1 edit
Originally posted by stellspalfierelevancy nil, tabloid journalism at its worst.
seems its not any of my business................but you are happy to post it on other threads. over 40!!!! robbie time to get the finger!!! actually you may only need one check-up if thats clear i think they leave you until you are in your 50's. one little finger wont hurt.
2 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobieOK, so it is not about harm.
But anyway, these are irrelevancies.
because physiologically the anus is not designed to have hands.....
You are now saying that the criteria is what a part of the body is physiologically designed for.
Is the mouth physiologically designed for kissing? If so, why do other animals with mouths not do it?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieHave you got any links about this "conjecture" you claim there is about the sanity of homosexuals? is it on one of those sites you've already pointed us towards?
...the sanity or otherwise of those who engage in [anal sex] is a matter of conjecture at the moment.
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
Originally posted by robbie carrobieokay, using your bizarre 'only ask me questions relating to the specific thing i mentioned in my op' approach to debate. i could just start a new thread and ask you questions. or you could stop trying to deflect and answer the here.
I did not author the report that this debate is based upon.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie*BUMP*
I dont want to give my opinion where possible, i prefer to try to remain objective or to utilise studies, references, statitsics, reports etc.
What did you make of that statistic from the web site you cited that claimed nearly one in five homosexuals rape their own children? It was from the same source as where you got some of your "statitsics" from.
1 edit
Originally posted by Rank outsiderNo it is about harm, Dr. Diggs clearly outlines the harm that may be caused, for lets face it, the anus is not designed to have a hand stuck up it, is it. You seem perfectly ok, with a finger, what about a whole hand, a forearm, does that seem to you to be natural and normal? I have always claimed that the physiology of the anus is such that it is not meant for penetration, Dr. Diggs also produces reasons why that is the case, you may make reference to those. Kissing is an irrelevancy.
OK, so it is not about harm.
You are now saying that the criteria is what a part of the body is physiologically designed for.
Is the mouth physiologically designed for kissing? If so, why do other animals with mouths not do it?
Originally posted by stellspalfieor i could simply ignore the irrelevant posts that you make.
okay, using your bizarre 'only ask me questions relating to the specific thing i mentioned in my op' approach to debate. i could just start a new thread and ask you questions. or you could stop trying to deflect and answer the here.
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
Originally posted by robbie carrobiedo you accept its okay for a doctor to insert a finger in an anus?
No it is about harm, Dr. Diggs clearly outlines the harm that may be caused, for lets face it, the anus is not designed to have a hand stuck up it, is it. You seem perfectly ok, with a finger, what about a whole hand, a forearm, does that seem to you to be natural and normal? I have always claimed that the physiology of the anus is such that it is ...[text shortened]... duces reasons why that is the case, you may make reference to those. Kissing is an irrelevancy.
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
Originally posted by robbie carrobiethey wouldnt be able to call them irrelevant if it was a new thread. anyway how do you know if they irrelevant unless you explore each avenue. you are sticking to your mans report still!! even though its been debunked.
or i could simply ignore the irrelevant posts that you make.
Originally posted by stellspalfiedebunked, hardly, if you call an attempt to introduce irrelevancies as being debunked, then i guess in such a fantasy world, it has been debunked.
they wouldnt be able to call them irrelevant if it was a new thread. anyway how do you know if they irrelevant unless you explore each avenue. you are sticking to your mans report still!! even though its been debunked.
9 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobieAh, but Dr Diggs does not say that safe homosexual sex is medically OK, he says that homosexual sex is harmful.
No it is about harm, Dr. Diggs clearly outlines the harm that may be caused, for lets face it, the anus is not designed to have a hand stuck up it, is it. You seem perfectly ok, with a finger, what about a whole hand, a forearm, does that seem to you to be natural and normal? I have always claimed that the physiology of the anus is such that it is ...[text shortened]... duces reasons why that is the case, you may make reference to those. Kissing is an irrelevancy.
Big difference.
If Dr Diggs were motivated solely by medical concerns (which you have suggested), he would instantly recognise that telling people not to engage in homosexual sex is futile and therefore his approach is doomed to failure. What percentage of gay men do you think take any notice of what Dr Diggs has to say?
However, if he instead worked constructively with homosexual people to find ways in which they could practice their sexuality more safely, he could signficantly help to reduce medical harm. That is what a doctor should be doing.
But he won't, as he is aligned to an organisation that expressly states that it believes that any sexual contact outside the marriage of two heterosexual people is harmful.
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
Originally posted by robbie carrobiedo you accept that it is safe for a doctor to put a finger in your anus to check your prostrate?
I accept that its a medical procedure, I do not accept that its normal for penetration of the anus to take place any more than having a lung removed is normal.