Gay Marriage and other problems homosexuals face

[Irkalla]

So Justin, if I were to marry a man and we wouldn't have any children simply because we don't want to, would you consider our marriage inferior to those who produce kids? Would it make sense to degrade our marriage status to a civil union in that case? What would you do with us if it were up to you?

edit. What about lesbians in that case? Technically, they can have more children since there are two women. Seriously, what is really your problem?

[Nogitsune]

Originally Posted by justinstrife

I support Civil Unions. I am not against gay people. I have gay friends.

Sounds like, "I'm not a racist, I have a black best friend!" to me, and that one got old a long time ago.

I'm all for them having the same medical rights, as well as power of attorney rights, and other issues that I believe any couple in a civil union should have(whether they are gay or straight).

"Hey mom, I'll enter a civil union next week!"
"Dad, you know what? My girlfriend asked me to get civilly unified!"
...There was this really awesome video that went like this, will see if I can find it again. In any case, the message was basically this: if it's not good enough for you, why should it be good enough for people in a same-sex relationship?

Originally Posted by justinstrife

Other than pigmentation, there is no diference between a black male and a white male. No difference between a black female, and a white female. There are huge differences between a male and a female.

What differences? And I mean differences that apply to all men and all women. Not all women are capable of bearing children (or interested in it, as Irkalla already said).

To the video: it's funny how that man completely disregards the fact that there have been same-sex marriages before. Anyway, I had to stop after half of it because the guy just pushed all the wrong buttons.

[Urzu 7]

And like I said, saying that gay marriage isn't good because for some of those gay married couples, they will raise children and that isn't good for those children isn't a very good point. Gay couples who aren't married/can't get married are still raising children, except they can't even get full rights.

[synaesthetic]

It's not as if there aren't already enough orphans in shitty group homes, being abused by disgusting hambeasts who use them to leech government funding.

My partner and I fully intend to adopt, assuming the government doesn't decide to fuck us just because we're not Ye Olde Traditionale American Family Who Believes in a Sociopathic Megalomaniacal Deity From a Bronze Age Fairy Tale.

I oppose marriage for everyone honestly, because it's unfair to single people that married people can receive greater legal rights and privileges. But as long as it is here, segregating gay folks just because religious fuckwits say "EWW GROSS" when they think of some dude putting it in the pooper of another dude is pretty fucking stupid.

Don't try to lie your way out; the only possible reason they can have to oppose it is squick factor. Honestly, what difference does it make who puts whose cock in whose bum? I know plenty of straight couples who have dirty funky monkey sex way kinkier than anything my gay male friends have ever done. Nobody wants to stop them from getting married.

If you're going to stand against gay marriage on those grounds, you should at least be consistent and just ban marriage for anyone who has anal sex.

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by justinstrife

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTE9zWaQc_Y

Dennis Prager is far more eloquent than I am on such social issues. Homosexual couples are not capable of contributing to the same extent(all things being equal), that heterosexual couples are able to contribute. Yes there are always exceptions to the rule, but I am not talking about exceptions. Men and women are not the same. We are very different. Marriage was a way of bringing those differences together, as well as providing some sense of stableness in bringing children into the world and raising them, where they were exposed by two parents of different sexes, so they could get a well rounded upbringing.

So... Would you support comparative studies on the result of homosexual parenting vs heterosexual, to see if it's really such a handicap for the child?

Yes I know the divorce rate is high, yes I know there are millions of dysfunctional families. I had to live through both growing up. America recognizes marriage between a man and a woman, not as a matter of religious pretense, but as a matter of looking out for it's own survival for the future. A nation cannot survive without future generations. Heterosexual couples provide future generations. The ideal way for future generations to be brought up, is through a father and a mother.

I'm not sure how forbidding homosexuals to marry is going to keep heterosexuals in stable relationships.

Also, even if heterosexual parents are better than homosexual parents, are homosexual parents really worse than no parents at all?

