[PLUG-TALK] Alan Turing is an isolated tragedy...

[Jason Dagit]

On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 11:07 PM, Michael Robinson
<plug_1 at robinson-west.com>wrote:

>
> Are you trying to get me to say that I am hiding something, that I
> used to be homosexual?  Why are you doing that other than to try and
> undermine my credibility?  The answer is no, I have never been gay.


Why would that undermine your credibility?  Is there something wrong with
being homosexual?  I thought you accepted homosexuals, but this makes it
sound as though you think they are not credible.  Wouldn't that be a form of
prejudging?


>
> I am ethically bound to respect all people regardless of sexual
> orientation which in the case of homosexuals translates to
> disapproving of homosexual sex without discriminating against the
> individual.  To not admonish a sinner is to not respect him/her.


So then, would you agree that if you were a former homosexual that there
would be nothing wrong with that?  You said you're not, I'll believe you.


>
>
> Now, it could be that you meant for experience to suggest that I've
> had dealings with homosexual people.  I have.  I noticed a different
> temperament from a homosexual compared to what I expected when
> someone made the foolish mistake of telling him that I felt
> uncomfortable around him because of his homosexuality.  He
> seemed more enraged than he should have been when he confronted
> me.  I respect this person now and would not be afraid of him
> today, but I do not condone his lifestyle.  Recently, his 20 year
> partner broke up with him and he moved away.  It's sad that he
> moved in with another guy right away who is apparently gay also.


And I know a happy gay couple that has been together 30+ years.  Anecdotes
are interesting, but we must always be careful about how we apply them in
debates.   They serve as inspirational examples but not as
arguments/justifications themselves.  Lots of couples break up and the
reason is often deeply personal to the couple and frequently hard to
understand by outsiders.  I really doubt their reason for separation had
anything to do with homosexuality.


>
>
> > Also in my defense, you speak about the subject with such expertise
> > and you even told me I should talk to former homosexuals and so I
> > guess I assumed you had some experience.  It must be the way you're
> > presenting your case.  So if you don't have any experience about
> > homosexuality, how can you be the authority?  Won't your audience
> > question what you tell them about it?  Won't they ask how you know
> > it's wrong and bad?
>
> Ask former homosexuals how they feel about homosexual sex now,
> or are you afraid that you will change your mind about homosexual
> sex being acceptable if you do so?


I don't know any former homosexuals.  I'm also not afraid of changing my
mind when I'm presented with better information.  Sometimes it can take a
while and be stressful due to cognitive dissonance, but the outcome is
generally very nice and not something to fear.


> Does authority on a subject
> come from firsthand experience alone?


No, but it is important to establish your credibility to an audience.  Also,
it's misleading to act authoritative about a subject one has little or no
expertise with.


>
> >         Every national organization has an agenda, or it wouldn't
> >         exist.  I just happen to agree with Narth where I don't agree
> >         with the APA or the AMA.
>
> > The corollary to this argument is that people or organizations which
> > agree with you are correct and ones that do not are incorrect.  I hope
> > we can agree this is a narrow world view.
>
> On this issue I am opposed to the APA, AMA, and all the
> organizations that go along with these two.  The key issue
> here is homosexuality.  If the APA declared tomorrow that
> murder is justified if the person in question opposes
> homosexual sex, I hope you'd frown on the APA as well.


Let's go with an example.  The FDA does some stupid stuff each year but they
also protect us at times and make some good decisions.  I can't be against
the FDA based just one or two policies.  Recently they ruled that certain
chemicals are OK in baby formula as long as they are below a certain
threshold.  Sadly they didn't base this threshold on research.  In spite of
this policy which  I believe needs to be revised, I still listen to the FDA
on some subjects.  The point is, you can't use a broad brush here.  I like
that NARTH will offer advice and counseling to people that believe NARTH's
approach is right for them.  What I don't like is when they start saying
that all homosexuals need to get a cure.  Similarly, I doubt you oppose the
APA and AMA fully.  You disagree with them on an issue, possibly several
issues.


> The human
> body evolved for male female sexual contact to
> produce children, explain how same sex sexual
> contact is open to life.


There is far more to survival of our species than birthing offspring.
Humans have complex social interactions and even more so in the modern world
where we've created concerns that reach far beyond our personal space.


> Naturally speaking, neither
> two men nor two women will ever be able to produce a
> child on their own without some very strange and unnatural
> monkey business.


Your arguments via naturalness are misguided as I have attempted to explain
before.


>
> Sex changes are a form of desecration where the
> patient becomes infertile, so I am opposed to them.


What about sex changes that don't result in infertility?  Like in this case:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25519830/


>
> Besides, will two gay men lose interest in each other
> if one of them goes through a sex change?
>

You'd have to ask them.

Jason
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.pdxlinux.org/pipermail/plug-talk/attachments/20090107/93b51811/attachment.html>