The Health Risks of Gay Sex

Originally posted by Rank outsider
[quote]But now social activists are saying that there should be no fence, and that to destroy the fence is an act of liberation.

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 poly ...[text shortened]... tween gay sex and paedophilia in this way might be reasonably regarded as homophobic in outlook?

that is about moral relativism and does not rely solely on medical evidence, I dont see why its relevant in the context of a debate about health risks. As for your question , it is a question i have raised myself, with regard to the over 4000 documented cases of sexual abuse perpetrated against minors (the majority male) by the clergy of the catholic church. What was it that motivated them, their paedophilia or their homosexuality? I dont think its homophobic to draw attention to the matter, for its not entirely clear what motivated them, is it.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
this is about moral relativism and does not real solely on medical evidence, I dont see why its relevant in the context of a debate about health risks.

Do you agree that, if we deemed consensual gay sex to be socially acceptable, then logically there is no reason to deny social acceptability to paedophilia which, by definition, is not consensual?

It's an easy question.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
this is about moral relativism and does not real solely on medical evidence, I dont see why its relevant in the context of a debate about health risks.

Your perception of what "homophobic" means and how it can affect one's handling of information and ideas most certainly is relevant in the context of this debate.

Originally posted by Rank outsider
Do you agree that, if we deemed consensual gay sex to be socially acceptable, then logically there is no reason to deny social acceptability to paedophilia which, by definition, is not consensual?

It's an easy question.

I do not deem either of them to be socially acceptable, consensual or not. The issue is quite clear for me.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I do not deem either of them to be socially acceptable, consensual or not. The issue is quite clear for me.

Do you think that, if I believe that homosexual sex is socially acceptable (which I do), that therefore I have no logical reason to deny social acceptability to some who wants to rape my son?

And that one will lead from the other?

Originally posted by Rank outsider
Do you think that, if I believe that homosexual sex is socially acceptable (which I do), that therefore I have no logical reason to deny social acceptability to some who wants to rape my son?

And that one will lead from the other?

you are asking me to comment upon what you find socially acceptable and what you do not? really? will you answer my question with regard to the more than 4000 well documented cases of child abuse among the clergy of Catholicism, what motivated them, their homosexuality or their paedophilia? (the majority of cases were perpetrated against young males), is it homophobic of me to ask this question?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
you are asking me to comment upon what you find socially acceptable and what you do not? really? will you answer my question with regard to the more than 4000 well documented cases of child abuse among the clergy of Catholicism, what motivated them, their homosexuality or their paedophilia? (the majority of cases were perpetrated against young males), is it homophobic of me to ask this question?

No, I didn't. I asked you a question which you didn't answer. A question which was not about what I find socially acceptable, but about whether you could logically distinguish between the social acceptability of homosexuality and paedophilia. So I will answer it for you.

You can logically distinguish between the two because one is a consensual act between adults, and the other is a non-consensual act perpetrated against a minor.

Only you and Dr Diggs can't see the difference. There is a word for people who think that accepting gay relationships leads to a world which accepts the rape of young children and chooses to state this in what you claimed was an article motivated solely by medical concerns. And states that there is no way to logically distinguish between the social acceptability of consensual gay sex and the rape of young children.

It is called homophobe.

Originally posted by Rank outsider
No, I didn't. I asked you a question which you didn't answer. A question which was not about what I find socially acceptable, but about whether you could [b]logically distinguish between the social acceptability of homosexuality and paedophilia. So I will answer it for you.

You can logically distinguish between the two because one is a consen cceptability of consensual gay sex and the rape of young children.

It is called homophobe.[/b]

people may consent to all types of harmful practices from drug abuse to sadomasochism, it hardly makes the fact of the act being consensual any less morally acceptable, therefore your analogy is a fail and your designation of me and Dr. Diggs as homophobes for drawing attention to the dangers, hate speech. So will you answer my question,

in the more than 4000 well documented cases of child abuse among the clergy of Catholicism, what motivated them, their homosexuality or their paedophilia? (the majority of cases were perpetrated against young males),

thanks.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
so will you answer my question,

in the more than 4000 well documented cases of child abuse among the clergy of Catholicism, what motivated them, their homosexuality or their paedophilia? (the majority of cases were perpetrated against young males),

thanks.

No. Not until you answer my question as to whether it is possible to logically distinguish between consensual gay sex and child rape in terms of social acceptability. I have given one way you can.