[ninryu]

Gays and lesbians have all the rights in the world to marry like any other people. Simple as that.

I have I been reped down?

[Urzu 7]

On a serious note, a proclaimation by the Obama administration: Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-...nder-pride-mon

[solidguy]

There are many good arguments against homosexuality but they have basically lost all credibility as they've been used as a vehicle to push an agenda of hate towards gays. It PMTFO when I debate with people at uni who just go and google arguments against/for the topic. I feel every argument should steam from a few core principles and morals that define your logic. Some dickheads post up shit about how it hurts humanities reproduction in the long run to defend their argument. Although they may have valid points it doesnt mean fuck all because they don't give a rats arse about the future of society. What Synaesthetic is right, all they care about is the "EWW" factor and trying to force people to live life by their definition.

[deathcurse]

After reading through the past few pages…

I feel lucky to be living up north where I am legally permitted to marry anyone I want. I’m not religious at all, but being “married” as opposed to being in a “civil union” has drastically different meanings for me. The first is something that is universally recognized, whether legally or meaningfully, and even if the latter somehow gives all the same rights as the former it would still give a sense of being “less” in some way. True tolerance and equality don’t mean anything if things aren’t truly equal, and even if it’s something stupid like simply the word/idea of being “married” that differs between “marriage” and “civil union”, then I’d say that it’s still one difference too many. Marriage implies a legal and a spiritual/emotional union, while civil union sounds pretty coldly legal, which for most couples wanting to get married isn’t what they’re primarily after. “A joining of two souls” and all that jazz, not “a joining of two bank accounts and legal documentation”…

In this day and age, we have stay-at-home dads, career women, couples who marry but choose not to have children, couples who have children but choose not to marry—in such a society, I really can’t see any arguments of “proper role models” or “social norms” holding up as an argument against gay marriage. The proper and normal stereotypes that nay-sayers refer to (whether in a hateful or a respectful fashion) simply aren’t the only available lifestyles anymore. So it doesn’t make sense to me that people say that we should all learn about modern values—No discrimination based on race! Or gender! Or physical appearance! Or class/SES!—but still insist that children need to be raised knowing the “proper” gender roles of men and women…

I grew up mostly lesbian/mildly bi even though I have straight parents and a straight sister, and a straight family and straight friends. And I’m sure that many other gay people also grew up in similar conditions. Straight parents didn’t make us straight. So I really don’t think that people need to fear kids raised by gay parents turning out gay 100% of the time.

I’m probably preaching to the choir here, since it looks like most of the thread is supportive anyway. I’m just baffled at how people who try to argue against gay marriage with the point of “I don’t mind gays, but they shouldn’t be allowed to marry because of X” don’t see that the “norms” they’re trying to defend are dying trends in most Western societies (I don’t know enough about other cultures to make a point on it). The haters will be haters, but it’s the people who try to argue with “logic” that confuses the hell out of me.

[GundamFan0083]

Originally Posted by Autumn Demon

The poll question does not mention gays and begs another question: how do you define civil rights? Most people would define civil rights differently which makes it hard to conclude what people think about gay marriage from the poll, so please post your opinions on the matter.

Also, what are other problems homosexuals face around the world today?


Side note: The only other thread I found discussing this issue was from 2004 and had to be locked after a few weeks and 26 pages. Hopefully 5 years has been long enough for us to chill out.

Since the original question seems to have gotten buried in a hail of anti-theistic hate-speech, I'll re-post it in the hopes of steering this thread back on course.

Is marriage a civil right?

In my opinion, NO, and the government should neither reward, nor penalize people who are/aren't married.

"Traditional" marriage should be an option conducted by religious organizations since that's where the tradition originated and no special considerations by government should be made based on marriage through a religious organization.

However, since legalities often play a factor in relationships that go sour, it should be a general law that cohabitation/being with a partner for an extended period of time should be covered under what used to be called Common Law Marriage and that should be applied equally to everyone irregardless of sexual orientation.

