TexasScientist said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Being homosexual doesn't send you to hell, being heterosexual doesn't send you to heaven

---

True.

It's also true that one is natural form of sexuality encouraged by Christian doctrine and practice.

And the other is a unnatural fundamentally disordered form of sexuality rightfully condemned by Christian doctrine and practice.

---

Are oral sex and anal sex ok in a heterosexual marriage? How about outside of marriage? Or are they deviant or natural forms of behavior in Christian doctrine and practice?

---

yes oral, no anal, no sex outside of marriage..

As your science shows, hormones create a connection during sexual experience in two ways, the first one is the thrill dopamine, the second is oxytocin

Instead of strengthening bonds between a husband and wife, people are jumping from person to person in short relationships or one night stands when the dopamine thrill is gone and the oxytocin bond didnt form.

Science proves Gods design of one woman and one man forever

---

Why do you think oral is ok and anal is not?

According to lore, the god of Abraham approves of multiple wives and concubines for Jews, Muslims, and some Christians. Heavenly Father gave permission to the Mormons. God gave multiple indigenous religions permission for multiple wives. *** But not multiple husbands so much. That really irks him.

I'm not familiar with any scientific research the proves your preposterous claim. For one thing there has to be a god to make that assertion, a forever, and premise that can be the subject of a scientific study.

---

anal sex poses serious medical risks, including bacterial and viral infections of the vagina, *****, rectum, and anus. Also, rectal tissue is more delicate and vulnerable to tearing and abrasion than vaginal tissue.

Science is why I am against it. Years in the healthcare field is why I am against it.

The God that I pray to believes in one man and one woman forever. The rest of your post is whataboutism that isnt applicable.

the correlation between the increase in premarital sex / sex for fun only and the increase in mental health issues isnt a coincidence.

---

..Vaginal intercourse has multiple health risks associated with it including the risk of pregnancy.

---

That is not a "health risk"

That is the literally purpose of sex

---

There is the risk of communicable disease. AIDs, syphilis etc. Maybe you should be screened if your not aware of that.

---

Yet still….Pregnancy is still not a "health risk"

It's not the same category (or planet) as AIDs or a sexual transmitted disease

---

Tell that to women who have serious complications, and who have died with pregnancies ...

---

Let's ask the medical community if they define human pregnancy as a "health risk"


[Physiologically, pregnancy is typically defined as a normal, healthy biological state rather than a "health risk" in itself.]

Eating, swallowing, Walking or using the bathroom are normal human biological functions

They are not defined as "health risks" inherently. Though in the course of these acts… accidents or health complications can occur.

But swallowing, eating, or human pregnancy are not defined as "health risks"

---

Pregnancy has health risks associated with it, for the mother and the featus. It may not be high risk or most individuals, but there is a risk.

---

Pregnancy itself is NOT defined as an inherent health risk for humans and not categorized as such by the medical community.

Just as eating food is not defined as a health risk for humans by medical community.

It is concerning for your credibility that you won't just moved on from your wrong & inaccurate statement and just accept the loss.

You made a mistake in using the term "health risk" and associating it with human pregnancy.

It's ok..we all make mistakes….own up to it and move on

---

You can try to play semantics, but there is a risk associated with pregnancy. There is a risk with smoking. There is a risk with drinking alcohol. There is a risk of eating the Standard American Diet.

---

yes, the things you listed increase the risk of pregnancy tremendously.

None of those things are required for survival of the species but pregnancy is..

Yes, eating is required but not the SAD way

TexasScientist said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Being homosexual doesn't send you to hell, being heterosexual doesn't send you to heaven

---

True.

It's also true that one is natural form of sexuality encouraged by Christian doctrine and practice.

And the other is a unnatural fundamentally disordered form of sexuality rightfully condemned by Christian doctrine and practice.

---

Are oral sex and anal sex ok in a heterosexual marriage? How about outside of marriage? Or are they deviant or natural forms of behavior in Christian doctrine and practice?

