Do we have the right to love the same sex and cohabitat? Even have sexual relationship, is that lust and immoral? What's your opinion?

It's not a right... but nobody has the right to stop it either.


Unless they can give a good reason it harms others. I have yet to see this.

So yes, you should be able to do whatever in this case.

Of course Gays and Lesbians are guilty of immoral acts, all human beings are at some time. However it is not because of their sexual orientation that they are guilty of immoral infractions, neither is the homosexual act immoral.

loving/lusting/cohabiting with members of the same sex is easily a right. Why is this? Because no one has any god damned right to step in and stop it.

Mystech summed it up nicely.

what could possibly be immoral about it? someone please come up with a reason and then i'll consider it cause as of now i fail to see what's wrong with it.

i think it is unnatural, man shall love woman, marry and have sex, this is orthodox religious teaching, because this is the Foundation of Holy Family.

man penetrates man is ugly, unnatural, unhealthy, causes diseases like AIDS etc............

Saint,

Unnatural for whom? For a heterosexual, yes, but not for the homosexual.

You have a right to your religious beliefs, but that doesn't mean that all adopt them.

AIDS is not caused by a sexual act between two homosexual men. If this were correct then only and all homosexual men would have AIDS.

I see your disgust of gay men, but what are your thoughts on lesbians, is that wrong as well?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Saint
i think it is unnatural, man shall love woman, marry and have sex, this is orthodox religious teaching, because this is the Foundation of Holy Family.

man penetrates man is ugly, unnatural, unhealthy, causes diseases like AIDS etc............ [/QU

Saint.. its ok to feel disqusted by some things but its not ok to critisize and think of those people as unnatural and unhealthy, because u have never been in their shoes....it may be disgusting and unnatural for u but its the most natural and beautiful way of expression to them. Now...if u only speak accordingly to what "god" says....i dont remember reading in the holy books anything about " homosexuals are sinful just because of their homosexual acts". Saint...you have to phase it that this kind of idea that homosexuals are unnatural and sinful comes from us - "modern" society - because it is highly patriarchal. Men feel threatened because of homosexuals and thus in order to "keep their manhood" or because they are themselves homosexuals and they dont want to admit it they condemn other homosexuals.

btw...aids is not only between homosexuals and homosexual acts themselves dont produce aids...;)

It is no secret that sex is great and very enjoyable, but what are the limits of this enjoyment. If I enjoy another female and we are both agreeing to love one another, then am I doing something wrong? I don't think so.... How about pull my husband or other friend at work into a threesome..could be slightly morally problematic., but very doable and could be nice. But maybe the attention of others turn me on and I like to do it infront of a camera, so is porn moral? So many variations to sex to spice it up, but what are the limits?

I say, as long as you are not hurting anyone else or imposing your way on anybody else, it's okay. So no demanding to be recognized in the military or requesting civil unions and demanding tax breaks, ect....As far as the bedroom is concerned or in that matter whatever spot you prefer, then knock yourself out, just don't invite us to peak, approve, or even recognize that you exist.....

To The Saint:

Gays and lesbians do not need the approval of the religious, they just need to be left alone.

According to Biological Exuberance written By biologist Bruce Bagemihl Phd:

"Many people continue to believe that homosexuality doesn't occur in nature, and use this belief to justify their opinions about human homosexuality.

In fact, not only has homosexual behavior of various types been scientifically documented in hundreds of animal species worldwide. Same-sex pair-bonding and co-parenting are found in Grizzly Bears and Barn Owls, and homosexual courtship and sexual activity in several species of Salmon.

I wrote Biological Exuberance to expose and challenge the limitations of the "nature vs. nurture" debate. Too many times, evidence of homosexuality in animals is used to support the idea that homosexuality is entirely biologically determined, genetically controlled, or otherwise fixed at (or before) birth -- and more broadly, to argue for its "naturalness" in people. In the process, the complexities and nuances of sexual orientation and gender -- in both animals and humans -- are overlooked.

This book shows how social, environmental, cultural, geographic, and individual factors also come into play in the expression of homosexuality in animals. In other words, both "nurture" and "nature" are relevant, even in a nonhuman context. If nothing more, then, I want readers to understand that it is overly simplistic to equate homosexuality in animals with its "naturalness" or automatic "acceptability" in people.

Finally, Biological Exuberance is about far more than animal (homo)sexuality -- it presents a new vision of the world and our position in it. Much of the discourse on animal homosexuality -- both scientific and popular -- has floundered in attempts to find an "explanation" for the phenomenon or fit it into traditional theories of evolution. I suggest in this book that such attempts, while useful up to a point, are ultimately misguided. What is needed is not yet another simplistic "answer", but an expanded concept of what is possible."

Maybe this will help broaden your view on sexuality in nature so you can get on with your religion and stop worrying about the 'morality' of others.

Originally posted by Saint
i think it is unnatural, man shall love woman, marry and have sex, this is orthodox religious teaching, because this is the Foundation of Holy Family.

man penetrates man is ugly, unnatural, unhealthy, causes diseases like AIDS etc............

I personally find that it can be a beautiful act. It seems quite natural to me, I don't find that it's any more unhealthy than any other form of sex.

Oh and for those of you who apparently still believe in spontaneous generation: That's not how disease works! Neither Anal, nor any other kind of sex can cause any disease, sex merely provides a convenient method for transmission of diseases which one partner must have already contracted. In other words, two healthy people, be they heterosexual or homosexual, can have all the sex the like, and so long as neither of them has any disease to begin with, and they only have sex with each other (or other uninfected individuals) then there is no chance that either of them will become sick as a result of their sexual behavior. Honestly, you people should go take a grade school biology class or something, did you honestly not learn anything about pathology in your education?

Originally posted by Flores
It is no secret that sex is great and very enjoyable, but what are the limits of this enjoyment. If I enjoy another female and we are both agreeing to love one another, then am I doing something wrong? I don't think so.... How about pull my husband or other friend at work into a threesome..could be slightly morally problematic., but very doable and could be nice. But maybe the attention of others turn me on and I like to do it infront of a camera, so is porn moral? So many variations to sex to spice it up, but what are the limits?

Are you the same Flores that has been posting here all along? What happend to homosexuals and other sexual deviants being "walking biological warfare labs" or whatever you called them?

Originally posted by Flores
I say, as long as you are not hurting anyone else or imposing your way on anybody else, it's okay. So no demanding to be recognized in the military or requesting civil unions and demanding tax breaks, ect....As far as the bedroom is concerned or in that matter whatever spot you prefer, then knock yourself out, just don't invite us to peak, approve, or even recognize that you exist.....

Well, I'd agree with you here if Homosexuality were only some sort of kinky sex thing, but that's far from what it is. Homosexuality is not just about people getting off on having sex with members of the same gender, but about actually having long lasting meaningful relationships with these people. Our relationships are as valid as those of a heterosexual, the government exists to cater to social needs, It already provides marriage to heterosexuals, which provides legal benefits befitting of the nature of the relationship. All homosexuals are asking for are those same benefits, as we already engage in the same sort of relationship which warrants the same legal protection.

Originally posted by Mystech
loving/lusting/cohabiting with members of the same sex is easily a right. Why is this? Because no one has any god damned right to step in and stop it. I don't have any idea where you're from, but in the United States sex (both homosexual and heterosexual) is not a fundamental right in the legal sense.

Originally posted by Nasor
I don't have any idea where you're from, but in the United States sex (both homosexual and heterosexual) is not a fundamental right in the legal sense.

Well I was born and raised in the United States, and am currently living there right now, and as far as I can tell sex is indeed a fundamental legal right. In fact, if you didn't have your head up your ass you might even realize that the supreme court ruled on exactly that not less than one month ago. Look up Lawrence and Garner Vs. Texas. Or better than that, Read the god damned constitution, you ignoramus.

Pay special attention to the ninth amendment.

Maybe pay this sad little thread a visit: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?threadid=26135

I don't know what kind of communist dictatorship you live in, sir, but here in the States people are entitled to basic fundamental liberties.

say, as long as you are not hurting anyone else or imposing your way on anybody else, it's okay. So no demanding to be recognized in the military or requesting civil unions and demanding tax breaks, ect....As far as the bedroom is concerned or in that matter whatever spot you prefer, then knock yourself out, just don't invite us to peak, approve, or even recognize that you exist.....