Equal protection under the law IS a civil right even if marriage is not.
Therefore, if a privilege is created that allows for Common Law Marriage under government statute then all citizens have a civil right to that privilege unless they're disqualified through legal means.

Also, I'd like to clarify that the Torah/Bible only prohibits sodomy not homosexuality per se.
Unless of course we are to not consider Lesbianism homosexuality.
I challenge anyone to show me the chapter and verse where it even mentions Lesbianism at all (it's not in there).
The only thing that is mentioned is sodomy for both Homosexual and Heterosexual relationships (thou shalt not lie with a man as a woman, and thou shalt not lie with a woman carnaly).
And I'll tell you why.
The Hebrews took baths maybe once a month at most.
That leaves a considerable number of filthy phalluses carrying all manner of microbial germs to infect the rectum, anal canal, and colon.
Considering these nomads were surrounded by enemies on all sides, it was kind of important to make sure the men were always as healthy as possible and battle ready.
That is the reason for the prohibition against sodomy.
It's because without modern medicine a person's anal-tract/colon will look like THIS from festering ejaculates.

Spoiler for NSFW, gay-man's colon after death from procteo-colitis:

I'm sure if we still lived in a nomadic tribe akin to those some 5000 years ago in the middle east, surrounded by enemies on all sides that wanted to wipe our people out, we'd have strict laws to keep our male population ready for war and our female population capable of bearing as many children as possible.

The problem with the fundies is that they don't understand the very book their citing when they gay-bash.

I think the Fundies would have a more solid argument if they did so from a position of fact rather than faith.
There is still reason to consider sodomy a rather dangerous sexual practice irregardless of sexual orientation.
That reason being the horribly named "gay-bowel" syndrome (should be sodomy syndrome IMHO because that's how you get these diseases).
However, that's not the position of most (if not all) Fundamentalists.
Their position is clearly the one used during the days of the pre-Israeli Kingdom.
Back then the laws were necessary for suvival of the Hebrew people, today is another story entirely.
I've spoken to enough Fundies (I'm related to a few via in-laws) and I can say that from my experience there is NO "Ewww" factor.
There is a social-Darwinist factor that emulates the idea that Homosexuals cannot copulate and reproduce therefore they are what George Bernard Shaw termed "useless eaters that consume more than they produce."
And it's that attitude that is a big part of the problem with regard to tolerance of homosexuality.

That's why the Fundies using the bible to justify what I can only term Fundamentalist-Social-Darwinism is so offensive to me as a Hebrew.
We don't live in nomadic tribes anymore, and we have modern medicines to treat/cure many of the ailments the Hebrews suffered from because they lacked those medicines thus many of the old laws of the Torah are no longer needed.

Therefore, with all that said, it should be obvious that while sodomy is still not the best sexual practice (it's kind of like smoking cigarettes, it feels good but can cause serious medical injury to oneself and others) that is not a good enough reason to prohibit homosexuals from getting married or being treated equally under Common Law Marriage laws.
We in the USA live in a secular society (even though it may have been based on religious principles) and religious objection should not have anything to do with the subject of government issued marriage.
IMO, using the logic that is used to ban gay-marriage, smokers should also be banned from getting married, and people who drink alcohol, use drugs, or engage in any activity that causes harm do to recreational or pleasurable activities.

There's my 2 cents.

[Urzu 7]

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

Also, I'd like to clarify that the Torah/Bible only prohibits sodomy not homosexuality per se.
Unless of course we are to not consider Lesbianism homosexuality.
I challenge anyone to show me the chapter and verse where it even mentions Lesbianism at all (it's not in there).
The only thing that is mentioned is sodomy for both Homosexual and Heterosexual relationships (thou shalt not lie with a man as a woman, and thou shalt not lie with a woman carnaly).
And I'll tell you why.
The Hebrews took baths maybe once a month at most.
That leaves a considerable number of filthy phalluses carrying all manner of microbial germs to infect the rectum, anal canal, and colon.
Considering these nomads were surrounded by enemies on all sides, it was kind of important to make sure the men were always as healthy as possible and battle ready.
That is the reason for the prohibition against sodomy.
It's because without modern medicine a person's anal-tract/colon will look like THIS from festering ejaculates.

