Homosexual sex is more harmful than heterosexual sex

1. You've pointed out that out that lesbians are half the population of homosexuals, and thats one of you're problems. According to The Williams Institute at UCLA School of Law, a sexual orientation law think tank, released a study in April 2011 estimating based on its research that 1.7 percent of American adults identify as gay or lesbian, while another 1.8 percent identify as bisexual. Drawing on information from four recent national and two state-level population-based surveys, the analyses suggest that there are more than 8 million adults in the US who are lesbian, gay, or bisexual, comprising 3.5% of the adult population. Of men, 2.2% identify as gay and an additional 1.4% as bisexual. Of women, 1.1% identify as lesbian and an additional 2.2% as bisexual. . http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu... So there are most likely more homosexual men than homosexual women, so if we were to combine homosexuals, gay men are actually the majority compared to lesbians, therefore the ratio of homosexuals having the most anal sex would still be in favor to them. So the ratio wouldn't really be negated. If the ratios were equal then why would heterosexuals still have a lower std and anal disease rate? Ive proven that gay sex is more harmful due to the fact that gay men engage in more anal sex than heterosexuals. Ive proven that both gay sex AND anal sex is harmful. if a gay man has anal sex with ANOTHER MAN he is STILL engaging in gay sex. just because he's having anal with another MAN doesn't mean it isn't gay sex, and since GAY anal SEX is at an incredibly higher risk of danger than heterosexual sex Ive proven that gay sex is more harmful. "After all, if a gay or lesbian couple never had anal sex, or had it less often than a straight couple, it wouldn't be the gay sex that was harmful, but the frequency of anal sex which is not based on sexuality. " hmmm. .. well too bad con is speaking hypothetically and not factually, a gay couple who don't have or not having as much anal sex as heterosexual couples is pretty rare, and doesn't apply to most homosexuals. like i said. Anal sex or sex in general IS based on sexuality of the sex, having any type of sex with a man qualifies as gay sex. if a gay man has anal sex with another man they are participating in gay sex, since gay men tend to do it more frequently than heterosexuals my point still stands. gay sex his more harmful than straight sex. 2. "I pointed out that STIs can largely be prevented by condoms. Pro says that many gay men don't use condoms. Ergo, Pro is arguing that irresponsible sex is dangerous, NOT gay sex. " you're correct the STD rates of homosexuals will go down for homosexuals if the majority of them used condoms. The problem is that condoms are only 70% effective for gay men. . http://www.catie.ca... . http://www.pridesource.com... while its around 80-90% effective (or higher)for heterosexuals . https://www.guttmacher.org... so even if both homosexuals and heterosexuals were to use condoms gay sex would still be riskier than heterosexual sex. therefore my point still stands. "I've already explained that lesbians do not have high rates of STDs and account for 1/2 of the homosexual population. " I've rebutted con's claim by showing her a study done by the Sydney Sexual Health Centre in Australia that included several doctors and consisted of 1432 WSW who claimed to exclusively only have sex with women or haven't have sex with a man, but rather a woman in the past 12 months. The study also consisted of 1423 WSM women that reported never having sex with a woman. The results of the study were that Bacterial vaginosis (BV) was significantly more common among WSW. Genital herpes and genital warts were common in both groups, although warts were significantly less common in WSW. It also stated that the prevalence of hepatitis C was significantly greater in WSW WSW were more likely to report previous sexual contact with a homo/bisexual man or with an injecting drug user than heterosexual women (which already puts them at a higher risk). Here's the link to the study again. Katherine Fethers, et al. , "Sexually transmitted infections and risk behaviours in women who have sex with women,"Sexually Transmitted Infections, 76(5): 345-349, p. 348 (2000). Copy and paste it on Google and click on the the link that's been cited 242 times. The reason as to why this info and research isn't out there isn't because of scientific research. I've stated it's because of the LACK of scientific research. Lesbians certainly do have a lower rate than gay men, but I wouldn't take that giant leap and say that itd. It's lower than heterosexuals. Lesbians do have sex with gay and Bi sexual men more than heterosexuals. So until the study is taken as seriously as heterosexual and gay STDs we can't say too much about it. Con claims that the main reason gay men have high std rates is because they're not afraid of pregnancy lool. I think that's a little silly. Obviously they can't get pregnant, but I wouldn't say that's the main reason. Con is right about them being more careless about sex, but also fails to mention that The average HIV transmission rate during anal sex is estimated to be 18 times higher than the rate during vaginal intercourse. Homosexuals are in a higher risk of hiv/aids due to the fact that they have GAY anal SEX more than heterosexuals, and gay anal sex is MUCH more riskier and harmful BECAUSE of