1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieis Dr. R. Diggs a homophobe, because as a doctor he discourages homosexual sex as being a health risk?
The Health Risks of Gay Sex
JOHN R. DIGGS, JR., M.D.
As a physician, it is my duty to assess behaviors for their impact on health and wellbeing. When something is beneficial, such as exercise, good nutrition, or adequate sleep, it is my duty to recommend it. Likewise, when something is harmful, such as smoking, overeating, alcohol or drug abuse ...[text shortened]... r he discourages homosexual sex as being a health risk? Some on the forum like to think so, why?
No. To suggest that would probably be some etiological confusion. It's more like, Dr. Diggs preferentially discourages homosexual sex, on the basis of no actual justification worth taking seriously, because he's a homophobe. He's a homophobe because of his inner complex of bigotry and unwarranted negative attitudes towards homosexuals.
Do you get it now? Here's another example to help you out with the distinction. We could ask the question: is robbie carrobie a homophobe, because he goes around endorsing just any old so-called empirical data that paints homosexuality in a bad light, even when the data source is obviously and blatantly disreputable? The answer is no. Robbie carrobie is a homophobe because of the complex of bigotry and negative attitudes he harbors towards homosexuals, largely infixed in his psychology by his homophobic cult. In turn, he goes around endorsing and promulgating obviously disreputable data against homosexuality because it appeals to his homophobia. See the distinction?
Hope that helps clear things up for you, sweetie pie.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI think the desire to criminalize behavior that offends moral sensibilities is deeply ingrained in American culture and because most Americans ascribe to a religion, these moral sensibilities are religiously backed. Of course religious people like you see them as sourced from religion (God, that is) and so do most Americans.
the thought of introducing the element of criminality never crossed my mind, its completely alien to our thinking. Have you never been to Amsterdam? they have some of the most liberal views on what is appropriate behaviour and what is not. I suspect that religion plays a strong role in American politics though, even if its not legal to favour one c ...[text shortened]... ferent traditions, a different history, some notable revolutions which has shaped ones thinking.
Most if not all of our major internal conflicts have this character. Enslavement (later, segregation and civil rights), prohibition, abortion, gay issues, perhaps woman's suffrage/liberation (although conflicts that exist in religions on this score imprint themselves on the public dialogue) etc.
This is why I think your presentation of reasons to disapprove of homosexual liberties, is seen as a call for criminalization of homosexual liberties. Americans on both sides of the issue will see you as presenting arguments for criminalization.
3 edits
Originally posted by JS357I suspect that things like sodomy were illegal at one point and may still be in certain states, i dont know. To what extent people expect the government to legislate on moral deviation is interesting in itself, but I can see why you might think it was a call for criminalisation as I am presenting the case that its harmful. In Europe i suspect that somehow our sensibilities may somehow be desensitised, why this is the case, is hard to say and I suspect that constant pressure from pro gay groups and so called secular liberals, who, as we have seen in this thread, paint anything that is contrary to their morality as homophobia, hateful and bigoted. You have seen the call for the removal of the thread , attempts to make sexuality akin to race ( a nonsense because race is immutable whereas sexual preference certainly is not), attempts to defend practices which are potentially harmful as normal and natural yet which run contrary to the physiology of the body and assertions of homophobia and bigotry without the slightest foundation. The whole movement for so called gay rights has in my opinion been fuelled by pseudo scientific claims of the immutability of sexuality and in some instances downright deception with regard to some scientific claims. Yet there is no question that gays have been and continue to be the subject of hatred and intolerance, but they cannot project the same towards others who express deep reservations about certain practices nor expect others to accept practices which offend their sensibilities. Those who do should certainly not be subject to prosecution and yet that is what we have come to. It is now a criminal act to exercise the faculty of conscience.
I think the desire to criminalize behavior that offends moral sensibilities is deeply ingrained in American culture and because most Americans ascribe to a religion, these moral sensibilities are religiously backed. Of course religious people like you see them as sourced from religion (God, that is) and so do most Americans.
Most if not all of our major int Americans on both sides of the issue will see you as presenting arguments for criminalization.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou mean "calls" from that one poster - e4chris - who joined the site a few days ago and who has been trying to wind you up? How many posters echoed his "calls for the removal of the thread"?
You have seen the calls for the removal of the thread
2 edits
Originally posted by FMFwhether he joined today or a thousand years ago and irrespective of what his motivations are and irrespective of how many others echoed similar sentiments, its there.
You mean "calls" from that one poster - e4chris - who joined the site a few days ago and who has been trying to wind you up? How many posters echoed his "calls for the removal of the thread"?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWhat significance do you place on the poster called e4chris making "calls for the removal of the thread" in the context of the debate that has gone on here and the contributions that all the regular members have made?
whether he joined today or a thousand years ago and irrespective of what his motivations are and irrespective of how many others echoed similar sentiments, its there.
Originally posted by FMFwhat significance? its a thread in the tapestry.
What significance do you place on the poster called e4chris making "calls for the removal of the thread" in the context of the debate that has gone on here and the contributions that all the regular members have made?
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYes but it seems an odd thing to pick out when summarizing this thread. Here's what you said:
what significance? its a thread in the tapestry.
You have seen the calls for the removal of the thread , attempts to make sexuality akin to race ( a nonsense because race is immutable whereas sexual preference certainly is not), attempts to defend practices which are potentially harmful as normal and natural yet which run contrary to the physiology of the body and assertions of homophobia and bigotry without the slightest foundation.
So you mention just three things when encapsulating this 380 post/26 page thread, and one of them is a few posts by one poster who questioned why the thread was allowed. That was ONE of the THREE things you used to characterize what you have been confronted with over the last 4 days.
You seem to be placing a rather odd degree of significance on these few posts by this one poster.
Would you say that one of the main features of this 26 page discussion has been fellow posters trying to silence you by getting the thread taken down?
2 edits
Originally posted by FMFnope, i have placed no particular significance, its a thread in the tapestry. I will change it to the singular, 'call', to abate your lust for pedantry.
Yes but it seems an odd thing to pick out when summarizing this thread. Here's what you said:
You have seen the calls for the removal of the thread , attempts to make sexuality akin to race ( a nonsense because race is immutable whereas sexual preference certainly is not), attempts to defend practices which are potentially harmful as normal and natural yet page discussion has been fellow posters trying to silence you by getting the thread taken down?
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWell, through your apparent 3 point summary of the 385 post thread, you placed more emphasis on a few posts by e4chris than you did on the points made by posters like Rank Outsider and LemonJello and avalanchethecat, whose contributions you seem to have skipped over completely.
nope, i have placed no particular significance, its a thread in the tapestry. I will change it to the singular, 'call', to abate your lust for pedantry.
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFunworthy of serious comment, the thread was not about me.
Well, through your apparent 3 point summary of the 385 post thread, you placed more emphasis on a few posts by e4chris than you did on the points made by posters like Rank Outsider and LemonJello and avalanchethecat, whose contributions are you seem to have skipped over completely.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieAside from the bad form of changing a post after someone has already responded to it 3 or 4 times, it won't alter the fact that you said what you said, and you placed the significance on it that you chose to. If you go ahead and change it, it will just make you seem even more disingenuous. Why did you focus on a few posts by a brand new poster who made absolutely not a single substantive debate "point" to speak of, and ignore the content of dozens and dozens of other posts?
I will change it to the singular, 'call', to abate your lust for pedantry.