---

yes oral, no anal, no sex outside of marriage..

As your science shows, hormones create a connection during sexual experience in two ways, the first one is the thrill dopamine, the second is oxytocin

Instead of strengthening bonds between a husband and wife, people are jumping from person to person in short relationships or one night stands when the dopamine thrill is gone and the oxytocin bond didnt form.

Science proves Gods design of one woman and one man forever

---

Why do you think oral is ok and anal is not?

According to lore, the god of Abraham approves of multiple wives and concubines for Jews, Muslims, and some Christians. Heavenly Father gave permission to the Mormons. God gave multiple indigenous religions permission for multiple wives. *** But not multiple husbands so much. That really irks him.

I'm not familiar with any scientific research the proves your preposterous claim. For one thing there has to be a god to make that assertion, a forever, and premise that can be the subject of a scientific study.

---

anal sex poses serious medical risks, including bacterial and viral infections of the vagina, *****, rectum, and anus. Also, rectal tissue is more delicate and vulnerable to tearing and abrasion than vaginal tissue.

Science is why I am against it. Years in the healthcare field is why I am against it.

The God that I pray to believes in one man and one woman forever. The rest of your post is whataboutism that isnt applicable.

the correlation between the increase in premarital sex / sex for fun only and the increase in mental health issues isnt a coincidence.

---

..Vaginal intercourse has multiple health risks associated with it including the risk of pregnancy.

---

That is not a "health risk"

That is the literally purpose of sex

---

There is the risk of communicable disease. AIDs, syphilis etc. Maybe you should be screened if your not aware of that.

---

Yet still….Pregnancy is still not a "health risk"

It's not the same category (or planet) as AIDs or a sexual transmitted disease

---

Tell that to women who have serious complications, and who have died with pregnancies ...

---

Let's ask the medical community if they define human pregnancy as a "health risk"


[Physiologically, pregnancy is typically defined as a normal, healthy biological state rather than a "health risk" in itself.]

Eating, swallowing, Walking or using the bathroom are normal human biological functions

They are not defined as "health risks" inherently. Though in the course of these acts… accidents or health complications can occur.

But swallowing, eating, or human pregnancy are not defined as "health risks"

---

Pregnancy has health risks associated with it, for the mother and the featus. It may not be high risk or most individuals, but there is a risk.

---

Pregnancy itself is NOT defined as an inherent health risk for humans and not categorized as such by the medical community.

Just as eating food is not defined as a health risk for humans by medical community.

It is concerning for your credibility that you won't just moved on from your wrong & inaccurate statement and just accept the loss.

You made a mistake in using the term "health risk" and associating it with human pregnancy.

It's ok..we all make mistakes….own up to it and move on

---

You can try to play semantics, but there is a risk associated with pregnancy. There is a risk with smoking. There is a risk with drinking alcohol..

---

It's about factual statements and using correct terminology.

You have failed to grasp the basics of words and meaning.

Pregnancy itself is not denied as a "health risk" by any medical professional association or organization and never has been.

Is a natural biological process.

Alcohol and smoking tobacco are not biological processes at all. They are denied as Psychoactive Substances/Drugs by the WHO…things taken into the body that affect mental processes such as consciousness, cognition, or mood and emotions and are toxic to the body.

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Tell me you have no idea what medical school is for, much less any of the material they study.

---

No, I'd rather continue to educate you. You need the help.

---

In English, that post translates to you depending on propaganda because you are averse to facts.

I guess you missed the part where the Greek started with 'first, do no harm'.

---

That doesn't fit with your anti-vax message.

---

I have never been anti-vax. Voices in your head telling you things?

he men on this board are severely limited in their understanding of the female body. They lack knowledge about pregnancy. Get an education.

Doctors define high-risk pregnancies as those requiring extra care due to increased chances of complications for the mother or baby, often linked to age (<20 or >35), lifestyle, or pre-existing health conditions like diabetes, obesity, and hypertension. Common risks include premature birth, cesarean delivery, preeclampsia, and low birth weight, with serious complications possible.
2 edits

The men on this board understand women far better than your side of the aisle, Waco.

