Hi Clare
Now you are being disingenuous Clare you mentioned the anus as having been designed.

Therefore implying there was a designer. Just which designer are you thinking of?

I assumed that you were implying a creator aka God however if you have another designer in mind I would be interested in hearing your views.

My problem with the way 'normal' has been used in this thread is that it implies a cosy consensus and a majority opinion. And in this thread this appealed to consensus has been used to vilify a minority which is the real danger of using terms like 'normal' in a multi-ethnic and multi-cultural society and is the reason I object to it so strongly.

As for my being hysterical...in your dreams girl I am perfectly lucid and reason my posts.

As for me including the examples including the one about women they were intended as examples to highlight the fallacy of using the 'designed' argument about human beings in particular and any biological entity in general.

Levenax wrote:
I would never make any attempt to impose my views on homosexualists. They can do what they want as long as it's legal and does no harm to anybody else. I don't think that sodomy is an abomination, it just a sexual preference. It's quite obvious that it's a risky practice especially when homosexualists typically have more sexual partners than straight folk. I take no moral view on the matter. You can finesse the STD fugures all you want but it's a plain fact that MSMs DO contract syphilis and many other STDs much more often than straight people AND they tend to get repeat infections, unlike straights who usually learn their lesson after one nasty experience.

There you go again Lev you claim that you don't impose your views about MSMs then go on to state

[qoute] MSMs DO contract syphilis and many other STDs much more often than straight people AND they tend to get repeat infections, unlike straights who usually learn their lesson after one nasty experience.[/quote]

The first bit is fine and is born out by the facts the part from "unlike straights" is stereotypical, derogatory and inflammatory. I know from my own experience that many straights don't learn from their first or even subsequent experiences and the actual numbers are higher as a number but not as a ratio or percentage. Irresponsible behaviour is not confined to the gay community.

The high rates of STD infection across the board are due to a cultural anomaly whereby most sexual encounters(especially, but not exclusively, among the young)occur after taking alcohol and/or other intoxicants. This allied to the belief, when young that we are invulnerable and it'll only happen to someone else, means that many encounters occur when the participants are not in a responsible frame of mind and therefore the use of condoms is rarer than it could be.

Perhaps we ought to look at our attitudes to sexual intimacy and the way we socialise our young people so that they are confident enough to have sexual intercourse, or not, without the prior use of alcohol or other drugs.

Bananaman wrote:
Hi Clare
Now you are being disingenuous Clare you mentioned the anus as having been designed.

Therefore implying there was a designer. Just which designer are you thinking of?

I assumed that you were implying a creator aka God however if you have another designer in mind I would be interested in hearing your views.

My problem with the way 'normal' has been used in this thread is that it implies a cosy consensus and a majority opinion. And in this thread this appealed to consensus has been used to vilify a minority which is the real danger of using terms like 'normal' in a multi-ethnic and multi-cultural society and is the reason I object to it so strongly.

As for my being hysterical...in your dreams girl I am perfectly lucid and reason my posts.

As for me including the examples including the one about women they were intended as examples to highlight the fallacy of using the 'designed' argument about human beings in particular and any biological entity in general.

No, B'man, you're doing it again, you are twisting my words. Pack it in and just read them, its simpler! There is nothing disingenuous in anything I said. I spoke of the physical design of the body! I did NOT say who had designed it. Read it again. And I spoke the truth about the design. The anus is an exit for body waste : fact. Ok?

You are the one indulging in complete nonsense here, I am talking pure biology so please stop implying otherwise.

I do not have a problem with people improvising because they don't wish to indulge in heterosexual relationships but bear in mind that's what they are doing, improvising. And in the course of doing so the anus is damaged because it was not designed to be used for that purpose. Which is why so many male homosexuals end up needing colostomies! As I said before, that isn't my fault, so take it up with someone else and get off my back about it. I have villified no one so you can take that back too if you don't mind as I am heartily sick of untrue allegations being thrown about on this site for simply stating facts while others fall over themselves to deny the facts for fear of being politically incorrect. Tough B'man. Facts are facts and you're the one talking fallacies, not me. The fuss you have made over the word "design" is outrageous. I'm talking about how the body is structured, designed, put together. How you can attack my phraseology as disingenuous is almost hilarious. It also shows how weak your argument is.