I'm sure if we still lived in a nomadic tribe akin to those some 5000 years ago in the middle east, surrounded by enemies on all sides that wanted to wipe our people out, we'd have strict laws to keep our male population ready for war and our female population capable of bearing as many children as possible.

The problem with the fundies is that they don't understand the very book their citing when they gay-bash.

I think the Fundies would have a more solid argument if they did so from a position of fact rather than faith.
There is still reason to consider sodomy a rather dangerous sexual practice irregardless of sexual orientation.
That reason being the horribly named "gay-bowel" syndrome (should be sodomy syndrome IMHO because that's how you get these diseases).
However, that's not the position of most (if not all) Fundamentalists.
Their position is clearly the one used during the days of the pre-Israeli Kingdom.
Back then the laws were necessary for suvival of the Hebrew people, today is another story entirely.
I've spoken to enough Fundies (I'm related to a few via in-laws) and I can say that from my experience there is NO "Ewww" factor.
There is a social-Darwinist factor that emulates the idea that Homosexuals cannot copulate and reproduce therefore they are what George Bernard Shaw termed "useless eaters that consume more than they produce."
And it's that attitude that is a big part of the problem with regard to tolerance of homosexuality.

That's why the Fundies using the bible to justify what I can only term Fundamentalist-Social-Darwinism is so offensive to me as a Hebrew.
We don't live in nomadic tribes anymore, and we have modern medicines to treat/cure many of the ailments the Hebrews suffered from because they lacked those medicines thus many of the old laws of the Torah are no longer needed.

Therefore, with all that said, it should be obvious that while sodomy is still not the best sexual practice (it's kind of like smoking cigarettes, it feels good but can cause serious medical injury to oneself and others) that is not a good enough reason to prohibit homosexuals from getting married or being treated equally under Common Law Marriage laws.
We in the USA live in a secular society (even though it may have been based on religious principles) and religious objection should not have anything to do with the subject of government issued marriage.
IMO, using the logic that is used to ban gay-marriage, smokers should also be banned from getting married, and people who drink alcohol, use drugs, or engage in any activity that causes harm do to recreational or pleasurable activities.

There's my 2 cents.

I snipped some of it since it is a big post.


Very interesting approach to this issue. And you are right, anal sex can come with risks, but nowadays we do have treatments to problems arising from it, and also, people can conduct rather safe/safe anal sex nowadays with lube and condoms and such, as well as making sure they peform the sexual act in a manner comfortable to their partner (gently/kind of gently) rather than giving it to their partner roughly. Some people don't do it safely, but the wiser people (who engage in such things) do do it safely/safer.

Heh, rather pornographic discussion. But really, some people use that against homosexual men and yet many of them are hyprocrites, I'm sure. I have known two guys that both had this "two guys doing it, gross, fags disgust me!" sentiment and yet both had said they've performed anal sex with women and liked it. So...hyprocrites? Pretty much. To make it all the worse, one of them said something like "Geez, fags just screw whoever they want" and yet this person would have promiscuous sex with women. I guess a lot of guys feel sexual activity by two people of the same sex is wrong no matter what, but in addition to this part of their standards, a man and a woman can do just about anything sexual together and it is fine because it is between a male and a female. Double standards and all that.

[synaesthetic]

Pretty sure many ancient prohibitions against homosexuality were to ensure the maximum number of babies were born. These groups were small, in constant danger of being annihilated by their enemies... of course they're going to be hostile to any potential drop in the birth rate. They need those babies to grow up to be meat shields.

But this ain't the ancient world, and we've got well over six billion people on Earth. Less babies isn't a bad thing right now.

[Urzu 7]

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

Pretty sure many ancient prohibitions against homosexuality were to ensure the maximum number of babies were born. These groups were small, in constant danger of being annihilated by their enemies... of course they're going to be hostile to any potential drop in the birth rate. They need those babies to grow up to be meat shields.

But this ain't the ancient world, and we've got well over six billion people on Earth. Less babies isn't a bad thing right now.

Also good points.

This world needs more people opting for adoption.

[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

That is the reason for the prohibition against sodomy.
It's because without modern medicine a person's anal-tract/colon will look like THIS from festering ejaculates.

Spoiler for NSFW, gay-man's colon after death from procteo-colitis:

That's misleading. Colitis can arise from a variety of conditions. What proof do you have that semen causes colitis? It's possible that someone could have an immune response to semen, but it's not a given that every single person will.

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

There is still reason to consider sodomy a rather dangerous sexual practice irregardless of sexual orientation.
That reason being the horribly named "gay-bowel" syndrome (should be sodomy syndrome IMHO because that's how you get these diseases).

Which is also garbage. There is an increased risk, just like there's an increased risk of a woman getting an infection from vaginal sex with a man. Should we also ban sex that isn't intended to lead to pregnancy just over that?

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

There is a social-Darwinist factor that emulates the idea that Homosexuals cannot copulate and reproduce therefore they are what George Bernard Shaw termed "useless eaters that consume more than they produce."
And it's that attitude that is a big part of the problem with regard to tolerance of homosexuality.

Also garbage. The idea that everything living must live to reproduce is a ridiculously simplistic viewpoint that was seemingly developed from someone who decided to take a bit of biology, but stopped prematurely and didn't think it through.

[Irenicus]

Off topic but, whoa, is that you Mister Ledgem? o_o

What a curious thread to post in for one's nostalgic return!


...to keep a semblance of topicality...

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

Pretty sure many ancient prohibitions against homosexuality were to ensure the maximum number of babies were born. These groups were small, in constant danger of being annihilated by their enemies... of course they're going to be hostile to any potential drop in the birth rate. They need those babies to grow up to be meat shields.

They should have done it like the Greeks. Idolize male love, but demand duty from the "citizens."

Oh wait, there's the lot of the women too, and when you idolize male love at the expense of female worth...

Nah. I'll stick with modern LGBT liberalism. Rainbows and butterflies and Indian summer free love, bigots not welcome.

[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by Irenicus

Off topic but, whoa, is that you Mister Ledgem? o_o

What a curious thread to post in for one's nostalgic return!

Yes, it's me. I was itching for a debate, and this seemed to be one of the few threads that I could easily jump into and start disagreeing with people over I plan to try and visit regularly for the next few weeks, after which I may become too busy and be forced into keeping away.

[GundamFan0083]

Originally Posted by Ledgem

That's misleading. Colitis can arise from a variety of conditions. What proof do you have that semen causes colitis? It's possible that someone could have an immune response to semen, but it's not a given that every single person will.

I said Procteo-Colitis not Colitis in general.
If you truly want to know about how ejaculate (which contains more than just semen, it also can contain bacteria from the penus).
Go research it yourself like I did.
Semen isn't what causes Procteo-Colitis, but a phallus head which has bacteria or other microbes on it will and when ejaculation occurs those nasty buggers ride the "wave" surfing into a person's interior.
That should have been obvious.