So as long as gays/lesbians do not seek the same rights as you have, then all is cool? I'm not sure I understand why you feel heterosexuals should have special rights. Why shouldn't gays/lesbians have the very same rights?

And I fully agree with Mystech, a homosexual relationship can be just as loving and committed as a heterosexual one. To think otherwise is ignorance.

Sex is no more a right then driving or going to the bathroom. It is not a right in itself, but relies on your right to freedom and happines.

The 9th ammendment doesn't say everything not enumerated in the Consitiution is a right. It just says that it isn't all inclusive. There is nothing to say that this right is 'retained of the people', as others are 'retaining the right' to try and stop your actions.

In short, no... it is not a fundemental right.

To Persol who wrote: Sex is no more a right then driving or going to the bathroom. It is not a right in itself, but relies on your right to freedom and happines.

So from what you are saying the human species needs permission to shit, eat, fuck and procreate?

Originally posted by Persol
In short, no... it is not a fundemental right.

Well I'm glad for everyone's sake that the Supreme Court disagrees with you on this. You do understand that what you are saying here is that a third party can have the authority to tell a consenting pair of adults that no they can in fact NOT be sexually intimate with one another.

Tell me, where is the source of that authority?

Originally posted by Mystech
Well I'm glad for everyone's sake that the Supreme Court disagrees with you on this.
You have the right to privacy, you have the right to freedom, you have the right to happiness. Due to these rights, homosexual sex is not prohibited... that doesn't make it a right.

The whole Lawrence and Garner Vs. Texas case is based on privacy rights and equal protection... it does not go as far as to make sex a right.

Once again: just because no one is allowed/supposed to stop an action, doesn't make that action a right.


You do understand that what you are saying here is that a third party can have the authority to tell a consenting pair of adults that no they can in fact NOT be sexually intimate with one another.
You are missing my point. That is not a fundemental right either. According to your logic everything not prohibited is a right. Telling a consenting pair of adults that they can not have sex is not prohibited, so must be a right? No. It is not prohobited... that is all. It is still to be decided if it is a right. And even then, it is still not a 'fundemental' right... but an abstracted one.

According to my Websters dictionary one of the definitions of a 'right' is: A power, privilege, etc. belonging to one by law, nature etc.

So yea sex is a fundamental right for the human species. I don't find anything abstract about sex.

i am a chinese.
gay and lesbian can not have natural offsprings, this violate the basic value of "family".
our natural preponderance is to love opposite sex, homosexuality is an Adverse of this.
:confused:

Originally posted by Lucysnow
According to my Websters dictionary one of the definitions of a 'right' is: A power, privilege, etc. belonging to one by law, nature etc.

So yea sex is a fundamental right for the human species. I don't find anything abstract about sex. Why? The power to kill is also alloted to the human species. Is this a right?

In this case, we are talking of law... so that definition can be shortened to 'A power, privilege belonging to one by law'. By law, this is not a right in it's own accord.

We are simply arguing about definition I think though. Going to the bathroom, doing jumping jacks, feeling yourself up, etc are not in themselves rights. What makes sex different then these?

Well yes killing in some cases is a right: War, abortion, the electric chair, self-defense.

Persol you wrote:Going to the bathroom, doing jumping jacks, feeling yourself up, etc are not in themselves rights. What makes sex different then these?

Yes we are arguing about definition because I believe it is my right to engage in jumping jacks and feel myself up...sometimes at the same time. No I do not think that sex is any different than said mentioned. Yes I understand what you mean by rights goverend by law but since there is no law against feeling myself up during jumping jacks then I have to assume it is my right. And even if were against the law I would still assert it is my right because I am a human being and the species demands sexual contact...no not just to perpetuate the species but for pleasure too. .:D No law can determine how I have a bowel movement and no law can determine how I have sex. Both are a right by birth. Only my opinion though.

To the Saint: Yes there will always be more heterosexuals than homosexuals. Homosexuals cannot have offspring if they confine themselves to homosexual acts, but so what? This does not mean the end of humanity or the family. I fail to see how being Chinese has anything to do with this issue.

Originally posted by Persol
Originally posted by Mystech
[B]According to your logic everything not prohibited is a right.

There you go, champ, you're starting to get it. This is what we call freedom, it's what our forefathers died for (well hey, mine didn't, but it's the patriotic thing to say).

If it doesn't infringe on the rights or wellbeing of otheres, then there is absolutly no grounds to take it away your right to do it. Simple as that.

Originally posted by Lucysnow
Well yes killing in some cases is a right: War, abortion, the electric chair, self-defense.
War, abortion, and the electric chair are not considered rights by most people. You have the right to choice, not to abortion. As for war and the electric chair, this is about taking rights... not giving them.

Yes we are arguing about definition because I believe it is my right to engage in jumping jacks and feel myself up...sometimes at the same time.
Now that takes talent;)

No I do not think that sex is any different than said mentioned.
Agreed, I don't think any of them are rights. You think they all are.

Yes I understand what you mean by rights goverend by law but since there is no law against feeling myself up during jumping jacks then I have to assume it is my right.
Just because nobody has told you not to do it does not make it a right. That is the basis of my argument.

And even if were against the law I would still assert it is my right because I am a human being and the species demands sexual contact...no not just to perpetuate the species but for pleasure too. .:D
Just because something gives you please doesn't make it a right. Humans also get pleasure from violence... this doesn't give you the right to go beat a cat to death. It doesn't give you the right to jerk off in public, steal for fun... etc... etc. Also, the species does not 'demand' sexual contact, as people are quite capable of avoiding sexual contact (athough with difficulty I'd guess).

No law can determine how I have a bowel movement and no law can determine how I have sex. Both are a right by birth. Only my opinion though.
The law determines how you can do both. That is why you can not just drop trail in the sidewalk and let it fly.

To the Saint: Yes there will always be more heterosexuals than homosexuals. Homosexuals cannot have offspring if they confine themselves to homosexual acts, but so what?
This assumes it is genetic... which I disagree with. I believe it is mostly choice/enviroment, but that doesn't make it wrong.

Saint: Absetenance and infertility are also 'Adverse of [offspring]'. Does this mean they violate 'the law'?

Originally posted by Saint
gay and lesbian can not have natural offsprings, this violate the basic value of "family".

Well many people recognize that there is more to forming a relationship with someone than just producing children with them. We see human beings as more than just baby machines, and life as having value outside of simply perpetuating the cycle of life.

On another note, though homosexual relationships do not violate the value of "family" because there isn't a hell of a lot stopping a homosexual couple form forming a family. So long as heterosexual couples are producing so many children that they have to throw some away, adoption will always be an option, as will artificial insemination (for lesbians, or possibly a gay couple with a willing female friend). "Family" is quite possible with two dads or two moms.


Originally posted by Saint
our natural preponderance is to love opposite sex, homosexuality is an Adverse of this.
:confused:

Well your natural attraction may be to the opposite sex, and that's obviously quite true of most people. However there are those who are naturally attracted to members of the same sex, that's what homosexuality is all about. Should these people be disenfranchised, or even demonized because of such a petty difference?

Originally posted by Persol
Why? The power to kill is also alloted to the human species. Is this a right?

You don't have a right to take a life, because it's simply not yours to regulate. It belongs to someone else, and frankly you only have so much say in it as the owner is willing to give you. You don't have a right to interfere in something in which you have no legitimate stake.


Originally posted by Persol
We are simply arguing about definition I think though. Going to the bathroom, doing jumping jacks, feeling yourself up, etc are not in themselves rights. What makes sex different then these?

I would argue that these things are indeed rights.

Originally posted by Persol
Originally posted by Lucysnow
Just because nobody has told you not to do it does not make it a right. That is the basis of my argument.


So, in your own view you don't really have a right to do anything unless someone has given you permission to do it? Don't you as an independent sentient being with a mind and will of your own have the ability to govern and sanction your own actions?

Originally posted by Mystech
There you go, champ, you're starting to get it. This is what we call freedom
You have the right to freedom/privacy, which includes these things. This doesn't also make them rights by association.

it's what are forefathers died for (well hey, mine didn't, but it's the patriotic thing to say)
No worries, judging someone's worth/ability based on their ancestors is pretty unfair anyhow.

If it doesn't infringe on the rights or wellbeing of otheres, then there is absolutly no grounds to take it away your right to do it. Simple as that.
I agree... except for the rights part:). These actions may be 'rights', but you alone can not decide this. This rest with the 'people', not the 'person'.

