I do not have the desire to get involved in the merits of your up and back with Cuff, but if I were in trouble I would want an attorney like Cuff because his job is put aside his personal opinion and to argue his client's case, as John Adams did when he represented the British soldiers in the Boston Massacre case. Whether you agree with him or not on merits of this thread makes no difference. Cuff is a very clear writer who gets his point across. On many occasions I have read his explanation of a sartorial point and thought he said it better than I could. This is what I would want from my lawyer. Similarly I also don't care about my doctor's opinions and I doubt if you care about yours. In any event, I hope neither of us gets into trouble.....Glad you're not my attorney if that's the depth of your thought processses or knowledge.
Alan is correct, of course.You, obviously, view sexuality as divorced from cultural or familial health. You might as well say the same thing of bestiality. The fact is that, regardless of time or religion, cultures have recognized the importance of children raised by a mother and a father and have constructed cultures to enourage that - ranging from pagan (and ostensibly, gay friendly) ancient Sparta through Christendom to commmunist/atheist Stalinist/Maoist Soviet Union/China. Open homosexuality does not lead to healthy cultures. Glad you're not my attorney if that's the depth of your thought processses or knowledge.
So you begin your post here with an explication of why broad consensus doesn't rise to the level of moral correctness, and then you end your post by relying on the same spurious logic which it was your task to rally against in the first place.Another angle:
Just because something is legal and becoming more and more accepted by western secular society doesn't make it morally or ethically or biologically right to everyone.
In Saudi Arabia thieves have their hands chopped off, that is the law and that is accepted as the norm by the Saudi people. However, it isn't the norm outside Saudi Arabia.
BUT it is illegal to be a homosexual in Saudi Arabia.
It is NOT illegal in many European countries to have sex with animals. Now just because it ISN'T illegal that doesn't make it right!
Many countries don't have a legal lower age limit for sex, so girls as young as 10 or 11 can legally have sex. Again that doesn't make it right.
Just because it is illegal to hunt whales in most of the world doesn't make that ban legal all over the world, nor does it make the ban right for all people.
So no matter how much the western secular world - and lets be clear here, it is
only the western secular world invovled - continues to accept the anal sex act of homosexuals it still won't make it right.
And the FACT of the matter is that MOST people round the world outside the secular west think it is WRONG.
I'm curious as to why you think the connection between anal sex and homosexuality is so tight, such that they can't be untangled? Because they certainly can be untangled - conceptually, practically, and so on. This betrays something of a bias on your part that you can't make fine-grained discriminations of the sort that are rather useful, and indeed necessary, in a discussion like this.Yes, I'm sure you're quite the intellect. This is the great game of the sodomite left. I don't wish to be enlightened as to how an attraction to the lower intestine of another man is perfectly natural. Drinking soda in NY City nust be banned becasue of publich health - but, gay sex, hey that's perfectly natural and without consequence to one's health. Please.
Compulsive spending: mental disorder. Compulsive eating : mental disorder. Compulsive gambling: mental disorder. Addiction to the internet: mental disorder. Homosexuality: perfectly normal and no idicia of mental disorder? Again, please.
You, not unlike the Earl, seem to constantly conflate moral consequences with physical consequences. If you're deliberately invoking some kind of natural law position, say so. If not, let's discuss the moral dimension to your claims and leave the independent question of physical damage to the medical professionals.You'd be wrong. It's morally and physically damaging to bother partners; but since, I doubt, you're responsive to conventional moral rationales, suffice it to say, the physical risks are many, not the least of which is incontinence increased rates of anal cancer.
A conference taking place in Dublin this week....Not to take the present conversation off track, but are we not all pleased that the elimination of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy and open acceptance of homosexual members by the US military services has taken place so seamlessly and has apparently proceeded much more smoothly than predicted (by even myself!)? Why, the Pentagon just recently endorsed a series of gay pride activities.
Mike, thanks very much for the kind words. They mean a great deal coming from a lawyer of your caliber.While I agree with you on the merits, you could not be more wrong about Cuff. He's a terrific lawyer who would do a splendid job defending your (i.e., our) point of view if engaged to do so.
That was kind of my point. Much like the man willing to go to war naked or dressed in some other way that affirmatively calls attention to himself, the man willing to wear pink into combat is probably a bit unhinged. And therefore dangerous.I've never seen a pink army uniform before.
And effing good riddance to it.....https://www.templegate.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=207
'Goodbye to Catholic Ireland How the Irish lost the civilisation they created'
I've tried to restrain myself from posting on this thread, as I regard it as somewhat unseemly. But is it really necessary to start besmirching religious faith? I appreciate that this is the Interchange, but this seems fairly far removed from the locus of these fora.And effing good riddance to it.....