You cannot even define 'woman, and you seem to be unaware that a pregnancy does not usually involve complications. That is, a pregnancy is usually planned, proceeds as expected, and produces a child which the parents love and raise in joy .. Democrats excepted of course.

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

We are designed to walk. Walking can have risk but it is way down the list.

We are designed to procreate. Procreation can have risk but it is way down the line.

We are designed for life. Life can have risk but it is way down the line.

Digging can have risk. Quit digging. Avoid the risk of looking more foolish.

---

Risk is risk. We can assign probability to risk, and make decisions based upon tolerance for the probability of the risk. But, risk is risk.

Some human life will land in the low probability of early death. That risk probability has improved over time with knowledge (science as opposed to faith) - but a risk remains.

Redbrickbear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Being homosexual doesn't send you to hell, being heterosexual doesn't send you to heaven

---

True.

It's also true that one is natural form of sexuality encouraged by Christian doctrine and practice.

And the other is a unnatural fundamentally disordered form of sexuality rightfully condemned by Christian doctrine and practice.

---

Are oral sex and anal sex ok in a heterosexual marriage? How about outside of marriage? Or are they deviant or natural forms of behavior in Christian doctrine and practice?

---

yes oral, no anal, no sex outside of marriage..

As your science shows, hormones create a connection during sexual experience in two ways, the first one is the thrill dopamine, the second is oxytocin

Instead of strengthening bonds between a husband and wife, people are jumping from person to person in short relationships or one night stands when the dopamine thrill is gone and the oxytocin bond didnt form.

Science proves Gods design of one woman and one man forever

---

Why do you think oral is ok and anal is not?

According to lore, the god of Abraham approves of multiple wives and concubines for Jews, Muslims, and some Christians. Heavenly Father gave permission to the Mormons. God gave multiple indigenous religions permission for multiple wives. *** But not multiple husbands so much. That really irks him.

I'm not familiar with any scientific research the proves your preposterous claim. For one thing there has to be a god to make that assertion, a forever, and premise that can be the subject of a scientific study.

---

anal sex poses serious medical risks, including bacterial and viral infections of the vagina, *****, rectum, and anus. Also, rectal tissue is more delicate and vulnerable to tearing and abrasion than vaginal tissue.

Science is why I am against it. Years in the healthcare field is why I am against it.

The God that I pray to believes in one man and one woman forever. The rest of your post is whataboutism that isnt applicable.

the correlation between the increase in premarital sex / sex for fun only and the increase in mental health issues isnt a coincidence.

---

..Vaginal intercourse has multiple health risks associated with it including the risk of pregnancy.

---

That is not a "health risk"

That is the literally purpose of sex

---

There is the risk of communicable disease. AIDs, syphilis etc. Maybe you should be screened if your not aware of that.

---

Yet still….Pregnancy is still not a "health risk"

It's not the same category (or planet) as AIDs or a sexual transmitted disease

---

Tell that to women who have serious complications, and who have died with pregnancies ...

---

Let's ask the medical community if they define human pregnancy as a "health risk"


[Physiologically, pregnancy is typically defined as a normal, healthy biological state rather than a "health risk" in itself.]

Eating, swallowing, Walking or using the bathroom are normal human biological functions

They are not defined as "health risks" inherently. Though in the course of these acts… accidents or health complications can occur.

But swallowing, eating, or human pregnancy are not defined as "health risks"

---

Pregnancy has health risks associated with it, for the mother and the featus. It may not be high risk or most individuals, but there is a risk.

---

Pregnancy itself is NOT defined as an inherent health risk for humans and not categorized as such by the medical community.

Just as eating food is not defined as a health risk for humans by medical community.

It is concerning for your credibility that you won't just moved on from your wrong & inaccurate statement and just accept the loss.