Originally posted by Mystech
So, in your own view you don't really have a right to do anything unless someone has given you permission to do it?
Correct. However, just because I don't have the right to do it, doesn't mean anyone else has the right to stop me. I don't need to have the right to do something, in order to do it. I don't have the right to watch TV... but that doesn't mean I don't.

Don't you as an independent sentient being with a mind and will of your own have the ability to govern and sanction your own actions?
Yes, a right just says that you don't to debate as to whether you should be allowed to do something.

Originally posted by Persol
Originally posted by Mystech
I agree... except for the rights part:). These actions may be 'rights', but you alone can not decide this. This rest with the 'people', not the 'person'.

Well I've got to dissagree with that collectivist attitude. When a person is right he's right reguardless of how many other wrong opinions there are in the world.

Haha I guess what I'm trying to say is that I'm a fanatic for freedom. I wouldn't accept a world where the majority can tell me what I can't do when they have not reasonable stake in my actions.

Originally posted by Lucysnow

So from what you are saying the human species needs permission to shit, eat, fuck and procreate?

woooooooo!!!! ::cheers:: ::waves lighter::

Originally posted by Mystech
Haha I guess what I'm trying to say is that I'm a fanatic for freedom. I wouldn't accept a world where the majority can tell me what I can't do when they have not reasonable stake in my actions. I agree, but this falls under the rights of privacy and freedom. It isn't a right in itself.

Just because it isn't a right doesn't mean others have the right to stop you.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Lucysnow

So from what you are saying the human species needs permission to shit, eat, fuck and procreate?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

woooooooo!!!! ::cheers:: ::waves lighter::Lol... missed this one. Like I said, you do not need permission to do something... and it doesn't need to be a right to do it.

Originally posted by Persol

Just because it isn't a right doesn't mean others have the right to stop you.

Well if other's can't stop me from doing it, and it doesn't infringe on the well-being of others, I'd file that under the category of "right".

Ok, I wouldn't.... I guess we just disagree here. Just because others can't stop you also doesn't make it a right.

duuude, you been eating the special mushrooms?

the lawmakers state that no law may be made that violates your god given* human rights. it furthermore states that your human rights allow you to be free to do anything unless it infringes on another's god given human rights. this is frequently said as "my right to throw my fist ends where your face begins". everything that does not keep another human being from his or her rights is by definition 'your rights'. sex may only be regulated in a way that protects people's rights, i.e. forceful sex, pedophilia, etc. it is unconstitutional for the government to make any laws preventing consenting adults from engaging in willing sexual activity.


*god given- just mean it as an expression, nothing more

Originally posted by SwedishFish
the lawmakers state that no law may be made that violates your god given* human rights. it furthermore states that your human rights allow you to be free to do anything unless it infringes on another's god given human rights.
Exactly, but this is ONLY the right to freedom... the allowance of letting you do other things are included in this. The ONLY discussion is if your 'right' is covered by your exisiting 'god given' rights.

your god given rights are anything that does not prevent others from enjoying their god given rights. anything. i don't know exactly what your definition of "freedom" is but i suspect it differs a bit from everyone i've ever met including the american government. "freedom" is the state of not being preventing from enjoying your rights.

Originally posted by SwedishFish
i don't know exactly what your definition of "freedom" is but i suspect it differs a bit from everyone i've ever met including the american government. "freedom" is the state of not being preventing from enjoying your rights.
freedom: A right or the power to engage in certain actions without control or interference

How you use your right to freedom are ACTIONS. These actions may be rights, but not everything you are free to do is a right.

All A is B does not mean all B is A.

Saint,

First, if you feel to procreate is the only means that constitutes a marriage, then that would mean heterosexual couples who are unable to have children should not get married?

I'm not sure what you mean by "value" of a family, but to me family means a heck of a lot more than just procreation. (BTW- as already pointed out- homosexual couples can adopt and let's not forget artificial insemination)

how you get through a day without accidentally dying is beyond me. you have your head so far up your ass and no grasp of logic whatsoever. i'm washing my hands of this.

Originally posted by SwedishFish
how you get through a day without accidentally dying is beyond me.
Wow, that's great... really... but I fail to see what that has to do with what I said..

you have your head so far up your ass and no grasp of logic whatsoever.
If you want to point out my flaw in logic fine, but you have not done so.

Look up 'right'. It has nothing to do with what you are 'allowed' to do and not interfereing with other people.

Look up 'freedom'. Just because you are free to do something doesn't make that something a right.

Who can justify to me that the pennis of man is meant to penetrate the anus of another man, as practised by most gays to release their sexual desire. :confused:

Family = One Father + One Mother + Child/children.

Is this definition clear ?:p

To Persol:War, abortion, and the electric chair are not considered rights by most people. You have the right to choice, not to abortion. As for war and the electric chair, this is about taking rights... not giving them.


Well they are considered rights to someone because it seems to take place a hell of a lot. The government believed it had a right to invade Iraq (unprovoked I may add) and in Texas the State has the right to take a life of a criminial if it deems it necessary. You say that I have a right to choice but not to abortion? Well I am definitely confused!:confused: How can I have a right to choice but no right to act on the choice?
So what exactly is a right to you anyway?

Concerning homosexuality you wrote:This assumes it is genetic... which I disagree with. I believe it is mostly choice/enviroment, but that doesn't make it wrong.

I never said that homosexuality is wrong. I simply was stating
to the Saint that there will always be more heterosexuals as opposed to homosexuals (propogation of the species dictates that), so he does not have to worry about the continuation of the family or the species. I haven't said anything about it being genetic or not.

To Mystech you wrote :Originally posted by Lucysnow
Just because nobody has told you not to do it does not make it a right. That is the basis of my argument.

I never posted that.

Persol you responded to Mystech by saying:
I agree... except for the rights part. These actions may be 'rights', but you alone can not decide this. This rest with the 'people', not the 'person'.

So are you saying that if the 'people' unanimously decided that short people let's say no longer have the right to take a shit then the short people no longer have the right to take a shit?:D

I mean are you saying that there are absolutely no rights whatsoever except what other people have decided upon?

To the Saint: There was never a father in my household. Are you trying to say then that the household I grew up in with grandmother, mother and myself was not a family? Careful now:)

Saint,

I am curious, do you feel that a heterosexual couple who cannot or do not want to have children have the right to be in a relationship?

Originally posted by Saint
Who can justify to me that the pennis of man is meant to penetrate the anus of another man, as practised by most gays to release their sexual desire. :confused:

You know, there are heterosexual couples who engage in anal penetration..

What the heck does it matter if it's woman and woman, man and man, or man and woman? We are simply talking about gender preference. How a couple has sex &/or what position they have it in shouldn't matter as long as it is consensual and no harm is done.

I can see it's hard for you to relate being attracted to someone of the same sex and how it can make sense in your mind. But, just because you can't make sense of it all doesn't make it wrong.

Ok, here's my blabbering about this....

Being gay IS unnatural. Simple. There are men and women for a reason, to create new life. A man's organ is made to enter a woman's organ.

There is a reason, also, why it is PAINFULL to have anal sex the first time and several other times afterward, because a man's penis should not enter it. I am a man and have no desire to stick my pencil in a woman's or a man's poop hole. Sorry. It is sick.

Remember growing up and seeing two male dogs trying to screw? It was funny wasn't it? Everyone knew it was not gonna work. Did you get turned on by watching it? Hope not.

I have nothing against gay people, I have known many, many of them and liked most of them but they need help. Most of them needed therapy for one reason or another. I don't feel it just should be accepted the way it has become.

Still, the bottom line is, you can do whatever it is your little heart desires behind closed doors. You can be gay or get spanked by some women all dressed in leather, I care not. Just don't expect me to be happy to see two men sucking face on a park bench. Get a room.

As a side note, what the heck is up with this gay pride crap and marching around the streets? Ever seen a heterosexual pride march? Didn't think so.

Originally posted by Persol
Originally posted by SwedishFish

Look up 'right'. It has nothing to do with what you are 'allowed' to do and not interfereing with other people.

Look up 'freedom'. Just because you are free to do something doesn't make that something a right.

Look you're going to have to state your position in more descriptive terms, because I just don't think that anyone is understanding just what you're trying to say, or what you're basing it on.

