Pink? Must be gay!

[VictorRomeo]

No, it's not. Biblical sodomy has pretty much, to my knowledge, only applied to male on male sexaul acts.

Yes it is. You blind bigoted ignorant fool.

 

[arkirshner]

This was a response to a post by Cuff Daddy:

....Glad you're not my attorney if that's the depth of your thought processses or knowledge.

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.

Regards,

Alan

 

[Mike Petrik]

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.

Alan is correct, of course.
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.
And I'm wearing a pink tie with my seersucker suit today. Only question is whether it should be the knit one or not. Hmmmm.....

 

[eagle2250]

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! Although, while I acknowledged in an earlier post to this thread that I do wear the occasional pink knit polo or OCBD shirts, should the USAF ever go to pink uniforms, I would certainly continue to gratefully accept those monthly retirement checks, but might be forced to deny any former affiliation with the Service! There is just no 'F-in' way that pink uniforms would ever strike fear into the hearts of current or future enemies! LOL.

 

[SocraticLove]

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.

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.

Brilliant. :icon_headagainstwal

 

[SocraticLove]

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.

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.

I'm also extremely curious as to why you don't condemn anal sex amongst heterosexual couples and continue to see, in light of competing evidence, anal sex as the exclusive domain of homosexual couples?

If your moral quibble is with anal sex, there's no morally tenable way to sustain your attacks against homosexuality while simultaneously maintaining indifference to the act of anal sex between opposite sex partners. What's the morally salient difference between same sex couples and opposite sex couples, both of whom can and do engage in anal sex? It's not the act of anal sex itself; it must be something else. What is that something else? Or can you not articulate what it is, in light of your blind bias?

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.

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.

Either way, lay bare your claims so we can all assess their cogency or lack thereof. You need to stop hiding behind the charged rhetoric.

And please, do not pretend to know anything about me. I'm not sure what you mean when you say how you doubt that I'm responsive to moral rationales. Yes, I'm gay, and so unlike you my sexual preference is for members of my own sex. But other than that, we're not really that different. We're both human. So of course I'm responsive to moral rationales. To insinuate or imply otherwise is just nastiness, and is a sign of some larger background issues on your part.

At any rate, as a student of philosophy who happens to specialize in moral philosophy, I'm open to discussing morality with you anytime if that's what you really want to do. I doubt that, though. You seem much more like a propagandist at this point, than someone who's truly interested in perspicuous and open communication, aimed at arriving at the truth.

 

[VictorRomeo]

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.

A conference taking place in Dublin this week....



Some of the delegates meeting with our President and his Wife... (Squee is a nickname we have for our President (We love him))

https://www.broadsheet.ie/2012/06/28/squee-force/

 

[CuffDaddy]

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.

Mike, thanks very much for the kind words. They mean a great deal coming from a lawyer of your caliber.

As for Epam's remarks, I guess I've been on the losing end of retention/hiring decisions for worse reasons, though I can't recall an example at the moment. One can't take these things personally.

 

[CuffDaddy]

There is just no 'F-in' way that pink uniforms would ever strike fear into the hearts of current or future enemies! LOL.

I dunno. The man willing to wear a hot-pink outfit into combat is probably pretty dangerous!

 

[Howard]

I dunno. The man willing to wear a hot-pink outfit into combat is probably pretty dangerous!

I've never seen a pink army uniform before.

 

[Shaver]

I've never seen a pink army uniform before.

 

[CuffDaddy]

I've never seen a pink army uniform before.

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.

In all seriousness, though, the SAS* in North Africa and other theaters often painted their vehicles a shade called "desert pink." I don't think any of us would like to tell the men driving this thing that their vehicle is unmanly:

 

[eagle2250]

^^I probably would have had my clock cleaned, but could see myself telling the gentleman, "my gawd man, you're driving a pink jeep!"

LOL. As a child, all I ever dreamed of doing as an adult was serving in the military service of my Country...and I was allowed the good fortune to live that dream. But alas, a uniform such as the one pictured above (in post #211), would almost certainly have killed that dream!

PS: and if the fellow I'm talking to is Woody, the fellow sitting next to the Rover in the picture, I'll set a swarm of termites on his a** and make short work of that toothpick! ROFALOL!

 

[WouldaShoulda]

Must be a Fireman's uniform because he is Hot Hot Hot!!

 

[Howard]

Ok Now I've seen the proof.

 

[Kingstonian]

A conference taking place in Dublin this week....



Some of the delegates meeting with our President and his Wife... (Squee is a nickname we have for our President (We love him))

https://www.broadsheet.ie/2012/06/28/squee-force/

https://www.templegate.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=207

'Goodbye to Catholic Ireland How the Irish lost the civilisation they created'

 

[dks202]

....at church today I counted ten men in pink shirts....

The trim-cut polo had no gathering at the waist, and his khaki shorts were hemmed at exactly the right point above the knee....

He wore this to church???

 

[drlivingston]

I know that I am relatively new here, but.... Let me preface this statement with a "no offense intended" disclaimer. This thread has negative connotations. It seems to have served its purpose and is, now, slowly going to devolve into the abyss of forum negativity.

 

[VictorRomeo]

https://www.templegate.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=207

'Goodbye to Catholic Ireland How the Irish lost the civilisation they created'

And effing good riddance to it.....

 

[Balfour]

And effing good riddance to it.....

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.