We should ban anal sex

I fully support equal rights. A gay man can marry a woman, the same as a hetero man can. That. Is. Equality.

Where in the Constitution, specifically, is homosexuality mentioned? Because I can tell you exactly where slavery is mentioned.

 

and why would a homosexual man want to marry a woman?

I thought your beef was over health risks, not opposing equal rights for folks who are attracted to the same sex to marry their loved ones.

 

I don't know, tax breaks maybe? Whether he wants to or not is his decision.

You're right, I got caught up in responding to off topic posts by people who have to inject homosexuality into every post. I will attempt to ignore such references to off topic material.

 

There is no more sure path to tyranny than to pass a Law that the Leadership wants to see enforced, but lacks any possibility of doing so. - Kurmugeon

 

why should anal sex with a condom be illegal?

 

I'm not saying having a system where people who use a service pay for it will minimize costs to the sum of individuals in a society, I'm saying it minimizes the cost to anyone who isn't that individual. So it becomes their business.

 

I see your points; well said.

 

Exactly!! (I know you weren't trying to be funny, but... LOL!!!)

 

I say we do not need any more laws, especially the government involving themselves in peoples personal lives and bedrooms. Good grief, if anything there are plenty of stupid laws on the books that should be killed off.

 

The citizens of any given State could vote to outlaw anal sex, but that won't stop people who want to engage in anal sex from engaging in anal sex.
As I recall, heroin and crystal meth are against the law, but that doesn't stop people who want to destroy their lives from using those drugs either.

If somebody wants to engage in just about any given behavior, they are going to, no matter what laws are in place to prohibit them from doing that thing.
Gays and some heterosexuals are always going to engage in anal sex.
Drug addicts are going to lie, steal, and take illegal drugs.
Politicians are always going to lie, cheat, tax & spend, and then lie some more.
It's the way of things.

 

Anal sex is banned in Greece with a law from the 30's.
Guess what !

 

No problem then, we already have a self enforced ban on anal sex, it's not required anywhere, except prison and private boys schools.
I don't believe it was ever mentioned in the Sex Ed classes I took, and yet my generation thoroughly enjoyed it, I dated a number of women who specifically requested it, and a couple who preferred it.

What happens if during a divorce proceeding one party claims the other insisted on anal sex, does it affect the property division, who gets the kids?

 

Actually, according to the Supremes, there IS. See Lawrence v. Texas.

 

Some states opting out of federal prison rape law

Source: Associated Press

Some states opting out of federal prison rape law
By REBECCA BOONE, Associated Press | May 23, 2014 | Updated: May 23, 2014 6:41pm

BOISE, Idaho (AP) — Several states are refusing to comply with a federal law designed to reduce sexual assaults in prison, with governors criticizing the decade-old law as counterproductive and too expensive to implement.

The governors of Idaho, Texas, Indiana, Utah and Arizona have informed U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder that they won't try to meet the standards required under the Prison Rape Elimination Act. Governors were required to certify by May 15 that their states either met the standards designed to curb widespread sexual abuse behind bars, or to promise that they were actively working toward that goal.

"Idaho supports the spirit and intention of PREA and the National PREA Standards, but a law with good intent has evolved into a law with too much red tape," Idaho Gov. C.L. "Butch" Otter wrote in a letter to Holder sent five days after the deadline. It would cost the state millions of dollars to meet some of the standards, Otter said, and he believed the cost would have little ultimate benefit. Besides, the governor said, the state has taken substantial steps to reduce sexual victimization in correctional facilities.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry told Holder in April that his state wouldn't comply because the rules were too costly and violated states' rights. Perry's letter also encouraged other states to reject the federal law, and said that instead, his state would continue the programs it already has to reduce prison rapes. Perry's spokesman Rich Parsons said Friday that Perry sent a subsequent letter last week to Holder, contending that some PREA standards are in conflict with Texas state laws.

http://www.chron.com/news/texas/art...ng-out-of-federal-prison-rape-law-5501418.php





Too costly?

But all the AIDS and STDs that are being spread, the suicides these attacks cause, the lives destroyed by prison rape culture, those are prices certain Republicans are willing to pass on to others??? Ridiculous!

 

You're the one playing the silly game. I merely called you out for doing so.

 

So then, the (obviously liberal) top poster wants to ban anal sex because it is a public health hazard. Why stop there?

Eating undercooked meat is also a public health hazard, as is drinking unprocessed water from a stream or a well. Mountain climbing and motorcycle riding are public health hazards. So is playing football. If we're shooting for a risk-free society, then why not go ahead and ban any and all activity that might lead to injury, disease or death?

 

Okay, I was just implying that anal sex isn't 'listed' as a right in the U.S. Constitution (kind of like oral sex is not).

Even so, my views align with the spirit of allowing people to enjoy one another sexually, as long as no one is 'victimized' by the same.

 

Will conservative politicians be able to restrain themselves if there is a ban?

 

Nice...

Larry Craig anyone? Oh right, he just has a 'wide stance' when going to the bathroom at a truck stop. Mark Foley?

Republican Larry craig calling Clinton a "bad, nasty, naughty boy!"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOmy-TkFVQg

Hard boiled Christ Matthews' face, priceless....

 

The OP addressed this in the first paragraph. See: the difference between the risk of normal driving (legal) and the risk of reckless driving (illegal). No one ever suggested living in a "risk-free" society. That is a strawman.

 

Eating meat cooked well done (normal) vs. eating undercooked meat (reckless). Seems a fair enough analogy to me.

Driving a car (normal) vs. driving a motorcycle (reckless). Yada, yada, yada...

 

The OP also failed to define who "We" are. I suppose it was the typical "There oughta be a law," but unless he specifically defines his terms, none of us really know what we are talking about.

 

This.............................. was the stupidest thing I read all day

 

But your suggestion is more akin to requiring seat belts only when driving over 70 miles per hour in order to reduce driving injuries.

IF there we want to imagine fantasy laws that would reduce the transmission of STD's, then a fantasy law requiring condom use except by a fertile couple attempting to get pregnant would eliminate the majority of all STD transmissions. Your law just seems intended to prevent people from having anal sex, rather than actually address STD prevention.