[quote]ZEB wrote:
Um…BULL!
I have never once insulted any homosexual. Nor have I ever (not even once) used a derogatory term to insult homosexuals.[/quote]
Zeb, you are very good at making insinuations and being insulting without using derogatory terms. Your concern about which words are being used is a bit silly in that light.
[quote]Yet…I have been called a homophobe many, many times. I have also been accused of hating gays.
And why?
Because I have put forth evidence which shows homosexuality in it’s true light, which is very negative.
Everyone knows that this topic is taboo. Sienfeld made that well known when he coined the (overused) phrase:[/quote]
Honestly, that is not why. If that is ALL you did, then you wouldn’t be catching the heat that you are. Homosexuality is not a taboo subject and I’ve been agreeing with some of your points, I don’t see anybody berating me for it.
Wrong. The aspect of political correctness more specifically deals with how an issue is addressed, not whther or not a subject is brought up at all.
I’m not sure anybody has ever figured out a way to determine this. You think that endless money is available to study everything on the planet? Who would fund such research?
As before, I’ve struck for a middle of the road safe bet, such that some people may be able to choose and some others may not. It seems reasonable to grant that. People would not be so upset this issue if they felt their preference was simply a choice they could reverse at will.
Yes, but you also go a little bit further than that, and I think you know it.
Zeb, here is an important point. I will grant that there is evidence that suggests these things certainly can be risky. However, because steps can be taken to circumvent these risks, it is not that is must be that risky.
For some reason you refuse to accept this line of thought. This is where you start to sound a little rabid in your viewpoint. The mere act of providing an education about the risks reduces the risks.
I take it I am no longer a liberal? I’ve conceded your points concerning various (some, not all) RISKS of homosexuality. However, I do not see you willing to accept any supposition that gay people can reduce their risks and act responsibly.
Again, due to this you sound very unreasonable and anti-gay. Surely you can understand why people would draw such a conclusion? Anyway, though you probably won’t believe it, I submit to you that the reason people attack your viewpoint is because you do in fact sound anti-gay, as opposed to simply wanting to discuss risks and provide information about those risks.
[quote]There is a reason for that. Just as there is a reason why homosexuals die younger, have more anxiety, a higher rate of depression, and far more health problems during their shorter life span.
(clears throat) THEY ARE KILLING THEMSELVES![/quote]
Zeb, some gay people die younger, some have more anxiety (though we don’t know what the reasons are for that…) and some have more depression (though we don’t know the reason for that either…) and that certainly those unlucky enough to catch certain diseases will have plenty of health problems.
Again, your view that they are doing something wrong, as opposed to the risks that other people take, such as smoking a cigarette, is strange. There are many ways that people choose to increase their risks. However, we don’t tell these people thay they are inherently wrong or bad for making such a choice.
As soon as you start acting as the judge of morality, instead of letting the legal system and/or your diety of choice do so, you are going to annoy people.
Other people don’t have to like your judgements in this regard. Again, though you are unlikely to change your behavior and probably won’t believe it, this is the cause of all the hysteria that follows you around.
Nobody would get riled at all if you discussed homosexuality without trying to act as the moral judge of other peoples decisions. If you feel strongly about this, then you should work to change the laws.
Also, I really expect to see you claim racing, boxing, football and other contact sports as WRONG, because they are certainly riskier than not participating in those sports. And, honestly, such participation is not a necessity, such as driving a car AT TIMES is – because most of us drive for non-necessity purposes also.
We all choose to take additional risks every day, but we don’t have moral police running claiming we are in the wrong every time we do so. The fact that you do this for homosexuality certainly makes you appear anti-gay. Your behavior is not consistent!
Again, it’s not what you talk about, is the moral proselytizing that drives them around the bend.
[quote]I do get plenty of PM’s telling me that they were unaware of certain facts that I have put forth.
And others telling me to keep fighting the good fight. They would but they don’t want to be “attacked.”[/quote]
Anybody who takes a stand gets lots of PM’s Zeb. You aren’t the only person who does…
[quote]Those who want to keep their minds closed and swallow the liberal logic being dished by some…can just skip over my posts.
It’s their choice.[/quote]
What liberal logic are you talking about? The logic is not really what is in dispute. People are willing to admit the risk factors of various actions, even though you won’t admit that they can be ameliorated, but it is your moral proclamations that closes minds.
Zeb, sometimes you have a way of misusing and mischaracterizing what you see as facts. This has happened a few times in our past when you’ve mistaken my comments for something they were not.
If you really want to make sure you are spouting the truth, then you have to be fair and honest and reflective of all sides of the issue. A partial truth is not the truth, and you full well know that.
[quote]You don’t like me calling that behavior wrong do you?
Well…that’s something you are going to have to live with. Or you could stop reading my posts.[/quote]
What is with the hostility? What have I done to deserve this? I’m simply showing you how people are interpreting your statements and why they are doing so.
It isn’t that I don’t LIKE your calling this behavior wrong, it is that your logic is not consistent. You have no real rationale for claiming it is wrong, so we are left to surmise this is simply your personal belief. Generally, most people have learned that unsupported prejudicial viewpoints are in fact bad.
If you wish to make statements that make you sound homophobic and prejudiced, that is entirely your right, and I certainly won’t stop you. You’ll have to blame others for trying to stop you.
[quote]I think you would be happy vroom. But there are others on this forum who simply ooze hate and contempt for anything they percieve as factual regarding homosexuality.
They just don’t want to hear about it.[/quote]
Zeb, you need to be consistent. Now you are pretending that all you do is refer to factual things, when a moment ago you crowed about how you judged this wrong. You can certainly believe something is wrong, but that doesn’t necessarily make it a fact.
Again, I don’t think many people have problems with what are pure facts, especially when they are completely disclosed (in terms of the study designs and populations being referred to). Real discourse involves providing enough information for other parties to draw their own conclusions.
[quote]I’m aware of this. However, I’m aware that a very large percentage of the women out there have taken one up the ass from time to time also.
Um…I think I follow your subtlety. 
[/quote]
There is no subtlety involved at all. I’m suggesting that gay people are not the only people to engage in anal intercourse. There are of course women into butt play who use dildos, but plugs, or other devices as well as regular old taking it up the ass.
How come you are not claiming these anal acts are morally wrong? I didn’t hear one peep out of you on this particular issue.