The Health Risks of Gay Sex

Originally posted by Rank outsider
Responding as promised.

You asked:

I will ask you once again, where has Doctor Diggs implied that there is no moral distinction between homosexuality and child rape?

However, I am not going to respond to something I didn't say. To remind you, the original quote from Dr Diggs was:

[quote]But now social activists are saying th ...[text shortened]... h I don't think he is. In many ways, I wish he was.

But I'll leave you to make that call.

Dr Diggs did not mention child rape, it was introduced by you, what Dr. Diggs stated was that some have questioned that validity of sex with minors and cited reference works which appear to question certain moral principles. Here is his statement in content,

But now social activists are saying that there should be no fence, and that to destroy the fence is an act of liberation.107 If the fence is torn down, there is no visible boundary to sexual expression. If gay sex is socially acceptable, what logical reason can there be to deny social acceptance of adultery, polygamy, or pedophilia? The polygamist movement already has support from some of the advocates for GLB rights.108 And some in the psychological profession are floating the idea that maybe pedophilia is not so damaging to children after all.109

107.For example, see the website of the National Coalition for Sexual Freedom, Inc., www.ncsfreedom.org.
108. "The ACLU believes that criminal and civil laws prohibiting or penalizing the practice of plural marriage violate constitutional protections . . . ." 1992 Policy Guide of the ACLU, Policy #91, p. 175.
109. Judith Levine, Harmful to Minors: The Perils of Protecting Children from Sex, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2002; Bruce Rind, Philip Tromovitch, and Robert Bauserman, "A Meta-Analytic Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using College Samples," Psychological Bulletin, 124(1): 22-53 (July 1998).

There is not the slightest indication that Dr. Diggs considers that there is no moral distinction between homosexuality and child rape, you should retract the statement or at least modify it. Once again there is NO mention of child rape in the entire text, it was introduced by you and EVEN IF both are considered as immoral, there may even be degrees of immorality, one being considered more heinous than the other, itself a moral distinction.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Once again there is NO mention of child rape in the entire text, it was introduced by you and EVEN IF both are considered as immoral, there may even be degrees of immorality, one being considered more heinous than the other, itself a moral distinction.

Sex with minors is child rape, robbie.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Dr Diggs did not mention child rape, it was introduced by you, what Dr. Diggs stated was that some have questioned that validity of sex with minors and cited reference works which appear to question certain moral principles.

When Dr Diggs said "If gay sex is socially acceptable, what logical reason can there be to deny social acceptance of adultery, polygamy, or pedophilia?" he was deliberately conflating homosexual sex with adultery (sex with someone other than one's spouse) and polygamy (sex with more than one spouse) and pedophilia (sex with children). He chose to conflate them. I am surprised that he didn't mention "bestiality", but he chose to stop at child rape, which he claims will be acceptable if gay sex is tolerated because, he claims, there will be no longer be a "logical reason" to not accept sex with minors.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Dr Diggs did not mention child rape, it was introduced by you, what Dr. Diggs stated was that some have questioned that validity of sex with minors and cited reference works which appear to question certain moral principles. Here is his statement in content,

But now social activists are saying that there should be no fence, and that to destroy t of immorality, one being considered more heinous than the other, itself a moral distinction.

Rape is sex without consent.

Children cannot give consent.

Sex with children is rape.

I'm not debating this again.

statutory rape
 
— n
(in the US) the criminal offence of having sexual intercourse with a girl who has not reached the age of consent

Any sexual intercourse with a child is rape and in most states sexual relations even with consent involving a girl 14 to 18 is "statutory rape," because of the lack of the child's capacity to consent

This is the US position, so Dr Diggs has said that, if you consider that gay sex is socially acceptable, then there is no reason logically to not think that child rape is acceptable.

I don't agree with this, as I think child rape is one of the least socially acceptable things I can think of. It is not socially acceptable. You don't think it is socially acceptable.

Suggesting that accepting gay sex leads society towards accepting child rape is offensive and homophobic.

Do you think, as a parent, that my considering gay sex socially acceptable means I am more likely to accept someone raping my son?

Why am I asking this question?

Originally posted by Rank outsider
Rape is sex without consent.

Children cannot give consent.

Sex with children is rape.

I'm not debating this again.

This is the US and UK position, so Dr Diggs has said that, if you consider that gay sex is socially acceptable, then there is no reason logically to not think that child rape is acceptable.

I don't agree with this, as I th ble means I am more likely to accept someone raping my son?

