportionatly (so trying to even things out here) male homosexual couples engage more often in anal sex than heterosexual couples.Male semen contains a lot more particles of the virus than female vaginal fluid, this could also just as easily explain the trends.Can i just say once more Anal sex is more risky (as far as i am aware), and so that is where the health risk can lie. And i believe that i have already answered your direct question.

---

Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life....

LOL, good timing, i'd decided to say that this wasnt going anywhere so i was gonna stop posting on it, for pretty much those reasons. So as i said, this will probably be my last post on this thread.Unseul

---

Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life....