Male Homosexuality Peanut Gallery:

[selfinflikted]

So... did they give up on this topic so soon?

 

[super animator]

No david had posted

 

[TravelerFarAwayFromHome]

David must have a very powerful argument in store when he can afford to waste one of his three posts on a completely irrelevant point.

yes, given how passionate David is on the topic, I bet he must be spent hours on his research, not to mention rewrite his drafts over and over again, it is going to be an interesting debate.

 

[poolerboy0077]

So... did they give up on this topic so soon?

For some reason I'm reminded of this Family Guy episode where the Pope, in talking about God, says in a thick Italian accent, "He's a cookin' a something up."

 

[Golden Yak]

So... did they give up on this topic so soon?

TCMD's got 'til I think friday to post. Though I'm hoping every post doesn't go down to the wire like that.

Just look at the countries listed,
Iran, Mauritania (I've never even heard of them), the Republic of Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, South Sudan, Uganda, Somalia and Nigeria.

Are these really the countries the US should be looking to as an example?
Is he really making the argument that homosexuality should be completely outlawed?

I know I had this 'let's give him a chance' mentality in an earlier post, but the most awful godwin argument popped into my head just now re-reading this:

]One must ask why there is such concern among Nations that its Laws would strictly prohibit this Lifestyle , even to the point of trying to eradicate it by establishing stiff legal penalties even to the point of capital punishment .

'Millions of jews were put to death by Germany a few decades ago out of fear of the threat they represented. If Germany were willing to go that far, maybe they had a good reason. Maybe they were on to something.'

 

[poolerboy0077]

TCMD's got 'til I think friday to post

I think this should teach us all a lesson. Never enter into a debate with that much of a time gap between responses.

 

[TheyCallMeDavid]

Hello. Please note that my latest Response in the Formal Debate Thread on Homosexuality has just been posted by the Moderator. Pursuant to CF rules , I could not give the specific link address to MEDICAL CONSEQUENCES OF WHAT HOMOSEXUALS DO in the 2nd paragraph of my Response....so it will be required of the Reader to put this Title into their 'Google Search' for it to come up directly (which it will) ; then you will be able to scroll down to the listed subjects <staff edit> which is the basis for my Position of dissent of Male Homosexuality. I trust that each Follower of the Formal Debate will take the 5 minutes necessary to read thru these brief subjects in the interest of a fuller understanding to the proven Health Consequences involved.

Thank you. David.

 

[essentialsaltes]

<staff edit>

Yawn. None of these are peculiar to homosexuals.

"Summarizing .... here are the most common diseases stemming from Male Homosexuality :"

I believe he means "stemming from sex".

But, you know, not one male homosexual has ever died from an ectopic pregnancy. Maybe we should ban heterosexual P-in-V sex.

 

[poolerboy0077]

<staff edit>

Yawn. None of these are peculiar to homosexuals.

"Summarizing .... here are the most common diseases stemming from Male Homosexuality :"

I believe he means "stemming from sex".

But, you know, not one male homosexual has ever died from an ectopic pregnancy. Maybe we should ban heterosexual P-in-V sex.

LOL. Exactly what I thought. He also mentioned that lesbians may not fit into his doomsday line of reasoning but because that's not being debated he won't address it. Well, if what is wrong is harm produced by sex then lesbianism should be promoted over heterosexuality, especially when advances in technology permit birth without the need of intercourse.

Other popular attempts to help downplay the facts of dangerous Male Homosexuality , is to bring up that 'the Heterosexual Community has many of the same health consequences' ; to that I say : True....so, does another Social Group contributing to the same havoc therefore make Homosexuality acceptable and a permissible lifestyle ????

-_-

The whole point of referencing heterosexuals is to show that singling out gay men when these are not exclusive to them is disingenuously and specially pleading. You want to make the claim that because rates for HIV (not all STIs) is higher in gay men then that is reason to outlaw or be hostile toward the group -- awkwardly forgetting that homosexuality is distinct from sexual practices -- but hat is arbitrarily drawing a line in the sand since heterosexuals also experience this. Given how HIV rates are for both these groups and that the lowes rates are found in lesbians, you would have to conclude that lesbianism is the way to go.