Oh and whoever is knocking hell out of my karma,I don't give a flying wotsit. If it made you feel good keep going!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

B'man. I've got the spreadsheet for Scottish STDs for the last decade on my desk. In 2007 12712 males and 10194 females attended clinics. Of these 235 men and 14 women had syphilis, 622 men and 242 women had gonorrhoea, 107 men and 26 women had HIV, 911 men and 350 women had "other acute STI".
The skew is caused by MSMs, especially with syphilis where many of the primary lesions in men were in the mouth and throat.
Now for syphilis alone look at 1998 when 3 men who attended clinics were diagnosed and 5 women. So diagnosed syphilis in women has gone up approximately three times in the intervening years but in men by just over 78 times.
This has happened because MSMs, who usually have multiple partners, have been neglecting so called safe sex.
As I've said before I make no moral judgement on the behaviour of MSMs but they are clearly suffering health problems as a result of their lifestyle choice. As do also, for example, smokers and greedy people.

As I've said before I make no moral judgement on the behaviour of MSMs but they are clearly suffering health problems as a result of their lifestyle choice. As do also, for example, smokers and greedy people.

Reading through this thread, however, I'm not clear whether the objectors to anal sex are against it on health grounds, or on moral grounds, or on some wierd mixture of both, which they have not thought through: except that the health issue is being used to reinforce the case for moral disapproval.

As far as health is concerned, there are far more serious health matters to be anxious or concerned about, surely, to judge from the published statistics. Smoking, obesity, cancer and in mental health depressive illness are far more serious threats than anal warts or VD.

Therefore it seems to me that the case for moral disapproval should stand on its own two feet. But, of course, in that case it might not have much of a leg to stand on.

Furthermore, it seems to me that if we are concerned about health, we should be acting as healers not judges.

See Desmond Tutu on this subject:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7602535.stm

Robin can I just say my comments are not based on moral judgements and I am sick to death of certain types of comments being "judged" by others in that way. So, for the last time, can I just repeat the reason why I made the comments? I pointed out certain things about the body and its physical design and reaction to certain things. Anal sex was just one example, I also mentioned promiscuity. I said the body clearly breaks down in certain circumstances and becomes damaged and that is perfectly true. It is not a moral judgement but a plain fact. I have indeed thought it through and I think it is most unfair of you to suggest otherwise and attempt to rubbish my contribution or twist its meaning in the way others have. I am very disappointed to see you taking that route.

Clare wrote:
Robin can I just say my comments are not based on moral judgements and I am sick to death of certain types of comments being "judged" by others in that way. .

It's a bit difficult not to when you make references to the '"if it feels good do it" brigade' and the '"if it feels good do it" mob'

TLJ wrote:
Clare wrote:
Robin can I just say my comments are not based on moral judgements and I am sick to death of certain types of comments being "judged" by others in that way. .

It's a bit difficult not to when you make references to the '"if it feels good do it" brigade' and the '"if it feels good do it" mob'

TLJ and how is that a moral judgement? I responded to people who were prepared to say just about everything is ok and who were unwilling to consider arguments put by anyone else. That isn't a moral judgement, I simply challenged them regarding the facts I had presented myself about the physical reaction of the body to certain things. Facts they chose to ignore incidentally.

Clare wrote:
TLJ wrote:
Clare wrote:
Robin can I just say my comments are not based on moral judgements and I am sick to death of certain types of comments being "judged" by others in that way. .

It's a bit difficult not to when you make references to the '"if it feels good do it" brigade' and the '"if it feels good do it" mob'

TLJ and how is that a moral judgement?

They're very dismissive turns of phrase which clearly suggests some form of disapproval of an approach to life - and therefore is a moral judgement.

TLJ wrote:
Clare wrote:
TLJ wrote:
Clare wrote:
Robin can I just say my comments are not based on moral judgements and I am sick to death of certain types of comments being "judged" by others in that way. .

It's a bit difficult not to when you make references to the '"if it feels good do it" brigade' and the '"if it feels good do it" mob'

TLJ and how is that a moral judgement?

They're very dismissive turns of phrase which clearly suggests some form of disapproval of an approach to life - and therefore is a moral judgement.

T, it is NOT a moral judgement, it just suits you to call it that. I know it isn't and that's good enough for me. You have ignored everything else I said and that clearly suits you too. Fine if that's the way you want to go but it rather says you wish to select which parts you wish to debate by zooming in on a few words and ignoring hundreds of others. Seems to me you're doing a bit of judging yourself there. I'll withdraw now. I am clearly weighed down with morals and I have no right to express a view even when facts are involved. Maybe I'll set up a support group

I have watched this thread develop with interest.

Ok, what this thread seems to be saying is, morals have no place in our world anymore. I disagree. To prove the point I will make a moral judgement. Let’s see what the reaction is to this judgement.

I think sex with many partners is not only immoral for me, but against any type of normality. If this were normal, I would imagine this would have been a normal activity for many of our ancestors.

Whether you decide that the world was created by the big bang and subsequently by a gradual formation of the human or God, it seems to me that any aperture made for taking waste away from the body should be used for just that. The apertures created for copulation are designed whether you believe that to be by God or nature, for having sex.