You made a mistake in using the term "health risk" and associating it with human pregnancy.

It's ok..we all make mistakes….own up to it and move on

---

You can try to play semantics, but there is a risk associated with pregnancy. There is a risk with smoking. There is a risk with drinking alcohol..

---

It's about factual statements and using correct terminology.

You have failed to grasp the basics of words and meaning.

Pregnancy itself is not denied as a "health risk" by any medical professional association or organization and never has been.

Is a natural biological process.

Alcohol and smoking tobacco are not biological processes at all. They are denied as Psychoactive Substances/Drugs by the WHO…things taken into the body that affect mental processes such as consciousness, cognition, or mood and emotions and are toxic to the body.

---

I don't know any physician worth their salt who will tell you there is no health risk associated with pregnancy. That's why they'll recommend frequent exams, possible supplements, periodic ultrasounds, genetic testing, and testing for fetal and maternal maladies and disorders. Not too long ago, it was not uncommon for women to die in childbirth, or deliver stillborn. Miscarriages are still very common.

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Tell me you have no idea what medical school is for, much less any of the material they study.

---

No, I'd rather continue to educate you. You need the help.

---

In English, that post translates to you depending on propaganda because you are averse to facts.

I guess you missed the part where the Greek started with 'first, do no harm'.

---

That doesn't fit with your anti-vax message.

---

I have never been anti-vax. Voices in your head telling you things?

---

I seem to recall you ranting about Covid vaccines, my apologies. I'm glad to know you actually support something that science has given us.

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

We are designed to walk. Walking can have risk but it is way down the list.

We are designed to procreate. Procreation can have risk but it is way down the line.

We are designed for life. Life can have risk but it is way down the line.

Digging can have risk. Quit digging. Avoid the risk of looking more foolish.

---

Risk is risk. We can assign probability to risk, and make decisions based upon tolerance for the probability of the risk. But, risk is risk.

Some human life will land in the low probability of early death. That risk probability has improved over time with knowledge (science as opposed to faith) - but a risk remains.

---

Yes, I've heard this argument before. It's quite popular actually.

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

We are designed to walk. Walking can have risk but it is way down the list.

We are designed to procreate. Procreation can have risk but it is way down the line.

We are designed for life. Life can have risk but it is way down the line.

Digging can have risk. Quit digging. Avoid the risk of looking more foolish.

---

Risk is risk. We can assign probability to risk, and make decisions based upon tolerance for the probability of the risk. But, risk is risk.

Some human life will land in the low probability of early death. That risk probability has improved over time with knowledge (science as opposed to faith) - but a risk remains.

---

Yes, I've heard this argument before. It's quite popular actually.

---

That's right.

TexasScientist said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Being homosexual doesn't send you to hell, being heterosexual doesn't send you to heaven

---

True.

It's also true that one is natural form of sexuality encouraged by Christian doctrine and practice.

And the other is a unnatural fundamentally disordered form of sexuality rightfully condemned by Christian doctrine and practice.

---

Are oral sex and anal sex ok in a heterosexual marriage? How about outside of marriage? Or are they deviant or natural forms of behavior in Christian doctrine and practice?

---

yes oral, no anal, no sex outside of marriage..

As your science shows, hormones create a connection during sexual experience in two ways, the first one is the thrill dopamine, the second is oxytocin

Instead of strengthening bonds between a husband and wife, people are jumping from person to person in short relationships or one night stands when the dopamine thrill is gone and the oxytocin bond didnt form.

Science proves Gods design of one woman and one man forever

---

Why do you think oral is ok and anal is not?

According to lore, the god of Abraham approves of multiple wives and concubines for Jews, Muslims, and some Christians. Heavenly Father gave permission to the Mormons. God gave multiple indigenous religions permission for multiple wives. *** But not multiple husbands so much. That really irks him.

I'm not familiar with any scientific research the proves your preposterous claim. For one thing there has to be a god to make that assertion, a forever, and premise that can be the subject of a scientific study.

