08 Feb 13
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI can only suggest you re-read my posts to gain a better understanding of the point I have been attempting to make.
nope, there was a comparison between he vagina and the anus, clearly the scientific empirical evidence is that the vagina is designed for intercourse whereas the anus is not. Some of the lamest excuses ever have been proffered in an attempt to mitigate this disparity, ranging from references to Aids in Africa to foot fetishes to child birth and men ...[text shortened]... n to ignore the advice of a medical professional simply because he is a catholic speaks volumes.
As to ignoring this so-called medical professional, I'm not ignoring it, it's just not relevant. If he were a catholic medical professional posting from medicaleducation.org on the subject of female genitalia, then it might be worth a look. I don't expect you to admit what a difference that might make, but I'm sure you realise it nonetheless.
08 Feb 13
Originally posted by avalanchethecathe has a plethora of references peppered throughout his findings but sure, you ignore them because he works for a catholic organisation.
I can only suggest you re-read my posts to gain a better understanding of the point I have been attempting to make.
As to ignoring this so-called medical professional, I'm not ignoring it, it's just not relevant. If he were a catholic medical professional posting from medicaleducation.org on the subject of female genitalia, then it might be worth ...[text shortened]... ect you to admit what a difference that might make, but I'm sure you realise it nonetheless.
08 Feb 13
Originally posted by robbie carrobieNo. It's a religion-based website on the subject of homosexuality. As I have previously explained, this seems like entirely the wrong place to go for medical advice on human female genitalia, which is what you and I were discussing.
he has a plethora of references peppered throughout his findings but sure, you ignore them because he works for a catholic organisation.
08 Feb 13
Originally posted by avalanchethecatshall I list the doctors qualifications? Will you tell the forum why he should not be qualified as a medical practitioner to comment on the physiology of the human body?
No. It's a religion-based website on the subject of homosexuality. As I have previously explained, this seems like entirely the wrong place to go for medical advice on human female genitalia, which is what you and I were discussing.
08 Feb 13
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWill listing the doctor's qualifications turn it from a religion-based website discussing homosexuality into a medical-based website discussing female genitalia? If so, go ahead. If not, please simply accept that I consider this link to be irrelevant to our discussion.
shall I list the doctors qualifications? Will you tell the forum why he should not be qualified as a medical practitioner to comment on the physiology of the human body?
08 Feb 13
Originally posted by avalanchethecatthe doctors religious affiliations have no bearing on his ability to comment upon human physiology, that is why stating that its a religious based website is the real irrelevancy here.
Will listing the doctor's qualifications turn it from a religion-based website discussing homosexuality into a medical-based website discussing female genitalia? If so, go ahead. If not, please simply accept that I consider this link to be irrelevant to our discussion.
08 Feb 13
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI agree that his religious affiliation is irrelevant, however, since it's a religion-based website his opinions would only be posted if they agreed with the views of that religion on that particular subject, i.e. catholicism and homosexuality, thus rendering the reference entirely irrelevant to the subject we were discussing, i.e. the 'perfect' 'design' of the human vagina.
the doctors religious affiliations have no bearing on his ability to comment upon human physiology, that is why stating that its a religious based website is the real irrelevancy here.
I am amused to see you yet again pirouetting artfully away from the subject in your relentless drive to score points in argument.
08 Feb 13
Originally posted by avalanchethecatthat they agree or disagree is an irrelevancy, the content is the most important aspect, not whether they agree or disagree with someone religious affiliations. As for the female genitalia within the context of this debate, which is essentially about homosexuality, it was only important as a reference for suitability in comparison with homosexual practice. I have no need of winning points, the empirical evidence is overwhelmingly on my side, homosexuality is a health hazard, independently verified.
I agree that his religious affiliation is irrelevant, however, since it's a religion-based website his opinions would only be posted if they agreed with the views of that religion on that particular subject, i.e. catholicism and homosexuality, thus rendering the reference entirely irrelevant to the subject we were discussing, i.e. the 'perfect' 'desi ...[text shortened]... tting artfully away from the subject in your relentless drive to score points in argument.
08 Feb 13
Originally posted by robbie carrobie...that they agree or disagree is an irrelevancy, the content is the most important aspect, not whether they agree or disagree with someone religious affiliations.
that they agree or disagree is an irrelevancy, the content is the most important aspect, not whether they agree or disagree with someone religious affiliations. As for the female genitalia within the context of this debate, which is essentially about homosexuality, it was only important as a reference for suitability in comparison with homosexual pr ...[text shortened]... evidence is overwhelmingly on my side, homosexuality is a health hazard, independently verified.
No, because the content is selected to agree with the religion's position. I've made this point three times now and you still seem unable to grasp it. Honestly RC, don't argue, just think about it. If his views didn't agree with the religion's position, do you think they'd be posted on that website?
As for the female genitalia within the context of this debate, which is essentially about homosexuality, it was only important as a reference for suitability in comparison with homosexual practice.
For you perhaps. I have no relevant opinion on that subject. I took issue with your bizarre notion that the human vagina was perfectly designed.
I have no need of winning points...
You give a pretty convincing impression to the contrary.
...the empirical evidence is overwhelmingly on my side, homosexuality is a health hazard, independently verified.
Lots of things are health hazards. Sex itself is a health hazard, as is abstinence. Personally, I don't think it's any of my business what people do with their genitals. Nor yours, for that matter (business, that is, not genitals).
08 Feb 13
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThis is ridiculous.
the empirical evidence is overwhelmingly on my side, homosexuality is a health hazard, independently verified.
I think we can all agree that anal sex is a health hazard.
But not all homosexual men indulge in anal sex. In fact
there are vastly more heterosexual men than homosexual
men who partake. And obviously their female partners.
What do you think is inherently unhealthy about homosexuality?
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
Originally posted by wolfgang59robbie seems unwilling or unable to separate homosexuality from the act of anal sex. he knows its the only thing he has (no matter how weak it is) to castigate homosexuals.
This is ridiculous.
I think we can all agree that anal sex is a health hazard.
But not all homosexual men indulge in anal sex. In fact
there are vastly more heterosexual men than homosexual
men who partake. And obviously their female partners.
What do you think is inherently unhealthy about homosexuality?
if his or his churches problem was genuinely the health risks of anal sex then he would not refer to it as homosexual sex as this could pertain to several sex acts and also excludes the heterosexual people having anal-sex. of coarse if he was really worried and concerned about the health risks of anal-sex he would want to speak to all people doing it and would therefore refer to it as anal-sex. his insistence on calling it homosexual sex is a sign of his outdated-homophobic- attitudes, which he thinks he can cover up by hiding behind his outdated-homophobic-cult.
i wonder, due to the majority of rapes being committed by men if robbie will start referring to sex as a heterosexual-rape-hazard? due to the statistical fact that some hetrosexuals commit rape.
08 Feb 13
Originally posted by stellspalfieAnal sex is an abominable act to me, and I believe it must also be an abominable act to God and His Christ. We must not tolerate such abominable acts or face dire consequence with the judgments from the Son of God.
robbie seems unwilling or unable to separate homosexuality from the act of anal sex. he knows its the only thing he has (no matter how weak it is) to castigate homosexuals.
if his or his churches problem was genuinely the health risks of anal sex then he would not refer to it as homosexual sex as this could pertain to several sex acts and also exclu ...[text shortened]... x as a heterosexual-rape-hazard? due to the statistical fact that some hetrosexuals commit rape.