Why aren't these things Rights? If they aren't rights, then what are they, and what determines, in your opinion (Which obviously differs from those of the American legal system, as well as most everyone else takling here) is a right?

What do you mean by a "right to freedom"? Isn't freedom just a catch all term we use for an amalgamation of rights granted?

Originally posted by Saint
Who can justify to me that the pennis of man is meant to penetrate the anus of another man, as practised by most gays to release their sexual desire. :confused:

Saying that it was "meant" to do anything impliese intentional design, which, frankly, is just absurd.

A penis CAN penetrate a females, you know what, and this can bring sexual gradification, and it can also penetrate you know where on another male, which also brings sexual gratification. Why should it be said that one is the right way and the other wrong? Certainly there is a right way for procreation, but when the act goes beyond procreation, then what?

Originally posted by Saint
Family = One Father + One Mother + Child/children.

Is this definition clear ?:p

Yes, but morbidly narrow. Who thought a communist could be so conservative?

Originally posted by GuitarToadster
Being gay IS unnatural. Simple.

It seems pretty natural to me. It's my natural inclination. It occurs in nature, other animals display it.

Maybe your defenition of "natural" differs a bit? That's pretty likely, I assume, not even the FDA has a set standard for what constitutes "natural".

Originally posted by GuitarToadster
There are men and women for a reason, to create new life. A man's organ is made to enter a woman's organ.

Yes, that is because it is only through men and women copulating that the syclical process of life can continue, but again, is procreation the only worth wile goal in life? Is the only thought one can look fondly upon while on their death bed "Well I'm glad I had all those kids"?

Also, I'd submit that a man's organ is not made to enter a womans organ. It just happens to work that way, and variations (and there certainly are variations, look in your medical journals) can not produce the same cycle that we currently have going now, and being that they do not perpetuate themselves we don't usualy get a very good look at these deviations before they die out. Does this mean that men and women are inherently superior to any other abberation that could exist? Of course not, it just means that we will continue to see men and women.

Originally posted by GuitarToadster
There is a reason, also, why it is PAINFULL to have anal sex the first time and several other times afterward, because a man's penis should not enter it. I am a man and have no desire to stick my pencil in a woman's or a man's poop hole. Sorry. It is sick.

Yes, the reason that it may hurt a bit is because it's a tight little hole that you are trying to jam a bit hard rod into. Were you aware that girls often experience pain upon being penetrated?

Also, as a general rule, if anal sex hurts, then you are doing it wrong. Use more lube you amateur :p It's supposed to feel good!

And hey, I have no problem if you want to stick your dick into a girl's slimy pee hole (Sick!) what you do in your own bedroom is none of my business.

Originally posted by GuitarToadster
I have nothing against gay people, I have known many, many of them and liked most of them but they need help. Most of them needed therapy for one reason or another. I don't feel it just should be accepted the way it has become.

Why shouldn't homosexuality be accepted? Why do you have any right to say it's wrong or even make a judgement about it, which you feel should actually apply to them?

And I'll admit it, more homosexuals are in need of therapy than heterosexuals, there's no denying that. Homosexual teens have a much higher suicide rate than heterosexual teens, as well. This is because of the environment that society creates for them. You try being disowned by your family, beaten and sneered at, told you're an abomination against god, unnatural, and that you shouldn't be accepted in society, disenfranchised by your own government and then maybe we'll see if you could benefit from having a trained professional to talk to regularly.

Originally posted by GuitarToadster
Still, the bottom line is, you can do whatever it is your little heart desires behind closed doors. You can be gay or get spanked by some women all dressed in leather, I care not. Just don't expect me to be happy to see two men sucking face on a park bench. Get a room.

Hey now, what a cheap shot. Homosexuality isn't just some kinky sex thing, don't compare it to bondage. As for two guys making out on a park bench, do you honestly see that kind of thing? Where I live it's a good way to get harassed, or beat. Besides, in general it's just rude to be doing that kind of thing, you shouldn't be any more annoyed by it than you would a heterosexual couple sucking face in public.

Originally posted by GuitarToadster
As a side note, what the heck is up with this gay pride crap and marching around the streets? Ever seen a heterosexual pride march? Didn't think so.

Well that's kind of like asking what the difference between a white power march, and an African American civil rights protest of the 60s is. Do you really need someone to point it out for you?

How about this, you and your people go be an oppressed minority for a few centuries, be made to feel shame for who you are at every turn, and then get a little taste of acceptance, and see if maybe you don't finally band together and make every effort to show the world that you're never going back to that place in which you had been put. In all fairness, though those parades are a little over the top, hah, you wouldn't find me marching in one. . . there's gay pride and then there's just outright flamboyant faggyness, hehe.

*yawn* Verbal bitch slap dealt. I'm going to bed. This really is just getting too easy, I should go public with this stuff.

When did animals decide what is right? Are you seriously suggesting that we look at apes, dogs and dolphins and do what they do? In most cases it's just animals male bonding or other signs of affection such as licking. Also evidence shows that many animals that engage in homosexual acts also engage in heterosexual acts. Therefore, our sexual orientation is probably not determined only by our genes.

Originally posted by Mystech
Well I was born and raised in the United States, and am currently living there right now, and as far as I can tell sex is indeed a fundamental legal right. In fact, if you didn't have your head up your ass you might even realize that the supreme court ruled on exactly that not less than one month ago.Wrong. The Supreme Court ruled that the Texas sodomy law was unconstitutional because it was discriminatory in its enforcement; they did not say that sodomy or any other kind of sex is a fundamental right. There's an important legal difference. Many legal scholars were expecting (or at least hoping) that the court would rule on the issue of whether or not people have sexual rights, but they declined to comment on it. Instead they struck down the Texas sodomy law specifically because it could not be enforced without violating the due process clause (which is the 14th amendment, not the 9th) by unfairly focusing the attention of the police on a specific group – i.e., homosexuals. Look up Lawrence and Garner Vs. Texas. Or better than that, Read the god damned constitution, you ignoramus.

Pay special attention to the ninth amendment.
The 9th amendment does not give you the right to do anything and everything. The government can still make pretty much anything it wants illegal, so long as it doesn't violate due process. You don't have any more of a fundamental right to have sex then you do to drive without a seatbelt or use marijuana. I don't know what kind of communist dictatorship you live in, sir, but here in the States people are entitled to basic fundamental liberties. I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but you don't have a fundamental right to do whatever you want. I think you really need to read a book or something that explains how the US government and legal system work. As a libertarian I wish that the US legal system worked the way that you seem to imagine it to, but unfortunately it doesn't.

GuitarToadster,

Being gay IS unnatural. Simple. There are men and women for a reason, to create new life. A man's organ is made to enter a woman's organ

I will ask this question again, unnatural for whom? For me, being with a man is 100% unnatural, and I'm all woman. I don't dislike men- I can be friends with them, but no more. Why? Been there done that-it's just unnatural for me. With that in mind, I don't think that heterosexuality is wrong just because it's unnatural for me. That would be pretty narrow minded and just plain crazy.

I believe there is more in life than just copulating and procreating. Also, as someone stated earlier, there is not a worry about the decline in procreation as there are more heterosexuals than homosexuals.

I have nothing against gay people, I have known many, many of them and liked most of them but they need help. Most of them needed therapy for one reason or another. I don't feel it just should be accepted the way it has become.

Need help just because they are homosexual or need help, as Mystech pointed out, because of all the badgering they face? We all have problems from time to time and we all need help from time to time, but to say a homosexual needs help JUST because of their sexual preference is just as crazy as saying a heterosexual needs help because of their sexual preference.

Still, the bottom line is, you can do whatever it is your little heart desires behind closed doors. You can be gay or get spanked by some women all dressed in leather, I care not. Just don't expect me to be happy to see two men sucking face on a park bench. Get a room

Wow, do you really believe that homosexuality is all about sex and the display thereof? There are far too many hate crimes against homosexuals to be advertising it on a park bench and not that we would want to.

As a side note, what the heck is up with this gay pride crap and marching around the streets? Ever seen a heterosexual pride march? Didn't think so.

Mystech summed this one up quite well- I couldn't agree with him more.

Okinrus the biologists argument is to prove that homosexuality exists and is practiced in animal nature, it is not a moral argument. What you consider right in this sense ie. homosexuality, is for you to decide for yourself. Obviously you have no inclination towards the act, which is fine, it just surprises me that adults are concerned with the sexual practises of other consenting adults.

