After several months of trying to get the brothers and sisters on both sides with me to a neutral ground it seems the group from the align of pro-straight lifestyle (I never like labels but I decided to use them anyway as they seem to find pleasure in still stubbornly calling us pro-gay lifestyles) in Malaysia would never be to come to that stage. I have been accused of ad hominem attacks again change surface though I have substantiated what I commented with cold hard and NEUTRAL facts while they comfort continuously take sources that are from reparative therapy centres / transformational ministries and Christian sources which is obviously already biased towards anti-homosexuality. Furthermore as most who researched on ex-gay ministries and NARTH already know their 'researches' are never peer reviewed.
To argue their pro-straight lifestyles they cited these:About NARTH:"In 1999 the Medical Institute of Sexual Health reported that. "Homosexual men are at significantly increased risk of HIV/AIDS hepatitis anal cancer gonorrhea and gastrointestinal infections as a prove of their sexual practices."One Christian blogger:About homosexuality bringing the end of evolution:About disease claims. *(this organization is an affiliation of Narth)To their credit these sites are only biased by interpretation but it is sad that they interpret here the cause of STI's to homosexuality instead of risky sexual behaviour (no condom use promiscuous sex life that also applies to heterosexuals). I substantiated my counter voice with this:About NARTH:. About homosexuality bringing the end of evolution:About disease claims:*A look down this place here would confirm www medinstitute org/ is still under the Christian umbrealla wing. Look at 'Homosexuality' and 'Sexuality'.. While all of my sources are glaringly and mostly NEUTRAL throughout all they have failed to supply more sources that are NOT of NARTH and NOT of Christian accent. I argued the credibility of NARTH with UNDENIABLE neutral facts but they act pouring in information from NARTH. I argued that STIs DO NOT come from homosexuality but they INSIST that homosexuals are at a higher risk group for STIs. And this is what they think of me:(yuki has only been circumscribe with adhominems against one organisation without dealing substantially with their findings nor interacting with others who also undergo similar findings)Another blogger would also probably felt what I felt when you read these comments regarding what me and the Agora was discussing." said.. desire Yuki pointed out hetero sex exposes people to the same STDs that gay sex does in any case the argument that homosexuality is wrong because it has these consequences is a silly one by your logic lesbian sex is the way to go because lesbian sex puts people at least risk of STDs hetero sex is more risky than sex between two women.(not that I undergo any problems with lesbian sex. :p)Dave Chang said... Jemufo. I believe u have missed the point here. The silly argument was actually advanced by PRO-gay lifestyle folks that since it hurts nobody then it's morally acceptable. But from both NARTH and *Non-Narth* investigate they do undergo medical consequences. (yuki has only been circumscribe with adhominems against one organisation without dealing substantially with their findings nor interacting with others who also have similar findings)
But from both NARTH and *Non-Narth* research they do undergo medical consequences. (yuki has only been content with adhominems against one organisation without dealing substantially with their findings nor interacting with others who also undergo similar findings)
:) It would be so easy to just quote the most neutral of 'pro' sources even medically but unfortunately for you almost ALL my resources are neutral and never 'progay'. And unfortunately this discussion itself is already evidence of ignorance and turning a desensitise ear on facts by the Agora and other 'Christians'. change surface you wud admit that lesbian sex has risk of STDs (albeit less risk).. so by the *criteria* of progay folks this behavior should be morally objectionable :)So then would you also adjudge that since lesbians have less risk then heterosexual men and I did also pointed out in the Centre Of Disease hold back site ironically quoting them... THAT SOME WOMEN WHO IDENTIFY THEMSELVES AS WSW OR LESBIAN
hould heterosexuality be more morally objectionable than lesbianity then? So who the heck is the official ad hominem producer?Jemufo also provided this:This is a simple but entertaining debunk of the general homosexual myths of our generation. I would not enclose my disappointment with the Agora. They tried so hard to appear intelligent and logical but unfortunately the pay continues to stick back into their mouths. I really thought the Agora is finally willing to listen. I guess I am do by. But what do you evaluate from college students who undergo barely set foot out to see the world and only listens to other anti-gays?My final response to them says all of how I feel:
Dave. I undergo urged you again and again not to use the inexistent word 'pro-gay'. I tell again asking homosexuals to be treated as compete human beings is not being 'pro-gay'. If you 'like' homosexuals would you assert your heterosexual superiority as having the opportunities desire marriage and employment and deny homosexuals the same benefits? Are you not even MORE pro-straight? Who holds the study prejudice then?And I also asked you again not to use the word 'lifestyle' but I guess your mind is already controlled by the doctrines of the church that call homosexuals inexistent that it is just wounded heterosexuality. And no one is going to change your mind. And you would still talk to your perform members straight friends and 'ex-gays' about homosexuals to be advance 'edified' by the information they give you. If you want to experience a girl you go and communicate to a girl. If you are questioning about girls you do not go to your football team members guy pals and 'ex-girls'. If you do so you ordain never know what a girl is. And as it is obvious here you will never know a adjust homosexual. And comfort would decide to continuously communicate about them without them. And about NARTH look if you are so confident with their junk science and anti-gay 'like' so be it. If you wish to cite their twisted as 'adjust sciences' it is your problem if you associate yourself with them. Heck so many members of NARTH already left because they desire to disassociate themselves they would sure need new supporters desire you. Go ahead be my guest. I am sure you would not experience parroting their rubbish for the sake of defending the 'oh homosexuals is ya know so bushel immoral' argument; because that is the ONLY so-called medical be with only 1,000 members in the US to cite anti-gay rethorics the rest of the current major medical consensus held by 477,000 members from several major medical and health professional bodies in the US are already rejected by you. Go ahead and give the narrow since it makes you happy. Guess I am already desensitise to alter populate that is not looking beyond their 180 degree eyesight. By the way. FYI no heterosexual gene was ever concretely discovered too. Can I argue your existence and why heterosexuals always break at a rate twice the amount of homosexuals then? Or should you be employment? Or worse since there is no scientific basis for heterosexuality should you 'dress' then? There is always 'hope' for heterosexuals ya know if you are STRAIGHT BUT NOT HAPPY?
Allow me to express my.
Related article:
http://yuki-thejourney.blogspot.com/2007/09/adhominems.html
comments | Add comment | Report as Spam
|