If you answer this, I am more than happy to answer your question.

Originally posted by Rank outsider
No. Not until you answer my question as to whether it is possible to logically distinguish between consensual gay sex and child rape in terms of social acceptability. I have given one way you can.

If you answer this, I am more than happy to answer your question.

you answered it for me, did you not? consensual is not a basis for moral acceptance, i have already pointed that out, your question is loaded!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
you answered it for me, did you not? consensual is not a basis for moral acceptance, i have already pointed that out, your question is loaded!

Are you able to distinguish between consensual sex and non-consensual sex in moral terms?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
you answered it for me, did you not? consensual is not a basis for moral acceptance, i have already pointed that out, your question is loaded!

OK I answered it for you. And I answered it that you can distinguish them. So to summarise:

We have a person who:

1) Defines 'homosexual sex' predominantly by reference to the most extreme and potentially harmful activities.

2) Uses out-of-date and biased sources to imply that all these activities are habitually practised by homosexuals.

3) States that all homosexual sex is harmful (not just some practices).

4) Thinks that you cannot (in any way) distinguish logically between consensual gay sex and child rape in terms of social acceptabilty.

5) Implies that if we accept the former, the latter will follow.

I call this person a homophobe. If I went out on to the street and asked 100 random people whether this assertion was reasonable, how many do you think would say yes?

Originally posted by Rank outsider
OK I answered it for you. And I answered it that you can distinguish them. So to summarise:

We have a person who:

1) Defines 'homosexual sex' predominantly by reference to the most extreme and potentially harmful activities.

2) Uses out-of-date and biased sources to imply that all these activities are habitually practised by homosexuals.

...[text shortened]... d asked 100 people whether this assertion was reasonable, how many do you think would say yes?

1) no he doesn't , he simply draws attention to certain practices, as practised mainly by homosexuals which may and have incurred harm, he has never claimed that his study was exhaustive of all that homosexuals practice,

2) He has not implied anything of the sort, the study was cited simply as an instance of its occurrence among homosexuals, the fact that it was some time ago, gathered under unusual circumstances has no bearing on the fact that it returned a percentage of 22, there were other studies which showed similar result, which i myself personally cited.

3) implying that all homosexual sex is harmful is not an indication that he hates nor has animosity towards those who practice it, is it.

4)that there may be a correlation between homosexuality and paedophilia is yet a matter of conjecture, I am quite sure that in some instances homosexuals have perpetrated rapes against minors, that he holds that both are morally unacceptable is not to state that one cannot logically distinguish between the two, it is merely to state that both are unacceptable. again it is not evidence that he has demonstrated any hatred nor animosity towards homosexuals themselves.

5)seeing that you yourself have failed to answer the question of whether it does in fact happen and on what scale is perhaps indicative of your reticence to admit that it has and does happen. Even so it is not an indication that Dr. Diggs has in anyway shown a hatred towards gays themselves.

I call this person a medical practitioner who has highlighted dangerous aspects of homosexual sexual practice from which we are now seeing incontrovertible proof in the FACT that we have the highest ever recorded figures for persons who are HIV positive, the majority of which are among homosexual men, i call that man caring for bringing the matter to out attention.

Vain appeals to poplar opinion? FMF, eat your heart out!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
4)that there may be a correlation between homosexuality and paedophilia is yet a matter of conjecture, I am quite sure that in some instances homosexuals have perpetrated rapes against minors

Do you think there is also a correlation between heterosexuality and paedophilia? Do you think that in some instances heterosexuals too have perpetrated rapes against minors?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
1) no he doesn't , he simply draws attention to certain practices, as practised mainly by homosexuals which may and have incurred harm, he has never claimed that his study was exhaustive of all that homosexuals practice,

2) He has not implied anything of the sort, the study was cited simply as an instance of its occurrence among homosexuals, the ...[text shortened]... nging the matter to out attention.

Vain appeals to poplar opinion? FMF, eat your heart out!

"2) He has not implied anything of the sort, the study was cited simply as an instance of its occurrence among homosexuals, the fact that it was some time ago, gathered under unusual circumstances has no bearing on the fact that it returned a percentage of 22, there were other studies which showed similar result, which i myself personally cited. "


if the data is gathered in unusual circumstances, can the return of 22% be accepted as the usual behavior of a group? of course the answer is no.