Harmless?


“No, gay sex is not harmless. They’ve done scientific studies that show it causes microscopic tears in the lining of the rectum.”

“Microscopic?”

“Yeah.”

“In other words, you can’t even see it?”

“Um, well no, I guess not.”

“So what’s the big deal? That’s hardly a reason to deny two people the right to marry each other.”

“It’s not the amount of damage, it’s the principle of the thing. The Bible says that our bodies are the temple of the Holy Spirit, so whatever damages our bodies is wrong.”

“So just use lubricant. If there’s no friction there won’t be any tears.”

“That’s not the point either. That kind of sex is wrong because it has the potential to harm the body.”

“Ok, so if it has the potential to harm the body, even the tiniest bit, then it’s perverted and immoral.”

“Right.”

“Like football, and hockey, and junk food.”

“What? What does that have to do with gay sex?”

“There’s always the potential for injury in pro sports, and junk foods harm your body in a lot of little ways. That makes them perverted and immoral, right?”

“What, are you weird or something? I’m talking about sexual stuff.”

“Oh, you mean like having sex with a virgin.”

“Right.”

“That’s perverted and immoral because it produces tears in the hymen.”

“What? No! God wants us to stay virgin until marriage.”

“And then do perverted and immoral things on our wedding night.”

“There’s nothing perverted about that?”

“Even though it creates tears in the hymen and makes the woman bleed?”

“That has nothing to do with it. Normal sex is just normal”

“But gay sex is wrong because it produces tiny tears too small to even see.”

“Well, yeah.”

“What about circumcision?”

“What about it?”

“Taking a knife to a baby’s penis and cutting off a hunk that will never grow back—that’s not perverted and immoral?”

“No, God gave it as a sign to Israel, to show that they’re His chosen people.”

“But we are talking about causing visible and permanent cuts to someone else’s genitals, without their consent.”

“Well, yeah.”

“If it’s not perverted and immoral to do that to someone, or to tear someone’s hymen and make it bleed, then why would it be wrong to have sex that might cause insignificant damage that will quickly heal, and that can easily be prevented with a little KY?”

“Like I said, it’s the principle of the thing. The body is the temple of the Spirit, so it’s immoral to do it any harm.”

“Unless it’s something YOU approve of, like football, or sex with a virgin, or circumcision. Gay sex is wrong because it might harm the body, but harming the body is only wrong when it’s gay sex.”

“You know, you must really hate God, don’t you.”

“God I don’t mind, it’s bigoted bullshit I can’t stand.”

Comments

  1. davidct says

    You forgot to mention what happens to the vagina if the lubrication is insufficient. Of course that is all beside the point. Sex, gay or otherwise is something that human beings can be guaranteed to do. The point of introducing morality is not to make people better but to control them. The true harm here is the needless suffering of guilt for engaging in a normal biological function.

  2. kraut says

    So heterosexual anal sex is out too. Sheesh, what to do now?
    And what about weight training, running…all those do muscle damage on a continuous basis, so the muscle can by healing get stronger. I knew Schwarzenegger was pure evil.

  3. Celeste says

    On that note, we can argue that even the person doing the penetrating during sex (heterosexual or homosexual) is in danger of harm. My ex-husband’s new wife broke his nose during sex. SO perverted and immoral!

  4. Yellow Thursday says

    When I read, “our bodies are the temple of the Holy Spirit,” the first response I thought of was: “then you must not agree with piercings or tattoos or any type of plastic surgery, even to repair something that God/nature caused.”

  5. articulett says

    Who held the microscope up to assorted rectums after anal sex to observe these microscopic tears one wonders? (How many rectums were involved in this study?)

  6. Igakusei says

    Was this an actual conversation? Hard to imagine someone wouldn’t realize your game and just change the subject or their argument (or yours) to something different.

    • marcus says

      @11 Have you never talked to these people? They will never give up until you are convinced or dead. (However it does have kind of a jokish flow to it, more representative of the “mind”set than actual, my guess.)

  7. says

    articulett, I think it was legit medical research on disease transmission methods. Receptive anal is more risky for HIV, for instance, than vaginal. Not that this is in any way relevant to the topic, of course, but you did seem puzzled.

    • papango says

      Definitely legit research. Done by qualified proctologists and anorectal specialists. People who deal with fistulas and anal fissures and colonoscopies and who know way way more about what is going on in your backside than you’ll ever want to.

    • articulett says

      Thanks. The claim sounds legitimate, but I just couldn’t picture how they would do the test. I was curious about the protocol they used to examine anuses microscopically before and after anal sex.
      And couldn’t a big bowel movement have the same effect? Researchers would want to control for such things, right?

      I believe I had heard that STDs (particularly HIV) were more likely to be transmitted via anal sex (rather than oral or vaginal) because of such tears (allowing access to the bloodstream) –which sounds like a logical conclusion, but I just can’t picture anyone actually examining such tears under the microscope.

  8. says

    Yes, when we disagree with their bullshit, we’re hating their god. I love your logic, though. It shows that none of their objections to homosexuals or homosexuality go beyond the Biblical ick factor. Thought and reason never come into it. If it sounds like they’ve reasoned through it, it’s just because they’ve rationalized their own fear and ignorance.

  9. opposablethumbs, que le pouce enragé mette les pouces says

    Not to mention that of course they would still get their knickers in a twist about same-sex marriage even if there were no penetrative anal sex involved (like that’s the only thing people do).

  10. Crommunist says

    Yeah, I was gonna say that vaginal tissue also tears during heterosexual intercourse (as does glans epithelial tissue). I’ve never heard anyone make the “argument from intact anus” before – is it really a position that someone’s actually taken?

  11. timberwoof says

    Just remember, if you walk a bit funny the next morning then whatever went on last night was a sin.

    Hah! I guess all that soreness after a hockey game or after working out are a Sign from God.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>