Scarce M. Harbinger of plague: a bad case of gay bowel syndrome. J Homosex 1997;34(2):1-35.
Kazal HL, Sohn N, Carrasco JI, et al. The gay bowel syndrome: clinico-pathologic correlation in 260 cases. Ann Clin Lab Sci 1976;6(2):184-92.
Sohn N, Robilotti JG, Jr. The gay bowel syndrome. A review of colonic and rectal conditions in 200 male homosexuals. Am J Gastroenterol 1977;67(5):478-84.
Heller M. The gay bowel syndrome: a common problem of homosexual patients in the emergency department. Ann Emerg Med 1980;9(9):487-93.
Quinn TC. Gay bowel syndrome. The broadened spectrum of nongenital infection. Postgrad Med 1984;76(2):197-8, 201-10.
Goldstone SE. The Ins and Outs of Gay Sex: a medical handbook for men (Dell Publishing, New York, NY, 1999 [The author is an out-of-the-closet homosexual physician]).
Miles AJ, Allen-Mersh TG, Wastell C. Effect of anoreceptive intercourse on anorectal function. J R Soc Med 1993;86(3):144-7.
Saghir MT, Robins E. Male and female homosexuality: a comprehensive investigation. Baltimore,: Williams & Wilkins, 1973.
Weinrich JD, Grant I, Jacobson DL, et al. Effects of recalled childhood gender nonconformity on adult genitoerotic role and AIDS exposure. HNRC Group. Arch Sex Behav 1992;21(6):559-85.
McIntyre MH. Digit ratios, childhood gender role behavior, and erotic role preferences of gay men. Arch Sex Behav 2003;32(6):495-7.
Ikeda N, Hulewicz B, Knight B, et al. Homicide by rectal insertion of a walking stick. Nippon Hoigaku Zasshi 1991;45(4):341-4.
Witte MH, Stuntz M, Witte CL, et al. AIDS, Kaposi's sarcoma, and the gay population. The germ or the terrain? Int J Dermatol 1989;28(9):585-6.
Quinn TC, Stamm WE, Goodell SE, et al. The polymicrobial origin of intestinal infections in homosexual men. N Engl J Med 1983;309(10):576-82.
Levinson W, Dunn PM, Cooney TG, et al. Parasitic infections in asymptomatic homosexual men: cost-effective screening. J Gen Intern Med 1986;1(3):150-4.
Phillips SC, Mildvan D, William DC, et al. Sexual transmission of enteric protozoa and helminths in a venereal-disease-clinic population. N Engl J Med 1981;305(11):603-6.
Koblin BA, Morrison JM, Taylor PE, et al. Mortality trends in a cohort of homosexual men in New York City, 1978-1988. Am J Epidemiol 1992;136(6):646-56.
Most H. Manhattan: "a tropic isle"? Am J Trop Med Hyg 1968;17(3):333-54.
Keystone JS, Keystone DL, Proctor EM. Intestinal parasitic infections in homosexual men: prevalence, symptoms and factors in transmission. Can Med Assoc J 1980;123(6):512-4.
Jokipii L, Pohjola S, Valle SL, et al. Frequency, multiplicity and repertoire of intestinal protozoa in healthy homosexual men and in patients with gastrointestinal symptoms. Ann Clin Res 1985;17(2):57-9.
Laughon BE, Druckman DA, Vernon A, et al. Prevalence of enteric pathogens in homosexual men with and without acquired immunodeficiency syndrome. Gastroenterology 1988;94(4):984-93.
Surawicz CM, Goodell SE, Quinn TC, et al. Spectrum of rectal biopsy abnormalities in homosexual men with intestinal symptoms. Gastroenterology 1986;91(3):651-9.
CNN. Sexual transmission of typhoid documented in US. [http://www.cnn.com/2001/HEALTH/condi...ap/index.html]. 2001:April 26,1504 GMT.
Reller ME, Olsen SJ, Kressel AB, et al. Sexual transmission of typhoid fever: a multistate outbreak among men who have sex with men. Clin Infect Dis 2003;37(1):141-4.
Owen WF, Jr. Medical problems of the homosexual adolescent. J Adolesc Health Care 1985;6(4):278-85.
Atlas of sexually transmitted diseases and AIDS. S. A. Morse, others, Eds. (Mosby, New York, 2003).

I fail to see what your cherry picked quotes have to do with this discussion.
However, if I can help people have safer anal-sex by providing information while humouring you, then so be it.

Which is also garbage. There is an increased risk, just like there's an increased risk of a woman getting an infection from vaginal sex with a man. Should we also ban sex that isn't intended to lead to pregnancy just over that?