Originally posted by Nasor
Wrong. The Supreme Court ruled that the Texas sodomy law was unconstitutional because it was discriminatory in its enforcement; they did not say that sodomy or any other kind of sex is a fundamental right. [/B]

No, they banned ALL sodomy laws (those effecting both hetero and homosexuals, as well) based on privacy issues. In other words, they recognized that the government has to stay out of people's bedrooms when it comes to consenting unrelated adults.

Originally posted by okinrus
When did animals decide what is right? Are you seriously suggesting that we look at apes, dogs and dolphins and do what they do? In most cases it's just animals male bonding or other signs of affection such as licking. Also evidence shows that many animals that engage in homosexual acts also engage in heterosexual acts. Therefore, our sexual orientation is probably not determined only by our genes.

Hehe, ahh, Okinrus you are learning! Your argument now is "Why should we care about what is 'natural'?" You made the point better than I could have, thank you.

Originally posted by Saint
Who can justify to me that the pennis of man is meant to penetrate the anus of another man, as practised by most gays to release their sexual desire. :confused:

so i take it if i offered you a blowjob right now you'd decline? by your terms, penises are not meant to do that. i know a hetero bloke who would like a girl to use a strap-on to penetrate him simply because it feels good. what about tongues? what are they meant to do? some people like to use them for more than eating and talking. many like to involve them in kissing. often on other places than the mouth...saaaaay the sex organs. completely unnatural eh? shall we take a survey (we can keep it to this board alone) of how many people object to that? i'll take bets. my money is on most people enjoying more than procreative missionary sex (::snooore:: ).

but the sexual acts are never a factor in fag bashing anyway, only justification for it

Hehe, ahh, Okinrus you are learning! Your argument now is "Why should we care about what is 'natural'?" You made the point better than I could have, thank you.

A woman's vagina produces lubricants during sexual intercourse, but the man's anus does not. This suggests that anal penetration is not natural. Also the proximity to fecal matter would make anal penetration more dangerous.

It seems pretty natural to me. It's my natural inclination. It occurs in nature, other animals display it.

This is kind of a weird excuse if you ask me. So now you have lowered your intelligence to that of a dog or cat to justify what you do? You said it, not me.

Also, as a general rule, if anal sex hurts, then you are doing it wrong. Use more lube you amateur It's supposed to feel good!

Sorry, I have no interest in anal sex. Never done it, never will. Plus the WOMEN I have dated are not into that (well, one of them apparently was but never spoke of it to me)... they probably don't want something that large in there! :D


Why shouldn't homosexuality be accepted?

Because it is not natural way of doing things.

When I say accepted, I mean, you should not be given the right to a marriage (unless there is a Gay religion that I am unaware of?) and allowed to adopt children and such. It may be nice for good gay people to help raise children but there is supposed to be a mother and a father, everyone knows that children suffer when BOTH are not in their lives. Also, you say yourself as a gay you are subjected to torment from hetero people, so why should you be allowed to subject these children you adopt to similar experiences? That would be intentionally cruel.

I view natural as the way things would occur in nature (hence natural )... if it was natural for a living things to act in the manner of being gay then all living things would cease to exist.

In nature animals do a gay act out of say ignorance or simply not being able to control themselves... like a dog humping your leg. Humans do it, I believe, because they are confused or maybe were molested as a child (there are other reasons too, possibly).

If you are a man and do not find women sexually attractive, by the laws of nature this is abnormal (or unnatural)... there is something wrong. It is completely different if you like to fool around on both sides of the fence, this could be considered maybe you are "kinky" (which I would consider abnormal also but at least not completely out of whack).

I say you can do whatever you want. Really. Just keep it to yourself. I don't run around telling everyone about my sexual preference, it is obvious, just as it is obvious when someone is gay. This is why I find the marching odd. But, using your own argument about how gays would not sit on a park bench and smooch or else they would be beaten up or harrassed, then how would a "gay pride march" be an intelligent thing to do? You will get the same reaction that you so do not desire.

We can go on for days but simple fact is that it is normal for humans to have sex with the opposite sex or else our population would disappear so your arguments otherwise are futile to those of us who are objectively thinking here.

Humm, sooo...how large is it guitarToadster?:D

GuitarToadster:
Weren't you the so-called hippy from WE&P who was whining like a little bitch over the deaths of Uday and Quesy?

A fag-bashing hippy?

This is kind of a weird excuse if you ask me. So now you have lowered your intelligence to that of a dog or cat to justify what you do? You said it, not me.

Que? Lay off the drugs, Jesus boy.

Sorry, I have no interest in anal sex. Never done it, never will. Plus the WOMEN I have dated are not into that (well, one of them apparently was but never spoke of it to me)... they probably don't want something that large in there!

*Snigger*
Can we say "obvious insecurity"?

Because it is not natural way of doing things.

The "natural" way of doing things involves dying at the ripe old age of 24.
You want to live according to nature? Then throw your computer away, retreat into the woods with nothing but primitive weapons, and starve.
Please.

It may be nice for good gay people to help raise children but there is supposed to be a mother and a father, everyone knows that children suffer when BOTH are not in their lives.

"Everyone knows" is the last resort of a bigot.
Show evidence.

I view natural as the way things would occur in nature (hence natural )... if it was natural for a living things to act in the manner of being gay then all living things would cease to exist.

No. Kin selection.

If you are a man and do not find women sexually attractive,

God forbid we violate the patriarchial paradigm.

by the laws of nature this is abnormal (or unnatural)

F = gM1M2/r ^2 has problems with anal sex?

Have I suggested suicide yet?

I don't run around telling everyone about my sexual preference, it is obvious,

What, you have "I fuck goats" tattooed on your forehead?

just as it is obvious when someone is gay.

Not all homosexuals parade about in sparkly clothing with Pet Shop Boys tunes blasting out of their earphones.

We can go on for days but simple fact is that it is normal for humans to have sex with the opposite sex or else our population would disappear so your arguments otherwise are futile to those of us who are objectively thinking here.

Wow. I hereby dub you the Josef Mengele of the English Language. That sentance doesn't even lick ass, it licks the encrusted shit off of a 5$ junkie whore's ass.

Lucysnow:
Humm, sooo...how large is it guitarToadster?

I suggest we lend the boy an electron microscope so he can tell us.

Originally posted by okinrus
A woman's vagina produces lubricants during sexual intercourse, but the man's anus does not. This suggests that anal penetration is not natural.

That's why man made lube, Oki! What you're doing here is looking in tea leaves to find messages from above. Just because all of the provisions which should be taken into account to maximize the pleasurability of the act are not automatically there, doesn't mean a god damned thing. If that were true then you wouldn't be living in a house or using a computer to access the internet right now! I could just as easily say that we evolved these big brains and became tool users for a reason. And guess what, that reason wouldn't have to be an appeal to the imaginary sky father, we use tools to shape our world for our betterment, sorry it's a human thing!

Originally posted by okinrus
Also the proximity to fecal matter would make anal penetration more dangerous.

Proximity to fecal matter? Silly boy, that's why you wash your ass!

:D :D Hahaha Sweet!

Xev,

You really ought to learn how to take critism and definitely learn how to talk in a civil manner.

In what way have I bashed you? Or fags in general? (you like to use that term?)

If you actually read what people write once in a while their ideas might not escape you so easily.

I am not a 10 year old who will resort to name calling and swearing on a regular basis, like you. I don't find it cool.

If you can't handle the discussion then go cry and wimper to someone who really cares. As of this point I will not respond to you anymore until you show some intelligence and quit being rude and obnoxious.

GuitarToadster:


You really ought to learn how to take critism and definitely learn how to talk in a civil manner.

How are you criticising me?

In what way have I bashed you?

I never said that you bashed me. Learn to read, my fine fundy friend.

Or fags in general? (you like to use that term?)

Given that I've never had sex or even seriously considered having sex with another woman, how do I qualify as a "fag"?

If you actually read what people write once in a while their ideas might not escape you so easily.

Your insults are even more inane than you are.

I am not a 10 year old who will resort to name calling and swearing on a regular basis, like you. I don't find it cool.

Neither do I. I don't post to be "cool". I'm more interested in the exchange of ideas than in trying to convey an image.

