Gay monogamous relationships- are they healthy?

[WindFish]

Like I said, the link only works if you have the ability to find what you want.

So, help me out here then.

 

[MobBoss]

So, help me out here then.

Perhaps wiki is more your speed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safe_sex#Anal_sex

 

[JollyRoger]

Typical government service. Ask for some help and get something sub-standard.

 

[WindFish]

Perhaps wiki is more your speed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safe_sex#Anal_sex

So, I was right.

You need to use a condom while having anal sex.

Why didn't you just say that instead of being a condescending prick, it would have saved so much time.

 

[MobBoss]

Typical government service. Ask for some help and get something sub-standard.

Hey, you gotta offer it in a way your customers can appreciate it. I'm sure you understand.

So, I was right.

You need to use a condom while having anal sex.

Why didn't you just say that instead of being a condescending prick, it would have saved so much time.

No, your're not right. Anal sex, even with a condom is considered high risk. Why? Condoms break. Duh.

And I did say that it was high risk sex. Your're the one that got all pouty about it.

 

[WindFish]

No, your're not right. Anal sex, even with a condom is considered high risk. Why? Condoms break. Duh.

Condoms can break during anal sex under specific conditions

The wiki says not to use Oil based lubricants as they break down the latex

And I did say that it was high risk sex. Your're the one that got all pouty about it.

I asked you to source your claims, there is a difference.

 

[MobBoss]

I asked you to source your claims, there is a difference.

Its such common knowledge, its like asking me to source proof that the sun rises in the East.

Condoms can break during anal sex under specific conditions

No, they can break/fail under a lot of conditions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condom#Causes_of_failure

 

[Formaldehyde]

All this from the person who publicly admitted he knows little about this topic. Can you imagine what Mobboss would claim to know if he was preoccupied with it?

But getting back to the topic at hand, there is zero chance of monogamous gay couples contracting any venereal disease if they both have none. They don't even need to bother using condoms for quite obvious reasons.

 

[WindFish]

Its such common knowledge, its like asking me to source proof that the sun rises in the East.

Common Knowledge doesn't always mean its true.

No, they can break/fail under a lot of conditions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condom#Causes_of_failure

That says the chance of a condom failure is 2.5% either due to physical damage or due to slippage.

 

[JollyRoger]

Given that up until recently, Mobby's day job involved quite a bit of sodomy (and may still do, given the UCMJ), I think we can defer to his experience and expertise on the subject.

 

[MobBoss]

All this from the person who publicly admitted he knows little about this topic. Can you imagine what Mobboss would claim to know if he was preoccupied with it?

Where did I ever say that? Heck, i'm willing to bet i've probably read more CDC and NHSC papers than your average poster here just so I can cover facts accurately.

But getting back to the topic at hand, there is zero change of monogamous gay couples contracting any venereal disease if they both have none. They don't even need to bother using condoms for quite obvious reasons.

I've highlighted the pertinent word that this thead hinges on.

Common Knowledge doesn't always mean its true.

So you really do want that link to show the sun rises in the East....amazing.

That says the chance of a condom failure is 2.5% either due to physical damage or due to slippage.

It says a lot more than that, but if thats all you got from it /oh well.

Given that up until recently, Mobby's day job involved quite a bit of sodomy (and may still do, given the UCMJ), I think we can defer to his experience and expertise on the subject.

Well, with enough lash and rum you can get through most days.

 

[Arwon]

So the main implication I am taking from this thread is that hetero marriage should probably be banned in Sub-Saharan Africa and maybe Russia and a few other places.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Where did I ever say that? Heck, i'm willing to bet i've probably read more CDC and NHSC papers than your average poster here just so I can cover facts accurately.

You have stated so numerous times, usually while trying to insinuate that others must be homosexuals simply because they disagree with you. Here's a few of the more recent times:

You guys seem to know a lot about homosexual/lesbian sex.

Who's claiming to be a sex expert here? I merely mentioned you guys seemed to know a lot about the sex habits of homosexuals/lesbians. Not me.

And I realize quite well that you have gone well out of your way to try to find "facts" to support your obvious prejudices and preconceived notions about homosexuals, while trying to find excuses to be opposed to SSM on a supposedly secular basis. But it certainly doesn't mean you have been successful in doing so.

As others continue to point out, encouraging monogamous relationships would actually do the opposite of what you absurdly suggest would occur.

I've highlighted the pertinent word that this thead hinges on.

Again, guess what that means? Strictly monogamous sexual relationships among those who have no venereal disease means neither person will ever contract them. If you are so worried about the non-existent spread of AIDs in the US, you would actually do all you could to support such relationships instead of being opposed to them for clearly religious reasons.

 

[MobBoss]

Well, Form, all your quotes prove is you have a really, really hard time dectecting sarcasm.

Oh, and you dont have to be an 'expert' in a topic to be informed on it. Saying i'm not an expert =/= as saying I dont know much about it. You, of all people, should appreciate that little fact.

