J Bennett,

They say fools rush in where angels fear to tread… I’m no angel but…

CJ,

I’m with Jack on the anal sex thing. If that is what makes you less sexually repressed you can have it. In a new post Jack all but nicknames you The Chocolate Express.

”...under any authoritative criteria (e.g. DSM-IV) it most definitely is not.”

Yes. That Diagnostic and Statistical Manual only provides a diagnosis of Sexual Disorder Not Otherwise Specified if there is "...persistent and marked distress about sexual orientation". Nevertheless it does seem to be heel dragging and I'm surprised homosexuals haven't objected.

However the DSM was changed much earlier. This was the result of a vote by the Board of Trustees of the APA when the issue had become acutely salient. Since the 1970 San Francisco meeting protesters had attended their meetings holding that it was not an illness. The 1973 version of the DSM removed it.

Jw2040,

I concede that my expectations are being violated and homosexuals are getting a worse time then Christians for a change in olo. I don’t know what is happening. Perhaps the regulars who Christian bashed have retired.

“… Bully? I don’t think so. Use a dictionary: http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=bully”

How about this one: “be bossy towards”? Telling me not to contribute if I don’t meet your criterion should fit the term “bossy” shouldn’t it? I guess the term "bully" is name calling but I have never thought of it that way before.

”Every quote which you are objecting to is directed at individuals, not attacking them because they’re christians... “etc.

You won't countenance a potentially insulting association resulting from a response to someone else's post for a legitimate purpose but when you insult individuals or subgroups or whatever you expect me to ignore the ramifications for the overall group? If you hold me to extreme standards why should you get such leeway? You may choose your words carefully but your delusion quote,whether or not you insert fundamentalist, clearly conjures up an association with a book that attacks Christianity generally for people who haven't been on Mars.

Jack the Lad,

I was surprised at how that spiced things up. I thought only CJ would hate the comment - perhaps replying 'touche' or getting angry. Instead, that reaction exploded from left field to my amazement

You struck a raw nerve for some bystanders with what appeared to be a machoish witty comment in the context of a verbal spar with CJ. It didn't seem to invite more than a laugh from bystanders. Unlike the people who reacted, that was my take on it. I didn't really think you were planning on visiting CJ's wife to prove something. (Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong)

Robert and Foxy,

Why you got so uptight about that is anyone's guess. Not that it is any of my business but... just so my imagination doesn't run wild regarding what you do in your spare time to be so sensitive about CJ being teased about his predilection for anal sex ... I don't suppose you would take a deep breath and set the record straight? Thanks.

For that matter there would be a tactical advantage in doing so. I'll explain. How do you think it looks to your adversaries? You use the term "homophobe" for people who don't support gay partnerships implying an irrational fear or other problem. However, until you clarify, you might appear to have some thing about anal sex. Remember, Jack the Lad also speculated on the reasons that people might be partial to anal sex. Seinfeld would add "not that there is anything wrong with that!". However wouldn't you expect it to undermine credibility for someone with your adversaries perspective? Can you imagine the knowing nods as they assume that a sizeable proportion of the heterosexuals most ardently supporting gay partnerships have that appearance? Jack the Lad specifically did it to undermine CJ's credibility. Just a thought.

The posthoc justifications don’t wash, mjpb. I've been dipping into your posts, and discovered that you’ve got form – well-established form at that.

In a discussion about prayer in parliament your first comment introduced homosexuality and paedophilia together: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=43#897
Completely irrelevant, of course, but it got the various parties out of their corners, swinging furiously.

Later in that discussion, after things got heated, you denied that you thought they were associated: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=43#942
Detecting a pattern already?

In a discussion about a school assignment on what it’s like to be gay, your first post included the line, "Now: who’s going to be the first to mention paedophilia, and who’s going to post the first link to the NARTH website? Or for that matter, mention Hitler, the Nazis or Fred Phelps?" http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=5067#59388
Naturally, it was you who was the first to mention these, but once again, not the last.

In this particular discussion Jack and Philo beat you in the race to associate paedophilia and homosexuality. However that didn’t stop you from using the fallback strategy: "This discussion has been reasonably tame for a mix of homosexual activists (& CJ who might as well be for the current topic) and Christian fundamentalists and other extremists. Are people in here taming down."

When I joined this discussion I thought your debating style annoying and your sentiments uncompassionate. However in a classic case of familiarity breeding contempt, I now see that you are here for the sole purpose of peddling your ill will towards selected minorities, using your catholic faith as a platform. Worse, you don't do it yourself, you plant intolerance into the discussion and then let others say the extremely offensive things for you.

I’ll leave others to judge which is the greater evil, outright vilification (in the manner of Boaz, Philo, runner and Jack), or manipulating third parties into expressing one’s own ugly thoughts. Either way, I'll follow your example just once and let someone else do the talking for me: "Mjpb's homophobia is quite cleverly disguised, but ultimately it's still knuckle-dragging bigotry."

Yes, both devious and neanderthal indeed.

Dear Mjpb,

You are naughty! You know perfectly well what Jack offered to CJ'S wife was not a gentlemanly thing to do... If you get down to personal insults in academic discussions - well, you've lost the argument.
So stop stirring.

Ready for another "explosion" from left field?

Jack, do bear in mind that stuff like this: "I pity your woman. Maybe she needs someone to show her how a man does it. I'm not busy this weekend" does make you - strapping and heterosexual though you undoubtedly are - fairly repulsive to a goodly proportion of the female population. (Ladies, am I right or am I right?) Despite that, you are allowed to get it where you can. Feel free to marry. You may procreate. (And I've got a feeling you're saying "Oh my word missy, you can bet your bottom dollar I do indeedy" with a knowing, slightly slobbery leer right now.) In other words, I don't care whether it's disgust, or latent homophobia (for what it's worth, I'm not convinced by the latent homophobia argument - I believe Jack finds gay sex is totally icky and wrong - but then again every year there's some US "family values" politician arrested in a toilet cubicle, so who knows) or whatever - I just don't want the law to be based on your sense of disgust. Or anyone else's. As long as gay men get a room while you're around, men like you get a room while I'm around, and two hot lesbians get a camera out when most of the male population is around, then everyone's happy.

I've asked it before on this thread, but does anyone have a reason that gay marriage should be outlawed *other than* "it makes me feel yucky"?

Homophobes most certainly ARE in the minority, but even if they weren't, who cares? If most people found redheads disgusting, would you happily ban their cohabitation or marriage? You are free to find them disgusting, you are free to say it's disgusting (though I reserve the right to shout over the top of you), but you do not have the right to make it illegal.

And mjpb, before you out me with your uncanny, bordering-on-psychic insight, yes, I am a gay man trapped in a woman's body gagging for some backdoor action. You got me!

"Come on ... Have you heard of a thing called bias?"

Eh? Did you read what I wrote, in particular the word rigorous? Among other things, experimental rigour involves removing all possible bias from a study. Bias is what we're getting from you, J Bennett - bias which is impervious to rigorous research, logic and arguments about human equality.

I would be very interested to see rigorous studies that refute the claim that same-sex parents are just as good as opposite-sex parents, but there aren't any. None of the arguments against equal rights for same-sex attracted people have a logical basis - they're all grounded in visceral suspicion and intolerance of difference.

Rise above your irrational animal reactions, J Bennett. You're a human being, capable of logic, and endowed with the ability to put yourself in the position of others before you judge them. Try it.

"So, if anal sex is not filthy and unnatural, where's your evidence?"

If you think anal sex is filthy and unnatural, Jack, then maybe you should wash the dog first.