If you can't handle the discussion

How do I indicate that I can't? The fact that I disagree with you? Or that I use "bad words"?
Perchance if you were more familiar with fucking as a noun, you'd not be so startled with its use as a verb.

then go cry and wimper to someone who really cares.

What gives you the indication that I'm upset?

As of this point I will not respond to you anymore

Okay, now I'm upset. You might not respond to me anymore! You might deny me your candid observations and profound insights! Oh just heavens!

until you show some intelligence and quit being rude and obnoxious.

Oh cruel fate!

IMHO:
whether it's natural or unnatural is irrelevant.
when it comes to morality though, it's a different case.
since there's no universal definition of "good" and "bad",
what's "good" and "bad" is defined by society. every society you look at, gays/lesbians are traditionally considered to be "bad" and "immoral".

that should answer the topic question.

but this answer may change with time when society (which is constantly morphing and changing) changes its views on gays/lesbians, at which point the "immoral" verdict will be overturned.

Originally posted by otheadp
what's "good" and "bad" is defined by society.

You think so?
I think morality can only be defined by the indiviual.

first there's the society's definitions, then there's personal definitions. society builds our personal morals.

for example, if Joe Smith and his mom were the only inhabitants on planet Earth, and none of them ever saw a living human before (except Joe's dad which died a long time ago), and they decided to fuck, that would be perfectly alright since there is no society to tell them what's right or wrong.

why do things like incest and bestiality keep sneaking in to conversations about homosexuality lately? Let them defend themselves, homosexuals arnt picking up that banner.

IMO gays/lesbians are people whos body chemistry got messed up :D . I dont have anything against them its just there arnt any orifices for that kind of relationship to work for species survival so something must of gone wrong in their chemical make-up.

:m:

After big wars, more males are born than females. This is thought to be some kind of natural adjustment to replace all those dead males. When an areas population is near its limit could a similar thing occur? Natural homosexuals born to make sure the population does not rise to dangerous levels? In such a case homosexuals arnt chemicly "messed up" thier non-reproductivity is actualy benificial.


i shouldnt try to pander to your "Its not natural" argument, but i put this out there because there is a hell of a lot of things in nature that arnt widly known, or known at all. To say such a wide spread omnipresent phenomenon is not natural might be more than just a little absurd.

Originally posted by GuitarToadster
I am not a 10 year old who will resort to name calling and swearing on a regular basis, like you. I don't find it cool.


Haha, yes you'll only resort to such base acts in trying to justify and rationalize your own hatred to yourself.

"but this answer may change with time when society (which is constantly morphing and changing) changes its views on gays/lesbians, at which point the "immoral" verdict will be overturned."

At a rough guess, thats happening just now, in part because people want society to have less saying their personal lives. Arguments such as seen on this thread are hopefully teh last gasp of homophobic views.

i believe this has been discussed in Biology if you want to hop on over and see what nature thinks about it.

homosexuality exists in many other species. many primates enjoy humping anyone regardless of sex. there are actually gay livestock. i'll see if i can find some pictures of female cows trying to mount other female cows. the evolutionary benefit of having homosexuals in the population is that of population control. it pops up at a regular rate to keep breeding in check. it hasn't worked quite so well in human populations because people like to interfere with their biology. ex: "good god no your natural instict is wrong, wrong i tell you! you must repress it and act like this." but because of this, there is also a much higher rate than that of other animal populations. gay people have been forced to stay in hiding and pretend at hetero lives, leaving offspring who carry on the genes responsible.

Originally posted by otheadp
IMHO:
whether it's natural or unnatural is irrelevant.

The word seems to defy definition, anyway, so I'd have to agree. It's pretty flimsy grounds for or against much of anything.

Originally posted by otheadp
when it comes to morality though, it's a different case.
since there's no universal definition of "good" and "bad",
what's "good" and "bad" is defined by society.

So you're saying that you don't mind if societal rules are completely arbitrary and in defiance of any sort of reason or logic? That simply because there is some perceived mass consensus regarding an issue that that's good enough for you, even if it is destructive and harmful? That's nothing but mob rule, it's a horrible thing. I’m sure it must seem pretty allowable so long as things are going your way, when the unwashed masses turn on you it becomes very clear very quickly just how awful a thing this can be.

Originally posted by otheadp
every society you look at, gays/lesbians are traditionally considered to be "bad" and "immoral".

Well yeah, but only if you consiously avert your eyes at the Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, Native Americans, Netherlands, Canada, the state of Vermont, and various myriad groups of people all throught the world.

But in the end, it's not how many people feel what way about who that truely determines morality, or rightness. A single man who is right amoung a world of those who are wrong is still just as correct.

Originally posted by otheadp
but this answer may change with time when society (which is constantly morphing and changing) changes its views on gays/lesbians, at which point the "immoral" verdict will be overturned.

Frankly, I'd aquit due to lack of evidence.

Oh for the love of the bugger fucking christ almighty:

Homosexuality is unnatural. Fine. Okay.
Now if you think that the un-naturalness of something is an argument against that thing, fine. Okay.
Throw away your computer - that's fucking unnatural. Do you have clothes that have synthetic fabric, nylon, rayon, latex, whatever? Throw 'em out. Next to the kitchen. That nifty teflon coated pan? It's unnatural. Away it goes. Your fridge? My god, you sinner! Burn, sinner, that fridge is unnatural! So are your cds, your records, your tapes, your vhs tapes, your dvds and the insturments that play these things for you. We aren't born with mp3 players in our hands.
Next to the medicine cabinet. Penicillian? Unnatural, it's only natural to chew leaves that might have a medicinal effect and visit a witch doctor. No more doctors visits for you, fundie boy.
Fundie girl, shoot yourself if you're over 21. You should have died in childbirth by now.
See where I'm going?
Who the fuck cares what is and is not natural? Our entire lifestyle is unnatural.

Fucking a man up the ass is as natural as listening to a Smiths album while doing so. Just deal with it.

For the sake of seeing if there is a bottom to Xev's morals... Is bestiality wrong? If so, why?

First, I don't believe in being right and wrong. I believe in being such that one is above right and wrong. That is, I live my ethics by a state, not by a system.

That said, bestiality is wrong. Nonconsensual sex is wrong because it harms the person and freedom of the Other.

Can you deny, okinrus, that your lifestyle is unnatural?
If it is ingrained in humans to seek out new ways of doing things, new ways of thinking and being, why is seeking a new way of fucking contrary to human nature?

wrong according to who?
there always has to be a reference point

Me.

Me.

Well I didn't mean that as a personal question. For example, many woman say that they feel abortion is wrong but they still allow others to have the choice.


That said, bestiality is wrong. Nonconsensual sex is wrong because it harms the person and freedom of the Other.

Ok, I'm going to interpret the Other to be an animal. How do you know that this is nonconsensual sex? If the animal gets gratification from it, how do you know that they will not give consent? Your moral system is still hypocritical because we kill millions of animals for food. Could someone have sex with those animals because we are going to kill them anyways? Also I'm in no way comparing homosexuality with beastiality. I suspect only that there are similar reasons to why both are considered wrong.


Can you deny, okinrus, that your lifestyle is unnatural?
If it is ingrained in humans to seek out new ways of doing things, new ways of thinking and being, why is seeking a new way of fucking contrary to human nature?

My lifestyle is based upon avoiding what harms myself, others and my relationship with God.

okinrus:
Well I didn't mean that as a personal question. For example, many woman say that they feel abortion is wrong but they still allow others to have the choice.

It is a personal question. You asked who defines morality for me - the answer is me.
Your example of the woman who feels that abortion is wrong but will allow others to have the choice is flawed. If one believes that a fetus is a living human being, then one cannot "allow others to have the choice" unless one believes that murder should be condoned. If one simply wouldn't have an abortion, it's not a moral choice - it's simply a choice.

Ok, I'm going to interpret the Other to be an animal. How do you know that this is nonconsensual sex? If the animal gets gratification from it, how do you know that they will not give consent?

Same argument would apply to paedophilia. I'll err on the side of caution.

Your moral system is still hypocritical because we kill millions of animals for food.

Do you not know how to read? I said I have no moral system.
As for the objection, good thinking. There's no real difference between fucking a sheep and eating a sheep. I should have asked you to specify animal.

My lifestyle is based upon avoiding what harms myself, others and my relationship with God.

