 |
I see you are ever so adamant in demanding sources for the facts that I cite, yet you offer not even a hint of a source of your own to counter my assertions.
Go, then, if you will, and find examples that counter the factual presentations offered by Susan Brownmiller, Robin Warshaw, Timothy Beneke, and Allan Brandt. I can easily list a dozen more. Can you list even four for your case?
I do apologize for forcing you to wade through nigh unto a thousand pages of carefully researched and densely written historical scholarship, but if you want to know "where I get my facts," then you had damned well better be prepared to do the reading necessary to appreciate the salient information for yourself.
This isn't about some little pissant op-ed web-page screed you've read somewhere. This is about real scholarship, in the real scholarly world, where the tripe you've read on Salon isn't worth the paper it was written on.
Now then.
Do homosexuals harm the rest of the population by simply by being homosexuals? Of course not. You defend nothing but a tautology. Do homosexuals pose a greater risk of disease to the population at large by consistently engaging in more dangerous sexual activity (with homosexuals, bisexuals, and non-consenting heterosexuals)? Of course they do. Any honest epidemiologist will tell you this. But can you accept it? Are you willing to submit your ideology to statistical evidence? Of course not. That would be too much to ask, wouldn't it?
You are, in the smallest words available, a bigot. You are incapable of viewing the debate over sexually transmitted diseases in any terms other that those imposed by your received liberalist ideology of sexuality.
Your moronic rejection of the part that homosexuals play in contemporary epidemiology does far more, in the long run, to hurt the acceptance of homosexuality, than it does in the short run to assuage the consciences of those homosexuals who continue to conduct their sexuality in a manner that is, from a medical viewpoint, utterly and completely callous and irresponsible (and believe me, fuckwit, such homosexuals do exist).
Anal sex is, in fact, far more likely to transmit disease than vaginal sex. This most certainly does "make a difference," no matter how much you might wish it didn't.
The fact that you believe that the only propaganda existent is "homophobic" in nature is laughable on its face. What of "queer nation?" What to make of the practice of "outing?" Is Tom Cruise gay? Why isn't there more criticism of "transgendered" persons?
You haven't spent fifteen minutes reading the history of the ideology that you defend. Heterosexuals do harm to society, to be sure, but homosexuals, and those who blindly defend them, are doing harm as well; harm of a unique nature; harm that they are all too often utterly unwilling to examine.
You believe, in your heart, that you are the "underdog" in the "culture wars." Nothing could be further from the truth. The sooner you embark on something resembling a real understanding of history, the sooner you will be able to admit your ignorance, and the harm done by it, and to atone for it, and to begin to rise above the pale, fact-poor propaganda that you presently accept as "history." We'll be waiting for you, up here in the clear light, where things look a little more complicated, and a lot more interesting.
You have a lot of difficult reading ahead of you.
Hey-- I've got a neat idea: why don't you accuse me of being some sort of ignorant conservative, rather than address the criticisms I've offered you? It will be much easier, I assure you. Blindly assuming that your opponent is an "ignorant conservative" is much, much easier than taking an honest look at any valid criticism of your dogmatic liberalism, I'm sure.
So go on. Tell me how happy I'd be to champion Enron, re-elect W., or make Christianity the state religion. I'd be glad to spit it back in your face, after I've had a good laugh, you sheeplike dogmatic liberalist.
You do more harm in your effort to perceive yourself as a "good person" than you can presently imagine.
PS:
You are fucking with:
--RobotSlave
© 2002, RobotSlave
You do not have permission to reproduce this comment, in whole or in part, without written permission of the author.
© 2002, RobotSlave. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.
|
Stories