 

[vypernight]

Since hiv, etc. is spread through fluid transmissions (e.g. sex), then gay men can only get it if their partner has it. If they're in a closed relationship, the only way one can get the diseas is if the other already has it. How they have sex doesn't matter. If neither has the disease, the only other ways to get it is fluid transmissions from outside sources; blood, cheating etc.

I don't know where the so'called study got its sources, but if both partners are being responsible, and neither had the disease to being with, it's not going to magically appear, just because they are loving each other's business ends.

 

[Leonel]

Are these open or closed steady relationships?

 

[LucyDuke]

Actually, pretty much everyone needs some form of stable emotional relationship. I believe that homosexual ones are the result a of need for male bonding (perhaps he never had a good relationship with his father) in a way that eventually becomes sexual.

How'd you come up with that theory?

By this logic, every female (including me) who never had a good relationship with her mother should be lesbian (seeking out female bonding in a way that eventually becomes sexual).

Yup, that means I must be a lesbian.

Except, I'm not.

He only said that maybe some gay dudes are gay becaue of daddy issues.

And please don't indulge that ridiculous definition.

Anal sex is defined as high risk sex across the board no matter who does it or what kind of relationship they are in.

That sort of definition renders the term pretty much useless. Consider: monogamous married heterosexual couple that never had any sexual contact with anyone other than their spouse. If their butt stuff is high risk by definition then we needn't bother specifying so.

However, a long standing premise in the pro-SSM argument is that transmission rates would go down in steady partnerships. The OP seems to counter that.

Two things here. I'll try to be brief.

First, yes, decreased rates of STD infection are cited as a potential benefit of marriage equality. I'm not convinced, for a number of reasons, that the material here discredits that entirely. (There's at least one important thing in the table below.) Zelig had some useful points and if you're interested then I'd be happy to point out the issues I see.

Second, STD rates have never been a terribly important (and certainly not critical) issue anyway, and it's usually an answer to someone else raising the topic in the first place. The critical point is equality. The various lists of pros only get dredged up because the Constitution isn't enough for some of you.

Are these open or closed steady relationships?

From the article:

Note the second item.

Sure puts stuff in a different light, doesn't it?

 

[Mouthwash]

Meanwhile, if poor relationships with your father made you gay, I'd be gayer than all San Francisco combined.

Actually, I was clearly referring to a lack of close male relationships. The father is the most obvious one, and perhaps a very close relationship with one's mother or a female role model could lead to gender identity confusion. Childhood gender non-conformity is the largest indicator of sexual orientation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environment_and_sexual_orientation

 

[Lord Gay]

EDIT

Happy?

Your point? Ahh, I'm guessing that this was in response to the other thread you started. Makes sense now.

I believe that homosexual ones are the result a of need for male bonding (perhaps he never had a good relationship with his father) in a way that eventually becomes sexual.

Which is why all men who develop a perverse heterosexual desire for females have horrible relationships with their mothers.

It's disheartening that apparently a large number of people will never accept the very simple notion that some men are just naturally attracted to men. Occam's Razor people. It isn't because of father issues, or mother issues, or lack of sports, or too many cats, or not enough dogs, or too many sisters, or not enough brothers, or watching too many cartoons, or being molested, or whatever other stupid idea people toss out to sidestep the obvious.

Green eyes are uncommon, but they aren't caused by being molested. Being left-handed is uncommon, but it's not due to too much masturbation. Being LBGT is uncommon, but it's not due to father issues.

However, a long standing premise in the pro-SSM argument is that transmission rates would go down in steady partnerships. The OP seems to counter that.

At first blush the study appears suggestive, though anecdotal. However, of what relevance are STIs to the (non)justification of SSM?

That consent is key. “With straight people in closed, monogamous relationships, it’s called affairs or cheating,” said Colleen Hoff, the study’s principal investigator, “but with gay people in open, non-monogamous relationships, it does not have such negative connotations.”

I think the quote needed a little tuning.

This kind of attitude can certainly explain the numbers given in the OP, and I think a good counter-argument to those that say SSM would lower HIV infection rates.

This assumes an argument is being made in re STI rates and marriage. As Lucy pointed out and I'll elaborate on, discussion of HIV and other STIs is invariably raised by anti-gay folks, and comments by gays on STIs are merely in response to such statements.

When anti-gay folks keep using higher HIV among gay men as reasons for opposing gay rights, gays respond by suggesting that if that's what's holding them up, then marriage would almost certainly lower such rates. However, STIs aren't why gays want SSM. It's really just a side answer to a side argument.

The people who bring up STIs among gays, never ever suggest that marriage should be banned for STI riddled heteros. They never suggest laws requiring STI tests before marriage. They never suggest heteros who have open marriages should have their marriages rendered illegal.

It's all just more smoke from the anti-gay fire.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

He only said that maybe some gay dudes are gay becaue of daddy issues.

And please don't indulge that ridiculous definition.

Incorrect reason is still incorrect, regardless of the number of individuals involved. And I have no idea what "definition" you're talking about.