That doesn't answer my question. Is it natural?
You use a computer. That's not natural.
Mystech fucks other men. That's not natural.
Y'all have to abandon the "natural" argument unless you want to sound really, really silly as you are making it in an unnatural medium (the internet).

Do you not know how to read? I said I have no moral system.

Everyone has a moral system even if it's only the pursuit of pleasure. Also every moral system concerns itself with states. For example, killing others is normally wrong but not in self defence.


Same argument would apply to paedophilia. I'll err on the side of caution.

Why do we have to be cautious here, but not with homosexuality? Your trying to avoid my questions...


That doesn't answer my question. Is it natural?
You use a computer. That's not natural.
Mystech fucks other men. That's not natural.
Y'all have to abandon the "natural" argument unless you want to sound really, really silly as you are making it in an unnatural medium (the internet).

Our sexuality is determined from our enviroment. How does a male rabbit who has never seen himself know what he looks like? Or to put it more specifically, how does he know that he is a rabbit? Our sexuality comes mainly from the environment.

Also could there be a degree of unnatural? Could homosexuality be considered a 6 on the unnatural, while beastiality would be a 10? Or maybe having cars is natural? Maybe the set of natural behaviors is very large? What we actually use the computer for is natural. We use the computer to communicate and calculate.

okinrus:
Everyone has a moral system even if it's only the pursuit of pleasure.

If you call an absence of a system a system of absence, fine. In which case, the fact that I don't own a Porsche simply means that I own a nonexistant Porsche.

Also every moral system concerns itself with states. For example, killing others is normally wrong but not in self defence.

Oh just read Nietzsche, he says this crap way better than I could.

Why do we have to be cautious here, but not with homosexuality? Your trying to avoid my questions...

No, I'm trying not to scream at your obtuseness.

Look okinrus, if you can't tell the difference between fucking an adult and fucking a child you have problems. BIG problems.
For one, children aren't physically ready for sex with adults. For two, a child's conception of sex is rather too primitive for consent to be truely possible. For three, it's rather well documented that victims of child sexual abuse are harmed mentally by such abuse.

Got it so far? This is why I err on the side of caution - I don't relish the idea of harming a child.

Now, bestiality. I'd be inclined to find it suspect in most cases. But it's not as cut and dry - is it morally "wrong" to jack off a Jack Russell? I doubt it.

Our sexuality is determined from our enviroment. How does a male rabbit who has never seen himself know what he looks like? Or to put it more specifically, how does he know that he is a rabbit? Our sexuality comes mainly from the environment.

Our sexuality, I agree, but not our libido. What our libido attatches itself to is not necessarily soley influenced by enviornment.

But this is skipping the question.

Also could there be a degree of unnatural? Could homosexuality be considered a 6 on the unnatural, while beastiality would be a 10? Or maybe having cars is natural? Maybe the set of natural behaviors is very large? What we actually use the computer for is natural. We use the computer to communicate and calculate.

I don't see hunter-gatherers performing abstract maths or communicating with each other across oceans.
Besides, homosexuality is simply the pursuit of mutual pleasure with a member of one's own gender. How is this any less natural than wrapping your mind around non-Euclidian geometry?

So, is your use of the computer natural or not?
It's a simple yes/no question.

If you call an absence of a system a system of absence, fine. In which case, the fact that I don't own a Porsche simply means that I own a nonexistant Porsche.

Your moral system is a random system spilling out nonsense? If you say that homosexuality is not wrong, then you have made a judgment based on your morals. Are you really suggesting that you make judgements without rational thinking? You believe in contradiction. As soon as you say that having no moral system is not wrong, then you have a moral system.


No, I'm trying not to scream at your obtuseness.

Logic is obtuse. Your morals based upon what society does is no more obtuse than saying "God said so".


Oh just read Nietzsche, he says this crap way better than I could.

Oh so your moral system is based upon Nietzsche. Ok, I will try to bash my head against the nearest copy I can find.


Look okinrus, if you can't tell the difference between fucking an adult and fucking a child you have problems. BIG problems.
For one, children aren't physically ready for sex with adults. For two, a child's conception of sex is rather too primitive for consent to be truely possible. For three, it's rather well documented that victims of child sexual abuse are harmed mentally by such abuse.

And so how does a pedofile relate to beastiaity? For all we know someone who as sex with animals instead of young children. And in case you did not notice, there are more homosexual pedofiles than heterosexual pedofiles. So why not err on the side of caution with homosexuals.


I don't see hunter-gatherers performing abstract maths or communicating with each other across oceans.

Human communications such as speaking is much more complicated than the logical make up of the computer. There is no computer that can make an exact recording of the human voice. There is no parser that can parse english in real time and understand it. Hunters were one of the first mathematicians. Notches on stone representing perhaps the number of kills began our system of mathematics.


Besides, homosexuality is simply the pursuit of mutual pleasure with a member of one's own gender. How is this any less natural than wrapping your mind around non-Euclidian geometry?

Our earth is non-Euclidian, space is non-Euclidian.


So, is your use of the computer natural or not?
It's a simple yes/no question.

The computer can function naturally with the human species. Of course you can use your computer to function unnaturally just as you can use almost any natural object. Anyways since most humans use the computer to function naturally, it is natural.

okinrus:
Ethics is boring. I prefer phenomenology, so I'm going to skip over explaining a bunch of shit I don't care about and shouldn't have started discussing. My apologies.
To cut to the chase - I do not believe homosexuality to be good or bad, as I do not believe anything to be good or bad.

And so how does a pedofile relate to beastiaity?

They don't. Somehow we started discussing the two.

And in case you did not notice, there are more homosexual pedofiles than heterosexual pedofiles. So why not err on the side of caution with homosexuals.

Paedophilia is generally believed to be indicative of mental disturbance more than a sexual preference. I don't know if this is true or not, just so you know.

I gave you several reasons why homosexuality and paedophilia are not equivalent. If you can't argue against them, just drop the fucking comparison already.

Our earth is non-Euclidian, space is non-Euclidian.

Umm, well not really. And I don't see how this "fact" answers my question?

I'll restate:
How is seeking the pleasure of playing with maths any different than seeking the pleasure of playing hide the sausage with a member of your own sex?

Anyways since most humans use the computer to function naturally, it is natural.

Naturally = in accordance with nature.
Again, how is my laptop in accordance with nature?
In that I use it as a tool, correct?

I do not believe homosexuality to be good or bad, as I do not believe anything to be good or bad.

Well that's a dismal attitute :confused: Isn't your existance good? Maybe it's better that you treat good or bad more like a human emotion instead of saying it does not exist.

I'm not saying that paedophilia or homosexuality are equivalent. However statistics show a correlation. Note very well that not all homosexuals are pedofiles. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=27431


How is seeking the pleasure of playing with maths any different than seeking the pleasure of playing hide the sausage with a member of your own sex?

Playing with math gives you long term satisfaction. A mathematical proof uses creativity and imagination. "hide the sausage" only gives momentary pleasure. It's much more likely to become an addiction than mathematics.

Okinrus, I don't know what studies you're referring to, but most pedophiles are heterosexual.

Originally posted by okinrus
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=27431

This is a completely ridiculous source to site. This article boldly chooses to take the extra crazy path and try to not-so-subtly imply that there is some sort of homosexual conspiracy driving at getting closer to children (for the purpose of molesting them).


Originally posted by okinrus
Playing with math gives you long term satisfaction. A mathematical proof uses creativity and imagination. "hide the sausage" only gives momentary pleasure. It's much more likely to become an addiction than mathematics.

All you've done here is make an argument against all sexual activity (though I suppose the wording excludes lesbians). Unless your premise is that homosexuals are interested only in sex with other men, and that sex with members of the opposite sex is not the only social goal for heterosexuals, then this argument can work both ways.

Your premises are horribly flawed either way, as "playing hide the sausage" is far from the only social activity which a homosexual will engage in with a member of the same sex. Believe it or not they actually like to form long lasting relationships and pair-bonds, and essentially any of the standard range of interpersonal relationships which could well result in "giving long term satisfaction". That certainly makes the reasoning behind their pushing for marriage a whole lot more clear, doesn't it?