I do not believe people who have homosexual feelings feel that way by choice or are having immoral feelings, for some reason they just are. Within history, it is noted, that homosexual people have always existed throughout the generations.

I cannot and have no wish to decide how others live their life so as I also believe each person is responsible for their own life and has a right to decide how to live their own life. I accept each person as they are and respect the fact that they have decided that they have a need or a want to have homosexual sex or sex outside of or before marriage.

With one proviso the way they live their life should not effect the way I live mine because that too is my right, it is about respect. I do not say to people who have group sex you should come to mass and atone for your sins that is their decision.

Their way of living would not be my way but I am not them I cannot live their life for them and have no wish to. I do not believe I am better than they are just different with a different way of life. Neither would I want to live the life of a train or bank robber or a rapist or ……… People are just people, they will live their own life.

The reason I believe that having group sex in a nightclub in front of other people is wrong is that just as people have a right to decide not to inhale my smoke others have the right not to witness my sex act. I have a right not to witness their sex act. I have a right not to be annoyed by a drunk and abusive person I have a right not to be raped or robbed or anything I do not agree with in my life.

Group sex, is an offence to the sensibilities of some, and therefore, should be kept behind closed doors. In this club as possibly in others, people who did not want to witness this act did, this is proven by the police having more than one complaint.

LYDIA REID wrote:
I have watched this thread develop with interest.

Ok, what this thread seems to be saying is, morals have no place in our world anymore. I disagree. To prove the point I will make a moral judgement.

I don't think the thread is saying that at all but (as you show yourself in your example), what is moral to one is not to another.

The judgemental bit comes in when you condemn out of hand those who do not follow your own code. You, yourself, don't appear to do so. Sadly, others do.

Clare wrote:
[quote]Bananaman wrote:

No, B'man, you're doing it again, you are twisting my words. Pack it in and just read them, its simpler! There is nothing disingenuous in anything I said. I spoke of the physical design of the body! I did NOT say who had designed it. Read it again. And I spoke the truth about the design. The anus is an exit for body waste : fact. Ok?

You are the one indulging in complete nonsense here, I am talking pure biology so please stop implying otherwise.

No Clare you're not talking pure biology you're talking psuedoscience and anthropomorphism there is NO design implied in biology only in a human centric viewpoint of it.

Natural selection and genetic mutation are RANDOM. Survival is by chance not design in a truly scientific viewpoint. To claim otherwise is to misrepresent both chaos theory and natural selection.

TLJ wrote:
LYDIA REID wrote:
I have watched this thread develop with interest.

Ok, what this thread seems to be saying is, morals have no place in our world anymore. I disagree. To prove the point I will make a moral judgement.

I don't think the thread is saying that at all but (as you show yourself in your example), what is moral to one is not to another.

The judgemental bit comes in when you condemn out of hand those who do not follow your own code. You, yourself, don't appear to do so. Sadly, others do.

Thanks TLJ I agree with you and Lydia. I won't and don't seek to impose my views BUT I am unwilling to sit back and allows those who try to so do have the playing field to themselves.

I agree with most of what Lydia says too except that I'm wary of people who talk about design in biological systems. Design is a human concept and by definition, if there is a design there is a designer and most worryingly ideas of 'proper' (aka 'natural' use. It is where these types of ideas can lead and have led that concerns me. A point I was trying to make with the inclusion of the 'women are designed for child bearing' example.

As another example:- If I use the design hypothesis it is perfectly plausible to claim that life on this planet is designed to be killed and eaten (you could even back this up with scientific data on population explosions and crashes).

Thus as long as I eat what I kill then I am ok as I was merely following the design parameters. It doesn't specify how I kill or which animals are off-limits so to speak. In fact the idea that any animals are to be off-limits implies a 'special case' scenario which implies a human viewpoint intruding into the 'natural design process' does it not?

To go back something Clare accused me of I'm most certainly not a member of the 'if it feels good do it camp' nor do I believe that anything goes. But societal norms are to be achieved by debate and consensus not by imposition in my opinion. Hence I will argue the case as I see it and everyone can agree or not that's our right.

As for the idea that some member of the public has to witness something to make a complaint that the police will enforce this is not necessarily the case. Malicious complaints are made frequently. And complaints may be based on hearsay and anecdotal evidence and often will only be acted upon if the complainant knows ranking police officers or is a minister of the church, local bigwig or similarly well-connected or vocal individual.

I suspect in this case that the complainant may well fall into these categories as getting premises raided for a range of illegal behaviours is hardly straightforward as the number of pubs and clubs where drug taking and drug dealing are common place testifies.