the high STD rates and anal defects that heterosexuals don't usually face. So my point still stands gay sex is still riskier/more harmful than heterosexual sex. Con continues to claim that lesbians are half of the gay population. It's been rebutted. The CDC won't say it directly (probably due to political correctness) but if we use logic and common sense we can figure out that gay sex (in America at least, and most parts of Europe) is the number 1 transmitter of STDs. HIV/AIDS is a SEXUAL transmitted disease. If HIV/AIDS is transmitted the most through SEX wouldn't it be logical to assume homosexual men transmitt it the most to others due to the fact that their the ones who carry the disease the most? It only makes logical sense to say hiv/aids is transmitted mostly by gay sexual contact the most. I mean. .. .what else could it be? Heterosexuals can't be the ones transmitting it the most Sexually. In fact new cases of HIV from the CDC are from women who have sex with Bi sexual men. . http://nypost.com... Gay sex it's self isn't the problem. You are correct. But gay sex is definitely PART of the problem. If unsafe sex was the only problem then homosexuals and heterosexuals would have around the same rate of stds. But that's not the case. Homosexuals still have an INCREDIBLY higher rate, so this should give anyone a clue that gay sex is also part of the problem. A study was done showing that 70% of women didn't use condoms when having sex with men. I said it's too bad, because it would definitely lower the risks of stds between homosexuals, but not as much as heterosexuals. 3. Bacterial infection may not be an STD, and the cause isn't completely understood, but certain activities, such as unprotected sex or frequent douching, increase your risk. . http://www.mayoclinic.org... Just because BV can happen to virgins doesn't mean it still can't be pinned on sex. HIV can happen to virgins (incredibly rare) but does that mean HIV can't be pinned on sex? Besides. The virgin can with BV can still have sex and transmit it. 4. 4. Well according to the study that I showed that consisted of thousands of women and many doctors. The majority of lesbians have had more sex with homosexual, Bi sexual, and drug users than heterosexual women. Which puts them at a higher risk of STDs than normal heterosexual women. Unless if con comes up with an even better cited medical source like I've done debunking that study, then I guess my claim is more reliable than cons. I'll cite it one last time. Katherine Fethers, et al. , "Sexually transmitted infections and risk behaviours in women who have sex with women,"Sexually Transmitted Infections, 76(5): 345-349, p. 348 (2000). Second, the studies that show this have been demonstrated to use horrible sampling for their data, and those results have been largely discredited among peer review anyway [2, 3]. Hmm? Con has brought up yet again another logical fallacy. Didn't you even read your links? None of it says that about BV. Or lesbians. it has never been discredited either. In fact. Most of it actually support what I say. Especially you're Oxford link. In my arguments I said lesbian women have a higher chance of getting BV. Your link says. Bacterial vaginosis is common among women in general and even more so among women with female partners. I said that we can't really assume that lesbians have little to no risk of STDs because of the extreme lack of research on this subject. Your link says WSW should not be presumed to be at low or no risk for STIs based on sexual orientation, (which is exactly what con has been doing. ) Then later goes on to say Although extensive data are available regarding sexually transmitted infections (STIs) among men who have sex with men, relatively little has been published about STI prevalence and risks among other sexual and gender minorities, including women who have sex with women (WSW). Health care providers and their female clients would benefit from increased knowledge of STI risks and testing guidance for women who have same-sex partners. I claimed lesbians or WSW were most likely to be Hiv positive due to the fact that they do more Hiv risk behaviors than heterosexual women. Like drug injections, and having sex with gay and Bi sexual men. Your link claims that More common is the potential for WSW to acquire HIV through other modes, including injection drug use and sexual contact with high-risk male partners. And then cites other links like, . http://ajph.aphapublications.org... And . http://www.tandfonline.com... 5. I'm running out of characters so I'll make this quick. 303,0000 women died of pregnancy last year. 1.2 million people died of hiv/aids in 2014. Hiv/aids is an std, so that counts as an std death. Therefore 1.2 million+ people died of stds. If you're in a developed country the chances of you dying of pregnancy is near 1% if you have hiv/aids you WILL die sooner or later unless you're filthy rich like magic Johnson, unfortunately not very many people are as rich as hum to pay for the expensive medication. Being pregnant has a plus side. Most people are delighted to have children. We can't say the same for stds. Therefore the risk of being pregnant is as bad as the risk of catching a disease. Science doesn't exactly say that gay sex is harmful, but it does say heterosexual sex is safer. It'll be dishonest to say otherwise. I've gone over most of con's conclusion. Since I'm running out of characters I'll end hear. Thank you for the debate con.