We should ban anal sex

This has been also my first thought.

It's like to issue a law forcing all the citizens to have sex using a condom [behavior which, btw, would reduce in a notable way also the risks connected with anal sex, not only with natural sex ... talking about diseases transmitted by means of sexual acts].

In which way will police control and enforce such a "legal behavior"?

 

That would be nice if its not already the case. Unfortunately it doesn't help the victims since they have hepatitis or HIV or whatever for the rest of their lives which is why I want the online list of names and pics. I should also specify if it isn't clear that I am not talking about putting people on the list just because they test positive but only after they infect someone else while knowing they are infected.

 

Indeed. But if you'll notice, many of these people are largely reactionary. They want marijuana legal because it is illegal. And they want cigarettes banned because they are legal. The motive seems to be a knee-jerk need to just invert the status quo for no particular reason other than to have something to rebel about.

 

Man... Wouldn't you hate to have the sniffer job?!?

Some folks just seem to get a thrill out the notion of seeing someone else receive punishment.

Aren't there pron sites to satisfy that sort of craving now? Do we really have to involve the government, just so these sadists can get their kicks?

- - - Updated - - -

I don't want cigarettes banned. I don't know how that particular fetish got attached to liberals?

 

Maybe because only liberal states and liberal areas have pushed for more and more limits on cigarrettes, as well as taxes on them?

 

Is that right?

 

There's some of that, but I'd say it has more to do with not having realistic limits on how much you can help others.

Both the left and the right have their moral busybodies. The left apparently wants to control how much tobacco you smoke because of the health related reasons.

The right has historically been more supportive of the war on drugs, which is also related to health.

So, basically, society moves forward by embracing freedom of choice. At some point, we may apply the same logic to things like antidiscriminatory laws.

 

Maybe not. I should take my own advice to Ronstar and avoid absolutes, but generally it is liberals who want limits on where cigarettes are allowed.

 

Ask the liberals that support it.

 

Well that specific law was clearly discriminatory. See how it says "with a member of the same sex"? I would not discriminate in this proposed legislation.

The gay agenda is not the same as the black civil rights movement.

Of course most people understand slavery is unconstitutional- there's an Amendment that explicitly states so. Again, with your "ban guns for health reasons" - the 2nd Amendment specifically deals with that. The difference with these homosexual court decisions is that there is no explicit constitutional language justifying it; instead vague wording and vague reasoning is used. A different set of judges might easily come to a different conclusion regarding the "phantom rights" that the constitution doesn't exactly say that you have, but some people want to pretend that if they look hard enough, they're in there somewhere.

 

You are implying that no "conservatives", "Republicans", "Tea Partyers", or whatever right-wingers desire to be called these days, support anti-tobacco laws.

I have to call bull(*)(*)(*)(*) on that.

 

And how would your proposed law be enforced, sorry if you already explained it, but all the enforcement methods I've seen in this thread seem to be jokes...

And does the penalty apply equally to the ahhh, pitcher and the catcher?

 

As I said earlier, this would be heavily reliant on self-enforcement. The main benefit being that it could then be approached in sex ed classes and such as simply a thing to not do, instead of as a "legitimate lifestyle choice", with the "education" geared toward trying to tell people how to attempt to get around the consequences, while still doing it.

There would be no distinction.

 

I think this logic is pretty common.

 

... because we all know anal is the only way to spread STDs.

 

Yes, this is just what we need -- more government control over what we do. And now you're proposing more control in how you have sex? I have some advice for you... Just don't have anal sex if you're so concerned about the health risks. Oh but wait, ANY form of sex poses risks.

 

Just stop. You know damn well who the main people are that are fighting to ban cigarettes. I'm not going to play this little game with you.

 

There's an argument to be made that anal sex represents a health risk -- but not a good argument. All sex represents the same kind of risk, and anal sex never created a population problem.

I think there's a much better argument to be made that any power you give to the government to regulate peoples' sex lives will have far worse consequences than whatever problem it was ostensibly designed to solve.

 

herpes causes cervical cancer...punishment would be dependent on someone knowingly having an STI and not informing the partner...I'd be very pissed if I asked a women if she had a communicable STI like herpes and lied to me...that's reckless criminal behaviour the result of which I can carry with me for the rest of my life and effect every relationship i have afterward...

 

What I was saying is that it needs a good picture to sum up just how stupid it is. I honestly can't tell if the OP is trolling or not because I don't see any reasonable person could agree with what he is saying.

 

I wouldn't be too sure about that.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/oral-sex-and-throat-cancer-michael-douglas-hpv-report-spotlights-epidemic/

 

if heterosexuals could only do the same... my guess is there will always be some from both groups that like to act out in public

 

Thats right- back then the persons who opposed equal rights for blacks I am sure would have called it the 'black agenda' if they had thought of it.

Interesting how equal rights for homosexuals is an 'agenda' but for blacks its civil rights.

Glad you finally understand now my reference to slavery.

Anti-sodomy laws have been deemed as unconstitutional as slavery.

Legally they are both equally unconstitutional.

Hence you can no more ban sodomy in the name of 'health' than you can legalize slavery in the name of health.

 

Hmm, well that....sucks. But the article you site also states why it's not actually that big a deal, despite the sensationalist "epidemic" headline.

Less than .1 percent. But also -

AIDS doesn't do that, does it? And -

There's a vaccine, too? Come on, this is no big deal.

 

Once again- if the point was really to reduce STD's- then the fantasy law would be to require condom use.

I mean if the fantasy aim was to reduce STD's.

As opposed to just have a law against Sodomy.