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".

"Facts".

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.

20 comments:

Chimera said...

"Homosexual activity does a lot of really horrible damage to men."

Can do. If they're not careful. But isn't that a decision they should make?

Anonymous said...

a comment from email:

The way I've long thought of it is this. One's backside is not a reproductive organ, and that is the end of the matter.

Chimera said...

Neither are one's hands or one's mouth, and they get even more play.

Chacun a son gout, hein?

Anonymous said...

"But isn't that a decision they should make?"

Chimera,

I suggest you read Hilary's last few paragraphs again.

Either homosexual activity is morally right or wrong. I believe it is wrong because it is unnatural as Hilary has stated: "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."

I know Hilary I said I wasn't going to read your blog anymore, but I just couldn't help myself because I do enjoy your writing and rudeness/wittiness. As if you care though...

Mark S. Abeln said...

I recall reading radical environmentalist literature back in the early 1970s. (Although it was called usually 'ecology' back then, not 'environment'). Homosexuality was to be promoted specifically as a means to reduce population growth. And in general, risky behaviour was to be promoted as way of reducing population directly.

These merely theoretical policies have apparently been implemented.

Some enlightened minds even promoted the idea of 'population wars' in the poor countries of the world for the same purpose.

Hilary Jane Margaret White said...

population wars

cf: Rwandan genocide.

Anonymous said...

Can do. If they're not careful

No, "will" do, no matter how careful.

One of the dirtiest little secrets in the gay world is that most practicing homosexuals lose all anal sphincter tone by the time they are older and, well, thank goodness for adult diapers.

~Kayo

Anonymous said...

OH GROSS

Note that this nearly universal plague of buggery is never, ever, ever mentioned in the press, but the same press is happy to promote a dubious causal link between the same unfortunate loss of physical control in a tiny number of women and normal birth. Google "elective c-section" for examples. - Karen

Chimera said...

"I suggest you read Hilary's last few paragraphs again.

Either homosexual activity is morally right or wrong."


I did read them. Did you think that automatically means I have to agree with everything?

Morality is subjective, not objective. You get to say what is morally right for yourself, but you don't get to moralize on behalf of someone else without their consent. So to you, homosexuality is wrong. So don't do it, and you'll be fine.

To me, homosexuality is simply another option available for those who are interested in it. I am not about telling people what they should be allowed to do with their own bodies. It's none of my business. None of anyone else's business, either.

Mark S. Abeln said...

chimera, a major argument in the culture wars is whether or not morality is subjective or objective. This is not a settled question.

Catholic moral teaching actually has objective, subjective, and relative factors and is far richer than the typical Fundamentalist or Liberal viewpoints which are rather simplistic compared to this universal morality. The Catholic view is that there is no distinction between private morality and public ethics, and public ethics rests on the foundation of private morality: for example social justice cannot be obtained unless individuals have virtue.

Sex has social justice implications because sex is always done with another person (even if only in fantasy).

Mark S. Abeln said...

By the way, I don't claim to be a saint, nor do I expect anyone else to be either. It is just that everybody ought to try to moderate their behaviour, even if just a little, for the good of themselves and for others.

Anonymous said...

Isn't subjectivism great?

I wish it didn't make you lose your sanity, otherwise I'd try it myself.

As long as I feeeeeeeel it's OK, it's OK.

Anything at all.

Woof! Wouldn't that be fun.

Anonymous said...

I'm sure Josef Fritzl felt perfectly OK about what he did.

You know. "It was part of my personal morality".

brendon said...

Morality is subjective, not objective. You get to say what is morally right for yourself, but you don't get to moralize on behalf of someone else without their consent.

These two sentences are contradictory. If morality is subjective, then there is no reason I cannot "moralize on behalf of someone else without their consent" as long as my personal morality says I can. And if you want to argue otherwise, then you must hold at least one universal and objective moral principle, namely that it is wrong to "moralize on behalf of someone else without their consent."

And thus the whole "morality is subjective" house of cards comes a-tumbling down under the principle of non-contradiction. Ain't logic grand?

Hilary Jane Margaret White said...

Brendon,

Never try to explain the logical principle of non-contradiction to a post-modern relativist.

It's only a coin toss as to whose brain is going to explode first. Yours out of frustration at their willful stupidity or theirs at having to reconcile two opposing ideas at once.

There's no percentage in it.

Chimera said...

"...everybody ought to try to moderate their behaviour, even if just a little, for the good of themselves and for others."

Mark, I understand how moderating one's own behavior can be seen to benefit one's self. But if someone's behavior is not harming anyone else in the first place, how would modifying it be of any benefit to others?

"If morality is subjective, then there is no reason I cannot "moralize on behalf of someone else without their consent" as long as my personal morality says I can."

Brendan, you make an excellent point, if you're meaning is that you get to tell people who behave differently from you that they're doing it all wrong. Until they tell you they want you to stop harrassing them about it, that is.

But when you start putting laws in place to prevent them from behaving in a manner of which you do not approve, then you're overstepping your moral boundaries.

This is the Rube Goldberg of arguments. It's pretty and shiny and it makes lots of noise and things go up and things come down and it goes in a big loop and starts all over again without changing a thing.

brendon said...

Miss White,

It appears that you were completely correct. I will accept your greater wisdom in this matter and say no more.

I suppose one of the few hopes left can be found in that quote from Avicenna you posted some time ago. Unfortunately, I have yet to find a confessor who looks entirely kindly upon me hitting people and setting them on fire, even if it is for the best of reasons.

Anonymous said...

Yes, I've always enjoyed stringing them along though. It can be entertaining to get them to admit that, no, there is no reason at all to have laws against bank robbery, assault, slavery, genocide or anything else...

after all...

that stuff is all just imposing one view of morality on others...

endless fun.

Anonymous said...

Chimera,
Inasmuch as morality is subjective and not objective, I presume you won't mind of some people decide that the "as long as you don't harm others" criterion holds no force. What is gratuitously asserted may be gratuitously denied. I assume you will therefore not protest when some thug wallops you up the side of the head with a lead pipe and steals all of your stuff.

This "subjective morality" crap will get us ALL killed, you git! What are you, in parliament?

Chimera said...

If some thug decides he is entitled to use physical force, that is not "not harming others," now, is it?

The two that have tried it with me found themselves sitting on the ground in a puddle of their own blood. The cops helped me lament that slippery bars of soap can be found absolutely everywhere, if one is not careful.

Any more objections to freedom of the individual?