Xev, you're not making a whole hell of a lot of sense in this thread any more. Your arguments are convoluted and sort of collapse right in on themselves, and that's when they have enough structure to actually be related to one another. My advice to you would be to just take some time away from this thread, maybe observe a Jr. High speech and debate team, and then come back fresh and ready to form an argument. I realize that technically you are arguing on the same side as me, but honestly some times it is hard to tell. Your childish quips and one liners may be appreciated elsewhere on the forums, but to be honest I shudder every time I see a new post from you.

You have the citations that the article listed. It's clearly percentage wise, but I would not be suprised even if there are more homosexual pedofiles than heterosexual pedofiles. Lately you've probably heard about the scandal in the Catholic church. Well most of those cases are homosexual. Of course heterosexuals commit sexual deviant acts, but usually these are manifested in the rape of an adult female.

All you've done here is make an argument against all sexual activity (though I suppose the wording excludes lesbians). Unless your premise is that homosexuals are interested only in sex with other men, and that sex with members of the opposite sex is not the only social goal for heterosexuals, then this argument can work both ways.

Heterosexuals have the same problems. This is why sexual acts should be only in marriage for the fullfillment of children. Fornication and homosexual acts are both wrong.


This article boldly chooses to take the extra crazy path and try to not-so-subtly imply that there is some sort of homosexual conspiracy driving at getting closer to children (for the purpose of molesting them).
rong.

Ok it's a bit crazy, but the article states valid research as far as I can tell.

Originally posted by Munchmausen
Okinrus, I don't know what studies you're referring to, but most pedophiles are heterosexual.

The idea that a higher percentage of homosexual men than heterosexual men are pedophiles is just a myth.

In 1985, a federal judge concluded that Cameron had engaged in "fraud" and "misrepresentation" when he testified in a gay-related case in Texas. (Baker v. Wade, 106 Federal Rules Decisions 526 [N.D. Texas, 1985]) Judge Buchmeyer of the U.S. District Court of Dallas referred to "Cameron's sworn statement that 'homosexuals abuse children at a proportionately greater incident than do heterosexuals,'" and concluded that "Dr. Paul Cameron...has himself made misrepresentations to this Court" and that "There has been no fraud or misrepresentations except by Dr. Cameron"

http://rainbowallianceopenfaith.homestead.com/Cameron.html

Feel free to call me a hypocrite for referencing this source, which itself has a clear bias, but it was the best one that I could find and post in a timely manner. I went to the APA's site first, but it's completely useless. At least it relies heavily on direct quotes from the legal case.

On another, and certainly just as important note: Heterosexuals are much more likely to start wars than are homosexuals. They also commit more murders, and are involved in more pregnancies out of wedlock then homosexuals.

That's my way of saying that this is a straw man argument. The issue we are dealing with here is weather or not homosexuals are immoral, not weather pedophiles or rapists are immoral. Saying that a homosexuals could also be pedophiles and as such are immoral is completely ridiculous, it runs right along the same lines as saying because a heterosexual can be a murderer, they are also immoral. Both pedophilia and murder are immoral, but we aren't talking about pedophiles or murderers, adding them into the mix is nothing but a diversionary tactic.

okinrus:
Well that's a dismal attitute Isn't your existance good?

Not really.

Maybe it's better that you treat good or bad more like a human emotion instead of saying it does not exist.

I was thinking in a moral sense. I mean sure, this chardonney is good. This book is good. This band is good.

I'm not saying that paedophilia or homosexuality are equivalent. However statistics show a correlation.

Irrelevent. Most genocidal maniacs are heterosexuals, if you want to play that game.

Playing with math gives you long term satisfaction.

Really? My interests, academically, are exclusively non maths. I haven't got the sort of brain that is truely good at math.

A mathematical proof uses creativity and imagination.

So does a good fuck, to be blunt.

"hide the sausage" only gives momentary pleasure.

Exploring another person's desires, learning how to pleasure their body, above all experiencing another human fully in the flesh, sharing the holocaust of words that is orgasm - this only gives momentary pleasure?

I'd say that you're the one with a dismal attitude. Sure, human relationships aren't as important as our culture makes them out to be, but they can be intensely rewarding.

Mystech:
I'm not "debating". I'm playing. If I actually cared about any of this shit, I'd be putting an effort into my arguments.
Sheesh, that should be bloody obvious. Don't tell me you take this shit seriously? :bugeye:

Originally posted by Xev
Mystech:
I'm not "debating". I'm playing. If I actually cared about any of this shit, I'd be putting an effort into my arguments.
Sheesh, that should be bloody obvious. Don't tell me you take this shit seriously? :bugeye:

Being that this is an intensely personal issue for me, and that I actually have to deal with people, and arguments like these in real live now and again, not to mention the fact that it is people with ideas like these who stand between me and the fulfillment of the rights which I feel should be mine, yes I do take this very seriously.

Exploring another person's desires, learning how to pleasure their body, above all experiencing another human fully in the flesh, sharing the holocaust of words that is orgasm - this only gives momentary pleasure?

Don't these type of relationships end quickly as well? Premarital sexual relationships have a high rate of breaking apart. In any case, you die and that's it.

Being that this is an intensely personal issue for me, and that I actually have to deal with people, and arguments like these in real live now and again, not to mention the fact that it is people with ideas like these who stand between me and the fulfillment of the rights which I feel should be mine, yes I do take this very seriously.

Don't worry. Xev has made me come to the conclusion that the world is so fucked up that's it is beyond repair. Better to let the children play and let God punish you all.

Mystech:
So you think you'll change his mind? Bah, bull, you're bored just like me.

Time, as Paine says, makes more converts than reason.

Anyways, your opinion of my posts is a matter of monumental unconcern. Shoo along now.

Don't these type of relationships end quickly as well?

Doesn't address my question.
You honestly think that knowing another person is only a momentary thing?
*Shrugs*
Men are, I suppose, less emotionally involved in sex.

Premarital sexual relationships have a high rate of breaking apart.

Your point is?

In any case, you die and that's it.

Now you're REALLY being confusing.

Xev has made me come to the conclusion that the world is so fucked up that's it is beyond repair. Better to let the children play and let God punish you all.

Ouch! Fucked up it is, but I've not come to that conclusion.

Originally posted by okinrus
Better to let the children play and let God punish you all.

I realize that this is probably an argument for the religion forum, but isn't that part of Christian doctrine anyway? I realize that in practice it's a very different situation, but why don't you just sit back, live how you feel is good and moral, let the world run it's course, and let God sort them out, as it were. Isn't he supposed to be the only one truly qualified to judge others? Let he who is free of sin cast the first stone, and judge not lest you be judged, and all that. Such a shame that so many Christians should feel the need to dirty their hands by trying to make the world conform to their teachings.

Originally posted by Xev
Mystech:
So you think you'll change his mind? Bah, bull, you're bored just like me.

Perhaps the foolish hope of having some small chance of nullifying some of his beliefs on the subject, or in this case, being that so many seem to be making up their opinions and arguments as they go along, at least destroying that avenue in their minds.

The real benefit is being prepared for self righteous declarations of entitlement in the real world. Arguing like this is a good way to become familiar with reassuring arguments against my position, and being able to meet them, and turn the tables, as it were. For all the stupid things I may say here on these forums, imagine how stupid I'd look if I just went around shouting about gay rights, and couldn't give a single reason for why my point of view should be accepted over that of those who oppose them.

Life is a battle of wits, and I’m just trying to be sure I’m well armed.

I realize that in practice it's a very different situation, but why don't you just sit back, live how you feel is good and moral, let the world run it's course, and let God sort them out, as it were. Isn't he supposed to be the only one truly qualified to judge others? Let he who is free of sin cast the first stone, and judge not lest you be judged, and all that. Such a shame that so many Christians should feel the need to dirty their hands by trying to make the world conform to their teachings.

Well if someone asks if it sinful then we have to say it is. You've invited this onslaught on yourself :( I'm not at all judging you or anyone else. Jesus also said "Judge for yourself what is right". So we can judge what actions are right and that's what this debate is about. Not personal attacks.

"Well if someone asks if it sinful then we have to say it is. You've invited this onslaught on yourself I'm not at all judging you or anyone else. Jesus also said "Judge for yourself what is right". So we can judge what actions are right and that's what this debate is about. Not personal attacks."

So, you are not judging anyone, but you are allowed to judge what is right and what isnt, so your judhging someone?

So, you are not judging anyone, but you are allowed to judge what is right and what isnt, so your judhging someone?

No, judging would be like saying your an evil sinful person who is going to hell.