Why am I asking this question?

as i have stated there are degrees of heinous behaviour, that is why one who steals a lollipop from a convenience store does not get as heavy a sentence as one who commits murder although both actions are unlawful. To state that because Dr. Diggs accepts that both homosexuality and paedophilia are heinous acts, is not to say that he cannot distinguish between the two in terms of morality as you have claimed. He is in fact simply asking where do we draw the moral boundaries. He does not mention rape, the idea of consensual and non consensual was also introduced by you. I find no evidence that he has displayed a hatred of nor an intolerance towards homosexuals and I resent the assertion that he is a homophobe on that basis.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
as i have stated there are degrees of heinous behaviour, that is why one who steals a lollipop from a convenience store does not get as heavy a sentence as one who commits murder although both actions are unlawful. To state that because Dr. Diggs accepts that both homosexuality and paedophilia are heinous acts, is not to say that he cannot distingui ...[text shortened]... intolerance towards homosexuals and I resent the assertion that he is a homophobe on that basis.

See above edit. In the US, any sex with a minor is rape.

No, he does not ask where to draw the boundary. You are changing what he says. He says that it is impossible to draw the boundary between accepting gay sex and accepting child rape. He then goes on to suggest that there are trends which suggest this process is already in train. We must therefore not accept gay sex ('if the fence is torn down'😉, as it makes the acceptance of child rape more likely.

Homophobic is a fair characterisation of this type of view.

Originally posted by Rank outsider
See above edit. In the US, any sex with a minor is rape.

No, he does not ask where to draw the boundary. You are changing what he says. He says that it is impossible to draw the boundary between accepting gay sex and accepting child rape. He then goes on to suggest that there are trends which suggest this process is already in train. We must the ...[text shortened]... ance of child rape more likely.

Homophobic is a fair characterisation of this type of view.

yes he asks,

If gay sex is socially acceptable, what logical reason can there be to deny social acceptance of adultery, polygamy, or pedophilia?

this is a question, rhetorical, but still a question. If I was to post statistics with regard to a correlation between homosexuality and paedophilia, or at least a disposition of homosexuals to target young and adolescent men, would you be offended?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes he asks,

If gay sex is socially acceptable, what logical reason can there be to deny social acceptance of adultery, polygamy, or pedophilia?

this is a question, rhetorical, but still a question. If I was to post statistics with regard to a correlation between homosexuality and paedophilia, or at least a disposition of homosexuals to target young and adolescent men, would you be offended?

You do love to skirt that line between ridiculous and offensive, don't you RC? This point is offensive to all right thinking people. The reason you're still arguing is because on this subject, you ain't right-thinking.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
You do love to skirt that line between ridiculous and offensive, don't you RC? This point is offensive to all right thinking people. The reason you're still arguing is because on this subject, you ain't right-thinking.

I see, you cannot take your whisky straight but need to dilute it with lemonade, so be it!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I resent the assertion that he is a homophobe on that basis.

This is not about you.

Originally posted by Rank outsider
This is not about you.

LOL, yes indeed, thank you for the reminder!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes he asks,

If gay sex is socially acceptable, what logical reason can there be to deny social acceptance of adultery, polygamy, or pedophilia?

this is a question, rhetorical, but still a question. If I was to post statistics with regard to a correlation between homosexuality and paedophilia, or at least a disposition of homosexuals to target young and adolescent men, would you be offended?

It is impossible to be offended by research that is carried out to proper scientific standards. Surprised, yes. Offended, no.

So it entirely depends on the quality of the research and the intent behind it.

I would be very offended if you just post something without bothering to see whether the source can be considered reliable and unbiased. That is just a waste of my time.

The BMA or NHS would be fine.

Originally posted by Rank outsider
It is impossible to be offended by research that is carried out to proper scientific standards. Surprised, yes. Offended, no.

So it entirely depends on the quality of the research and the intent behind it.

I would be very offended if you just post something without bothering to see whether the source can be considered reliable and unbiased. That is just a waste of my time.

The BMA or NHS would be fine.

I dont have anything from the BMA or the NHS sorry, my sources are American. Its against my wishes to risk offending you needlessly, so i shall refrain unless i can verify the sources, which may take some time because they are fairly extensive.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I see, you cannot take your whisky straight but need to dilute it with lemonade, so be it!

Now you've gone too far. One Two Three you're out.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
Now you've gone too far. One Two Three you're out.

Dont worry it has taken me ages to try to verify a single reference and its still unclear, i cannot be bothered with that.