[SCOTUS: Please Read:] SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE AGAINST SODOMY [---oops, too late...]

Moody News ^ | Moody News

[Polycarp]

http://www.moodynews.com/news/Articles/01.03.20SCIE.asp

SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE AGAINST SODOMY

The Supreme Court, which has agreed to hear a case on sodomy, must take a close look at new scientific evidence that shows why anal intercourse kills people.

The Court has agreed to revisit the 1986 ruling that the right to privacy does not protect sexual relations between homosexuals practicing sodomy. The case they are considering is Texas' anti-sodomy law which was used against two Houston men caught having sex during a police raid of one of their apartments following a false report that an armed man was "going crazy."

This case comes at a time when homosexuals are growing in number and political clout. Attorney Ruth Harolow, who is with the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund in New York City, noted, "that the 2000 Census found near 600,000 households with unmarried, same-sex partners. She apparently assumed that any time two people of the same sex who live in the same apartment are having sex.

The Stonewall Law Association of Greater Houston declared that laws, such as the Texas one, "legitimize discrimination, hatred and even violence" against homosexuals. Actually, scientific evidence indicates the laws may be actually protecting homosexuals.

The lining of the vagina is tough, like the skin on our hands, so it can withstand the trauma of intercourse and child bearing. But the lining of the anus is too delicate to withstand any trauma.

Dr Jeffrey Satinover says: "anal intercourse, penile or otherwise, traumatizes the soft tissues of the rectal lining. These tissues... are nowhere near as sturdy as vaginal tissue. As a consequence, the lining of the rectum is almost always traumatized to some degree by any act of anal intercourse. Even in the absence of major trauma, minor or microscopic tears in the rectal lining allow for immediate contamination and the entry of germs into the bloodstream."

"Furthermore, comparable tears in the vagina are not only less frequent because of the relative toughness of the vaginal lining, but the environment of the vagina is vastly cleaner than that of the rectum. Indeed, we are designed with a nearly impenetrable barrier between the bloodstream and the extraordinarily toxic and infectious contents of the bowel. Anal intercourse creates a breach in this barrier for the receptive partner, whether or not the insertive partner is wearing a condom."

In addition to the trauma of intercourse, semen can eat away at the intestinal lining. This allows a person to "infect themselves" as the bacteria from their feces enter the blood stream.

As a result of this, a man is 2,700 times more likely to get an HIV infection from anal intercourse than he is from vaginal intercourse.

Anal intercourse is so dangerous, the United Kingdom Blood Transfusion Service will not accept blood from any man who has ever had sex with another man, even if they were practicing 'safe sex' with a condom.

Regarding safe sex, even condom manufacturers advise against anal intercourse. The condom company, Durex, said in October 2000 : "Anal intercourse is a high-risk activity because of the potential for infection from STDs including HIV transmission. Currently, there are no specific standards for the manufacture of condoms for anal sex. Current medical advice is therefore to avoid anal sex. However, whenever this advice is not followed, the medical profession recommends that stronger condoms should be used although studies have shown that there is still a risk of breakage and slippage."

One study calculated that 32% of condoms broke and 21% slipped during anal intercourse. The researchers pointed out that "condoms manufactured in the United States generally are labeled "for vaginal use only."

Though some use a drug to relax the anal muscle for sodomy, even this fails to prevent some tearing of the tissue and can suppress the immune system. The recipient may learn to relax the anal muscle, but one study found that over a third of those who received anal intercourse reported some degree of anal incontinence or urgency of defecation.

Nineteen hundred years ago, the Bible warned us, "The men leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet" (Romans 1:27). Today, science has documented that anal intercourse is against nature and that people do receive in themselves the reward of this error.

For thorough documentation on this subject see:www.christian.org.uk/html-publications/girlsandboys.htm#physical

[Warren]

If perverts want to risk their life, let 'em.

[Nick5]

I'm sorry, I have to keep going. For health reasons we should probably outlaw alcohol -- tried that once, why not try it again? -- and going out in the rain without an umbrella -- and CERTAINLY dangerous things like motorcycles and rock climbing -- but deaths and injuries from those activities, while high (and expensive to the public) don't TOUCH the damages and costs of driving automobiles so I guess it's time to take those private vehicles off the road. I mean, what's government for anyway, if not to protect us from ourselves?

[RAT Patrol]

Turn out the lights, the American experiment is over. The lights were on?

All I can say to those who think this doesn't matter is, "Be careful what you wish for."

[RAT Patrol]

Let License Ring!

You know, the interesting think is just what this activist court has decided is and isn't in a state's "compelling interest": Diversity is; morality isn't.

