Wednesday, October 08, 2008

Sodomy can seriously damage your health

Actually, it can and does.

But, as we know, truth ... you know, that thing that has no interest in our preferences, fantasies or delusions .... is no defence in Upsidedownland.

As this is mostly a family-oriented blog, I won't give the headline here. But I was advised that a useful keyword to use when searching for information on the physical harms of anal sex is "lesions".

Pretty much says everything right there.

I've probably mentioned this before. I had a conversation with a friend of mine a while ago and summed up the opposition to the whole "gay rights" movement, saying, "It's very simple. That does not go there. She responded, "But if fits there." Yeah, said I, and it would fit down a vacuum cleaner hose too, but it's not supposed to go there either.

But the truth of the matter is that it doesn't fit there. Homosexual activity does a lot of really horrible damage to men. It's just one of those nasty little facts (you remember 'facts' don't you?) that sits like a grumpy troll on the bridge to the happy gay fantasyland where it's all about "equality" and "rights".


You can look it up.

Anti-Realism [2]: Rejection, in one or another form or area of inquiry, of realism, the view that there are knowable mind-dependent facts, objects, or properties. Metaphysical realists make the general claim that there is a world of mind-independent objects [objective reality]. Realists in particular areas make more specific or limited claims. Thus moral realists hold that there are mind-independent moral properties, mathematical realists that there are mind-independent mathematical facts…[etc]. Anti-realists deny either that facts of the relevant sort are mind-independent or that knowledge of such facts is possible [3].

Relativism [6]: The denial that there are certain kinds of universal truths. There are two main types, cognitive, and ethical. Cognitive relativism holds that there are no universal truths about the world: the world has no intrinsic characteristics, there are just different ways of interpreting it[7]… [Philosopher Richard] Rorty says, e.g. That “’Objective truth’ is no more and no less than the best idea we currently have about how to explain what is going on.” Critics of cognitive relativism contend that it is self-referentially incoherent, since it presents its statements as universally true [i.e. It is presented as a “fact” that there are no facts], rather than relatively so.

Ethical relativism is the theory that there are no universally valid moral principles: all moral principles are valid relative to culture or individual choice … Subjectivism … maintains that individual choices are what determine the validity of a moral principle. Its motto is ‘Morality lies in the eyes of the beholder.”…The opposite of ethical relativism is ethical objectivism, which asserts that although cultures may differ in their moral principles, some moral principles have universal validity. Even if e.g. a culture does not recognize a duty to refrain from gratuitous harm, that principle is valid and the culture should adhere to it.