What’s More Dangerous?
Which of these three actions is most likely to result in physical harm and danger?
1. Smoking one cigarette.
2. Drinking one beer.
3. Having normal sex.
4. Having homosexual sex.
No, really, which of those has the highest probability of long-term effects?
Smoking one cigarette may or may not increase your risk of cancer. No one is really sure, but it appears that a single cigarette has no measurable effect. It may get you addicted, but it might also turn you off cigarettes for the rest of your life.
Drinking one beer, if you drink the whole thing in one sip, and if it’s your first ever, might get you drunk. You might fall down and hurt yourself. Yeah, that’s about it.
Having sex is strongly correlated with getting pregnant. In fact, it’s quite common for someone to get pregnant from having sex. That’s an effect that will last your entire life (even if you kill the baby). It’s also an easy way to spread STDs.
Having homosexual sex has a high chance of spreading worse STDs, such as AIDS. In fact, in some areas, people who engage in homosexual sex decrease their life span by up to 20 years. That’s a pretty strong, long-term effect for a single action, isn’t it?
It seems quite clear to me that the last two have a MUCH greater chance of having long-term effects. So can anyone explain to me why the first two are utterly evil and strongly banned in government educational institutions, but the last two are openly encouraged for children aged 14-18 in those same institutions?
Popularity: 19% [?]
Possibly similar posts - Smoking Bans - Drunk Girl - Republican Debate - NC Primary Election Results - Buy American… Beer.
This was a no brainer for me…having sex just once with the wrong person can kill you. AIDS doesn’t care if it lived inside a man or a woman- but it does tend to live in men more…because it is allowed too. Via promiscuous gay sex. Its not popular to talk about but it’s fact. Our governments would like us to believe that condoms and foams prevent the virus from surviving. There is some truth to this but it’s not a given- we’re seeing mutations of the virus that break through condom materials and infect.
Fact is gay sex is extremely risky. It only takes ONE time. ONE.
And, from that ONE time, how many others will go with the ONE time…and get infected…and spread it…and so on.
Brilliant Ogre..!..but duck..the PC police are on the way!
It just absolutely defies logic. How can we tell 13-year old kids that it’s fine and normal to have dangerous sex that might kill you, but we spend billions insisting they don’t do things that are much, MUCH less dangerous.
Then again, logic and government rarely, if ever, are associated with one another today.
Sheesh you guys are all erring hate-filled retards.
Having PROMISCUOUS sex, yes, is potentially dangerous. Hetero or homo.
But what is wrong with encouraging a teen to have a loving, monogomous, safe, homosexual relationship?
Homosexuals are not automatically promiscuous or unsafe.
I have known plenty of long-term monogomous safe homsexual couples and quite a few more promiscuous, unsafe, heterosexual sluts. (Male and female)
Sheesh.
JDS, please read the post before commenting. You have completely and totally missed the point. The post was about which action, WHEN DONE ONCE, has the most potential for long-term, dangerous effects. Nothing in the post had anything to do with, nor was commenting on, ANY long-term relationship of any kind.
Hi. Actually, you, Ogre, whoever you are, might not be anti-gay. But at least one commenter clearly is. (hint: the first commenter)
However, what other point could a posting like this one have other than to espouse anti-homosexual rhetoric?
I mean, you don’t even call heterosexual sex “heterosexual sex”. You call it “normal sex”.
Now, I understand perfectly well that you are a conservative blogger, this site is your own, you can post what you want, etc. etc. yadda yadda and so on. Great! But lets get to the heart of the matter: how long have you hated gays?
Sorry you refuse to see the point. The post is to point out the utter and complete absurdity of the government-run school system.
Sounds good to me.
Of course, pointing out the uselessness of the government school system IS like shooting fish in a barrel…
However, I DO think that:
1) Smoking should not be allowed in schools. and anti-smoking themes should be encouraged if not taught outright
2) Drinking should not be allowed in school. But I don’t think anti-drinking should be taught; responsible use of adult substances by adults should be taught. (I’ll repeat that in a second)
3 & 4) Responsible sexual practices should be encouraged if not taught outright.
In fact, take the maxim in my point (2) and apply it to pretty much all four points: Responsible use or practice of adult substances or behaviors should be practiced responsibly by adults.
So, are you saying that schools are encouraging sex, hetero or otherwise? And what are you saying about the smoke and drink points? that you think that smoking should be allowed in school?
I know you are just going to come back with “your missing the point, hoss”. But the post doesn’t have any frame of reference and it certainly is ambiguous on its points.
To quote you: “the first two are utterly evil and strongly banned in government educational institutions, but the last two are openly encouraged for children aged 14-18 in those same institutions” — where do you get that from? Maybe I just don’t read your blog enough to know the background.
Ah, well, reply if you like.
It appears that you’re taking the position of the school — which is the basis for the quote.
Government schools take the position that smoking and drinking are about the worst things that a 13-17 year old can do. At the same time, these schools take the position that they’re going to teach kids to have sex “because they’ll do it anyway.”
My point is that these schools, given the choice of teaching how to do a certain illegal act, are teaching kids how to do the least safe of the possible list.
Okay. Point taken. But how about human nature? It is probably easier to get kids to not smoke and to not drink and to have sex responsibly — with condoms and/or the pill — than to have them not smoke and not drink AND be completely celibate.
However, I must say that I am actually in favor of legalizing some drugs — notably pot — and making the drinking age 18, or removing the drinking age altogether. I think the problem with drinking, smoking, and drugs are irresponsible use and just teaching “don’t use this stuff at all” is not really effective. And one could never teach responsible use of drink, cigs, or drugs in school unless they were legal for the kiddies.
later…
Heh. We’re on the same page here. I think prohibition laws are crap — for alcohol and for the most part drugs, too.
I think the school shouldn’t be involved with any of this stuff. They can simply set up rules that say, “If you drink here, you go home.” No teaching, no lectures, no telling people what’s right and wrong — parents should do that.
We’ve lost the drug war, just like the war on poverty. Now both are just a jobs program for government bureaucrats at the expense of personal and economic freedom.
Thanks for stopping along!