[CatoRenasci]

You seem to miss my point a bit where you disagree. What I mean to say is that I think sodomy is/ought to be a moral question, not a legal question. I condemn it and worry about those who engage in it on a moral level. On a legal level, with my assumptions about keeping them away from the kiddies, consent and keeping it private, I could care less. My comment about being happy was a bit of a toss-off: sort of on the lines of "if you want to engage in Darwin-award-winning behavior that doesn't affect anyone else, be my guest". On a certain level, one could be at least mildly pleased that those whose behavior you think is harmful are industriously killing themselves off.

I suppose it's a bit of a conundrum, but I don't see a contradition for praying for mercy for the souls of those who have sinned, while not thinking the state should stop them from engaging in those sinful behaviors. In fact, that is a position for the separation of church and state.

[justshutupandtakeit]

"As long as we don't pay...." ROTFLMAO

Of course, the reality is we DO pay. Having a tiny minority of the population absord a relatively huge proportion of health care resources is THE problem here.

[Nick5]

The court has come down on the side of neither diversity not morality. The court has voted for freedom: a university's freedom to assemble its student body as it sees fit, an individual's freedom to unregulated consensual sex.

[Nick5]

But a great deal of AIDS care is privatized. AMFAR and other organizations, with the help of Liz Taylor and other celebrities, have raised millions and millions in voluntarily donated private money. And doesn't the public pay exponentially more dollars for the cost of automobile accidents than it does for AIDS care?

[RAT Patrol]

You are wrong (or just in denial). The court ruled in favor of diversity over equity eariler this week. A state college can choose students according to their skin color (as long as it doesn't favor whites). They ruled in favor of immorality over freedom of people to make their own laws in the poop-sex case. They have banned the ability of any state to make laws that reflect the morality of their community. Rather, they must reflect the morality of 6 members of the Supremes. That's not freedom. That's license.

Let Licesne Ring.

[Nick5]

Why is "freedom of people to make their own laws" a higher value than "freedom of people to make their own decisions?"

[Nick5]

And P.S.: I'm WAY against affirmative action. If colleges want more diversity, let them achieve it through recruitment and promotion, and then once the applications come in decide on merit.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Baloney. AIDS costs the health care system enormously, probably very little of this high-profile fund-raising goes to actual patients. I would suspect it winds up in the hands of RAT politicians.

What percentage of research goes to AIDS? How much more is spent on AIDS research than prostate cancer? What is the increased costs imposed upon the medical system trying to avoid the toxic blood of the perverts? Why do I have to pay more to visit my dentist because he is afraid of contacting AIDS and has to protect himself and his staff? These small costs add up to billions per yr. I would wager.

Automobile ACCIDENT (unlike the deliberate acts of the homos) costs nothing close to the proportionate costs absorded by the SADDs and their sickness. We are speaking of the destruction spread by a tiny minority, 1%, which cannot be compared to the costs associated with automobiles which accompany their use by almost everyone.

AIDS is entirely preventable (don't take it up the @$$ or in the arm and you are virtually guaranteed not to get it) automobile accidents are not. We should be concentrating on preventing it by telling the truth about homo sex and its hideous consequences.

[LizardQueen]

So I gather you're in favor of banning fatty food, too - heart disease is preventable with diet, just don't "take it in the mouth".

LQ

[justshutupandtakeit]

If it reaches the level of destruction caused by homosex, I'll consider it. However, there is nowhere near the certainty of death or even the certainty of cause as with homosex. Apples and oranges.

[Nick5]

Amen

[Aeronaut]

As if a man has a vagina?

I do believe they mean that a man boffing a woman with AIDS is 2700 times less likely to get it than if his boyfriend with AIDS is anally boffing him.

[LizardQueen]

No, same fruit (no pun intended). If anything, heart disease is a bigger killer than AIDS is and resulted in higher health care costs. The last statistics I saw was that heart disease was still the #1 killer, followed closely by cancer.

LQ

[LizardQueen]

No, same fruit (no pun intended). If anything, heart disease is a bigger killer than AIDS is and resulted in higher health care costs. The last statistics I saw was that heart disease was still the #1 killer, followed closely by cancer.

LQ

[LizardQueen]

Sorry about the double post- my mouse is being a pain today. I think there are crumbs in it.

LQ

[Zavien Doombringer]

I am pretty sure what the author was trying to say, yet the wording was incorrect in context. The subject was male "bufu". The correct line should have added man is more likely to contract AIDS through anal intercourse than a woman can vaginaly, per se...