No it's not garbage as you clearly admitted when you pointed out there's an increase in the risk of infection.
That's an understatement.
They're not comparable when speaking of resistance to disease.
The vagina is intended for penetration and is not prone to fissures, whereas the anus is not biologically designed for penetration and is prone to anal-fissures.
I mean, if a hard feces can cause a fissure imagine what can happen during sex.
And I'm sure you're aware that any tear in the mucous membrane exposes the body tissue to infections.

PrideAlive understands this very well which is why they recommend using a "bottom condum" for anal sex (both hetero- and homosexual friendly).
I strongly recommend their site for understanding just how dangerous anal sex can be if you don't take the proper precautions (as Urzu 7 pointed out above).

Also garbage. The idea that everything living must live to reproduce is a ridiculously simplistic viewpoint that was seemingly developed from someone who decided to take a bit of biology, but stopped prematurely and didn't think it through.

On that we agree.
I said it was offensive to me and I meant it.

[Abashi]

I think same sex marriage should legal, or at least legal benefits should be the same. However, it would be a good idea to sort out separate communities for the different types of LGBT communities. I think lesbian and gay men communities should be in two separate categories.

[cheyannew]

Originally Posted by Abashi

I think same sex marriage should legal, or at least legal benefits should be the same. However, it would be a good idea to sort out separate communities for the different types of LGBT communities. I think lesbian and gay men communities should be in two separate categories.

I'm going to regret asking this but...

Why?

[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

I said Procteo-Colitis not Colitis in general.

Do you know the difference between the two? It doesn't invalidate what I said.

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

If you truly want to know about how ejaculate (which contains more than just semen, it also can contain bacteria from the penus).
Go research it yourself like I did.
Semen isn't what causes Procteo-Colitis, but a phallus head which has bacteria or other microbes on it will and when ejaculation occurs those nasty buggers ride the "wave" surfing into a person's interior.
That should have been obvious.

When you posted your image of a cross section of a deceased homosexual man's colon you wrote about "festering ejaculates" (those were you exact words). It was obvious to me that the ejaculates likely had little to nothing to do with the colitis, which is why I called you on it - you seemed to be emphasizing the "ejaculates" aspect.

So we're going to drop the idea that the ejaculates have anything to do with it, and move on to the idea that the insertion of a foreign body can introduce pathogenic microorganisms into the colon? I agree with that assessment. That leads into the next point:

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

No it's not garbage as you clearly admitted when you pointed out there's an increase in the risk of infection.
That's an understatement.
They're not comparable when speaking of resistance to disease.

The "garbage" statement came from what you seem to be insinuating about all of this. Is there an increased risk of infection? Yes. But how much greater is the risk? It is not the case that every single person who has anal sex is developing infections. Which leads to the next point:

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

The vagina is intended for penetration and is not prone to fissures, whereas the anus is not biologically designed for penetration and is prone to anal-fissures.

But the vagina is still prone to infections, and worse, vaginal sex can lead to urinary tract infections. Unlike infections in the anus, urinary tract infections can lead to bladder infections, which can lead to life-threatening kidney infections. Do you have any idea how common urinary tract infections in women are? I'll tell you: they are surprisingly common. So, if we were going to ban anal sex on the premise that there's an increased risk of infection, should we also ban non-productive vaginal sex on the grounds that it also carries a risk of infection, and a potentially life-threatening one, at that?

Regarding the issue of fissures, the vagina can develop them from sex, as well. I would expect that the rates of anal fissures resulting from sex are greater than the rates of vaginal fissures resulting from sex, but how much greater?

I'm not being pedantic with this. What I'm trying to point out is that there are risks associated with both vaginal and anal sex. You seem to be focusing on the risks associated with anal sex while giving the risks associated with vaginal sex a free pass. While I can't accuse you of pushing an anti-homosexual bias, focusing purely on the risks associated with anal sex leads me to believe that you're trying to push the idea that it shouldn't be done. Am I misunderstanding your intent?