---

anal sex poses serious medical risks, including bacterial and viral infections of the vagina, *****, rectum, and anus. Also, rectal tissue is more delicate and vulnerable to tearing and abrasion than vaginal tissue.

Science is why I am against it. Years in the healthcare field is why I am against it.

The God that I pray to believes in one man and one woman forever. The rest of your post is whataboutism that isnt applicable.

the correlation between the increase in premarital sex / sex for fun only and the increase in mental health issues isnt a coincidence.

---

..Vaginal intercourse has multiple health risks associated with it including the risk of pregnancy.

---

That is not a "health risk"

That is the literally purpose of sex

---

There is the risk of communicable disease. AIDs, syphilis etc. Maybe you should be screened if your not aware of that.

---

Yet still….Pregnancy is still not a "health risk"

It's not the same category (or planet) as AIDs or a sexual transmitted disease

---

Tell that to women who have serious complications, and who have died with pregnancies ...

---

Let's ask the medical community if they define human pregnancy as a "health risk"


[Physiologically, pregnancy is typically defined as a normal, healthy biological state rather than a "health risk" in itself.]

Eating, swallowing, Walking or using the bathroom are normal human biological functions

They are not defined as "health risks" inherently. Though in the course of these acts… accidents or health complications can occur.

But swallowing, eating, or human pregnancy are not defined as "health risks"

---

Pregnancy has health risks associated with it, for the mother and the featus. It may not be high risk or most individuals, but there is a risk.

---

Pregnancy itself is NOT defined as an inherent health risk for humans and not categorized as such by the medical community.

Just as eating food is not defined as a health risk for humans by medical community.

It is concerning for your credibility that you won't just moved on from your wrong & inaccurate statement and just accept the loss.

You made a mistake in using the term "health risk" and associating it with human pregnancy.

It's ok..we all make mistakes….own up to it and move on

---

You can try to play semantics, but there is a risk associated with pregnancy. There is a risk with smoking. There is a risk with drinking alcohol..

---

It's about factual statements and using correct terminology.

You have failed to grasp the basics of words and meaning.

Pregnancy itself is not denied as a "health risk" by any medical professional association or organization and never has been.

Is a natural biological process.

Alcohol and smoking tobacco are not biological processes at all. They are denied as Psychoactive Substances/Drugs by the WHO…things taken into the body that affect mental processes such as consciousness, cognition, or mood and emotions and are toxic to the body.

---

I don't know any physician worth their salt who will tell you there is no health risk associated with pregnancy..

---

And at the same time no physician worth their salt would define pregnancy as a health risk.

You said pregnancy was a health risk

Not that in certain circumstances it could have health risks.

A very different thing than what you actually said

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Tell me you have no idea what medical school is for, much less any of the material they study.

---

No, I'd rather continue to educate you. You need the help.

---

In English, that post translates to you depending on propaganda because you are averse to facts.

I guess you missed the part where the Greek started with 'first, do no harm'.

---

That doesn't fit with your anti-vax message.

---

I have never been anti-vax. Voices in your head telling you things?

---

I seem to recall you ranting about Covid vaccines, my apologies. I'm glad to know you actually support something that science has given us.

---

Ahhhh, the Covid vaccines.

My complaints against those were of the time, and focused on two critical points:

1. The drugs were experimental at the time, yet people were being compelled to take them. That's a clear violation of Hippocrates' command, yet you have tried to turn it around and make coercion a virtue;

2. A great number of false claims were made regarding the vaccines. They did not, it turns out, prevent people from catching the virus, they did in fact have occasional serious and sometimes fatal side effects which were not made known to the public at the time. Critics warned of this possibility but were shut down, with Fauci going so far as to claim that anyone, including doctors and scientists who saw danger in the practice, were 'arguing against Science' simply for warning of the risks of his edicts.

Now that the crisis has passed, those guilty of these actions simply pretend they did nothing wrong.

Lies for the perceived greater good IS science. Everyone knows this you Neanderthal.