The odd focus on gay sex when talking about homosexuality is rather dehumanizing as well. It's very telling when someone frames conversations in very specific ways like this. When we speak of heterosexuality we talk about a wide range of experiences (romance, intimacy, family, love, etc.) but when we talk about homosexuality only the sex is discussed as though that were the totality of a gay person. Straight people have a moral vision; gays just have an agenda. Straight people have relationships; gay people have "lifestyles." It's clear you're engaging in mudslinging and employing loaded terms rather than making honest assessments of things.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Yeah, I don't see how girl on girl <staff edit> could spread HIV. But then again, I don't even understand how 2 girls can <staff edit>, so I can't say I know that or not.

 

[Gadarene]

Aaaand there we have it, the reason why the debate topic was restricted to male homosexuality only.

Not that this means one can't refer to lesbianism to query the metric by which male homosexuality is said to be harmful, and it is dishonest of TCMD to claim that this is an offtopic/strawman argument.

 

[Golden Yak]

TCMD has made powerful arguments for the necessity of sex education, of making people aware of the potential hazards of sexual intercourse in its myriad forms, and of the importance of physical health and awareness of STDs.

No arguments, however, that would support, say, disallowing same sex marriages.

 

[poolerboy0077]

No arguments, however, that would support, say, disallowing same sex marriages.

Nor homosexuality, as he seems to be suggesting.

As I said earlier in the thread, it won't do any good to simply point to mere harm or potential harm and then conclude we should forbid something. After all, driving is riskier than walking, football is riskier than chess, coal mining is riskier than accounting, and so on, but we do not conclude immorality or a public health crisis on its basis. It's not clear that reasonable people should always avoid them. And it should be noted that when we're talking about homosexuality, we're not just talking about a game like football but how people experience and express love and affection -- and that includes many other things besides intercourse just as is the case for heterosexuality. It would be a real deprivation if we tell someone that they can never kiss or caress or have sexual intimacy with the person that they love. In all of these cases, there are ways in which we can minimize the risks, whether we're talking about sex or football or driving. Mere harm or potential harm doesn't automatically reduce to immorality. That's where the conversation starts, not stops.

 

[Freodin]

New post is up and awaiting moderator approval.

 

[essentialsaltes]

New post is up and awaiting moderator approval.

Nice work!

"Instead of criminalizing the "fat agenda" and the "tobacco lifestyle", it is promoted and advertised."

It occurred to me that what the government does do in these cases is 'educate'. We have warning labels on alcohol and tobacco products. The government promotes healthy diets & exercise. Great Scott, it's also what we do about sexually transmitted diseases!

 

[Gadarene]

New post is up and awaiting moderator approval.

Good post, nicely played there!

 

[poolerboy0077]

Brutal response by Freodin. Nice and thorough post!

 

[TheyCallMeDavid]

New post is up. Awaiting Moderator approval.

 

[poolerboy0077]

One thing Freodin mentioned in his latest response was the repeated assertion of just how disgusting male homosexuality is. I find it odd that anyone would reference disgust as though it were a moral barometer. Even putting aside the obvious fact that disgust is subjective and relative, if we take current human trends in disgust, are we to conclude that broccoli, elderly people kissing, back hair, potato bugs and soiled babies are immoral? I think I've lost count on the number of non-sequitur arguments made.

 

[quatona]

I would have loved TCMD to explain how he makes the following distinction:

- behaviour A comes with risks, therefore society and the individual needs to take care that these risks are minimized (hetero-sex, driving cars, owning guns etc. etc.)
vs.
- behaviour B comes with risks, therefore it´s inherently a threat to society, depraved, perverted and whatnot, and needs to be prohibited.

Without clear rational criteria for this distinction all his arguments do not support a certain risky behaviour to be B.

It´s obvious that "homosexuality is B" is TCMD´s premise, not his conclusion.