• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Who's going first? #2

But not in America.

Prince Rainier? That is what our media is asking...
 
Re: Who's going first?

Urethra Franklin said:
akyron said:
No, like calling someone "woman" or German" when that's what they are.
Fag is a term of abuse.
Are you deliberately acting stupid?
Click to expand...



If sarcasm is stupid then yeah. The tone of abuse was still present in either case.
Click to expand...
 
Re: Who's going first?

Urethra Franklin said:
No as they are terms of abuse. You call them gay. If smoeone's a homophobe, you call them a homophobe. Doh.


Nobody's actually doing that; they're simply acknowledging the catholic churches contribution to spreading AIDS.
Click to expand...


As long as the churches contribution to the spreading of AIDS is noted as significantly less than the promiscuous men who have sodomy with each other and have sex with sex workers and bring it home to their female partners who are then unfaithful to their cheating husbands and pass it on to someone else then I guess I am ok with that.(Yow long sentence)


The Pope said Abstain. How much clearer can you be? If even 20% more people had listened we would be in better shape.
Humans are killing themselves. That is just the way we are and as a people we appear to enjoy it.
 
Re: Who's going first?

akyron said:
Humans are killing themselves. That is just the way we are and as a people we appear to enjoy it.
Click to expand...
Mmmmm

More sarcasm
 
Re: Who's going first?

akyron said:
As long as the churches contribution to the spreading of AIDS is noted as significantly less than the promiscuous men who have sodomy with each other and have sex with sex workers and bring it home to their female partners who are then unfaithful to their cheating husbands and pass it on to someone else then I guess I am ok with that.(Yow long sentence).
Click to expand...

You are describing normal human behaviour. If the above had all worn condoms there'd be no disease spreading going on.

akyron said:
The Pope said Abstain. How much clearer can you be? .
Click to expand...

Funny how men in frocks like the pope, who supposedly don't have sex, feel they are best placed to advise the rest of us on sexual and relationship matters. Had he lived in the real world he'd know that sex is a part of life, it happens, and it's best that people are prepared and protect themselves. Fortunately, most of his priests didn't enforce their own sexual lives upon us or we'd be witnessing one almighty paedophiliafest. Shame the paedo priests couldn't "abstain"
 
Re: Who's going first?

Urethra Franklin said:
You are describing normal human behaviour. If the above had all worn condoms there'd be no disease spreading going on.
Click to expand...

There'd be your true friend and mine, Mr. Herpes. Condoms really don't protect against ****.
 
Re: Who's going first?

RightatNYU said:
There'd be your true friend and mine, Mr. Herpes. Condoms really don't protect against ****.
Click to expand...

Never had it, but you're obviously an experienced genital herpes sufferer. Fortunately there are excellent elimination treatments available now, like Zelitrex. Condoms will reduce and in many cases eliminate the risk of spreading herpes, depending just where the lesion is of course, but most people simply abstain for the short period they have an attack, just like I don't kiss my mother if I have a cold. Your post is actually pretty irrelevant, though that's the standard we've come to expect from you. Pretty poor, even for a schoolboy.
 
Franklin

Seriously, quit making comments which shows that you think School-Boys are either Immature or stupid. That is total BS I will guarantee you that a Harvard school-boy isn't so stupid nor immature.. so stop using that to your advantaged, I could easily make the statements that you older people are stupid because our education materials are so much better than yours.

I hope you cut that **** out.
 
Arch Enemy said:
Franklin

Seriously, quit making comments which shows that you think School-Boys are either Immature or stupid. That is total BS I will guarantee you that a Harvard school-boy isn't so stupid nor immature.. so stop using that to your advantaged, I could easily make the statements that you older people are stupid because our education materials are so much better than yours.

I hope you cut that **** out.
Click to expand...

It's been a long time since I've seen a constructive comment out of her...

It's too tiring to bother acknowledging anymore.
 
Re: Who's going first?

Urethra Franklin said:
You are describing normal human behaviour. If the above had all worn condoms there'd be no disease spreading going on. "abstain"
Click to expand...


umm. Wrong again per the WHO website.

While condoms certainly cuts your chances significantly the only way to stop the spread of disease 100% is to stay with one uninfected partner or abstain.


Bad apples are everywhere not limited to the church by the way.
 
Disease prevention

"Laboratory studies have found that viruses (including HIV) do not pass through intact latex condoms even when devices are stretched or stressed.

In Thailand, the promotion by the government of 100% condom use by commercial sex workers led to a dramatic increase in the use of condoms (from 14% in 1990 to 94% in 1994); an equally dramatic decline in the nation-wide numbers of bacterial STD cases (from 410,406 cases in 1997 to 27,362 cases in 1994); and reduced HIV prevalence in Thai soldiers.

The most convincing data on the effectiveness of condoms in preventing HIV infection has been generated by prospective studies undertaken on serodiscordant couples, when one partner is infected with HIV and the other is not. These studies show that, with consistent condom use, the HIV infection rate among uninfected partners was less than 1 percent per year. Also, in situations where one partner is definitely infected, inconsistent condom use can be as risky as not using condoms at all."

Source
 
Re: Who's going first?

Urethra Franklin said:
Funny how men in frocks like the pope, who supposedly don't have sex, feel they are best placed to advise the rest of us on sexual and relationship matters. Had he lived in the real world he'd know that sex is a part of life, it happens, and it's best that people are prepared and protect themselves. Fortunately, most of his priests didn't enforce their own sexual lives upon us or we'd be witnessing one almighty paedophiliafest. Shame the paedo priests couldn't "abstain"
Click to expand...

Now Urethra, dear, you're missing a very important point here.

If Priests only shag young boys then they have eliminated both the risk of STDs and of unwanted pregnancy. Therefore they have eliminated the need for the condoms that they disapprove of so much. So in being paedophiles they are actually being more holy!
 
Re: Who's going first?

Urethra Franklin said:
No. I didn't know them. And I was rather young for both of them, having been born the year JFK was killed.



I don't have idols.
If a political figure I admired were murdered, I'd be outraged as I am at the murder of anybody, but i couldn't mourn somebody i didn't know, no.




Your word order is incorrect, or have we stumbled upon poet's corner?
Click to expand...


Why don't you stop acting like a retard. he ment that if you lived during that time. Maybe you're so stupid you didn't get the message. You say retarded things to get out of answering the question. So answer it right or be a retard.
 
Re: Who's going first?

Naughty Nurse said:
Now Urethra, dear, you're missing a very important point here.

If Priests only shag young boys then they have eliminated both the risk of STDs and of unwanted pregnancy. Therefore they have eliminated the need for the condoms that they disapprove of so much. So in being paedophiles they are actually being more holy!
Click to expand...
I don't know whether to laugh, be mad at you, or throw up...is it possible to do all three at once?
 
Re: Who's going first?

ShamMol said:
I don't know whether to laugh, be mad at you, or throw up...is it possible to do all three at once?
Click to expand...

Yea, but it probably won't taste good.
 
Re: Who's going first?

Naughty Nurse said:
they have eliminated the need for the condoms that they disapprove of so much. !
Click to expand...


I agree that disapproving of condoms was silly and a bad move from the church.

However, If people stuck to one partner and abstained in between then condoms would not be a major issue anyway. As far as whacko priest's they have no monopoly on bad guys. They are just held to a higher standard and rightly so.
 
test post. no opinon
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom