San Fransisco Gay Marriages
-
jhaga wrote: Come on Stan! Homosexuality doesn't have anything to do with perversions I absolutely disagree with that. Of course its about sexual perversion I'll leave the morality of it to others, but sticking your penis in someone's mouth is damned sure sexually perverse (even if an entirely benign form. ) Its none of my business until they tell me I have to accept it, than I certainly have my right to a political opinion on the subject at the very least. The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism, but under then name of Liberalism, they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program until one day America will be a Socialist nation without knowing how it happened. - Norman Thomas, Socialist Party Presidential candidate
:-D You mean you've never recieved a b***j** ?!? Even from a chick?!? That's where all of this anger is coming from. You need some release, dude! Sucks to be you! Soooo, getting head is a sexual perversion, eh? What then is not a sexual perversion? (please answer this question, I'm positive I'll have a good comeback) yeah, yeah, keep you're political opinion, but as long as you excersize your freedom of speech, the rest of us will excercise ours. ;P Why is the phrase "It's none of my business" always followed by "BUT..." ;P
-
It is not a question about where you stick your penis, it is more about who will inherit you when you die. Your partner or somebody else. jhaga --------------------------------- Every generation laughs at the old fashions, but follows religiously the new. Henry David Thoreau, "Walden", 1854
jhaga wrote: It is not a question about where you stick your penis, it is more about who will inherit you when you die. Your partner or somebody else. What if I wanted to leave my inheritence to a bullfrog? Should the state sanction that marriage? How far are we to go to fully inact this wonderful new morality we have discovered? The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism, but under then name of Liberalism, they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program until one day America will be a Socialist nation without knowing how it happened. - Norman Thomas, Socialist Party Presidential candidate
-
AdventureBoy wrote: How so? I see racial discrimination and sexual discrimination as being nearly identicle issues. Both unfairly restrict the rights and freedoms of specific groups of people based on irreleavant attributes of those groups. Because we are not talking about race, or genetics or anything at all to do with biology. We are talking about a set of behaviors. To say that we do not have the right to discriminate against another's behavior based upon our own personal set of moral principles is absolute tyranny. Nothing could be more tyranical. I might not have the right to discriminate against someone because of their skin color, but if they behave in some way I find inappropriate I should certainly be freely allowed discriminate. The state should not be defining for me what does and does not represent appropriate behavior. H AdventureBoy wrote: You seem to be confused. Canadian law does permit free excercise of religion, and any other practice under the sun that does not impinge on the rights and freedoms of others. That's the point. YOU'RE the one whose suggesting that the beliefs of individuals should be subverted by the government's religion (A specific branch of Christianity, no doubt). YOU'RE the one who actually believes that "Whatever the state says is normal, is normal, and to hell with free exercise of religion" Canadian law makes it possible for you to have any beliefs, religions or views that you want, as long as you are not somehow harming anyone else. For instance, Canadian law gives the same tax advantages to people in same-sex marriages as it does to hetero marriages and common-law relationships. So you can freely exercise your religious convictions so long as you do it precisely according to the dictates of the state. Wow, that is what I call freedom. Gee, you Canadians are so advanced. The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism, but under then name of Liberalism, they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program until one day America will be a Socialist nation without knowing how it happened. - Norman Thomas, Socialist Party Presidential candidate
Stan Shannon wrote: Because we are not talking about race, or genetics or anything at all to do with biology. Many would argue that we are talking about biology. Alot of gays realize their sexual orientation as young as puberty. As a hetero male, if I see a sexually attrative naked woman, I'm going to sprout a woody. That's not by decision, I'm not saying 'C'mon little buddy, time to wake up' My litle buddy wakes when he wants to. That's the nature of a hetero. A gay guy can try as hard as he wants, but a naked female figure standing 6 inches from his face is just not going to do anything for him. Show him biceps and beards though, and he'll pitch a tent. How many times have you seen a guy walking down the street, and you just know that he's a homosexual. Why is that gay men are nearly always effinate in some way, no matter what culture he's from? My answer is that there is a 'gay gene' and it carries along with it a set of characteristics. Seconldy, once again, you're confused. If either o us is, it's you who are suggesting that the government should dictate our beliefs and enforce laws to that end. PS look up the definition of tyranny. "So you can freely exercise your religious convictions so long as you do it precisely according to the dictates of the state. Wow, that is what I call freedom. Gee, you Canadians are so advanced." Straw man. ;P Why is the phrase "It's none of my business" always followed by "BUT..." ;P
-
jhaga wrote: Come on Stan! Homosexuality doesn't have anything to do with perversions I absolutely disagree with that. Of course its about sexual perversion I'll leave the morality of it to others, but sticking your penis in someone's mouth is damned sure sexually perverse (even if an entirely benign form. ) Its none of my business until they tell me I have to accept it, than I certainly have my right to a political opinion on the subject at the very least. The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism, but under then name of Liberalism, they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program until one day America will be a Socialist nation without knowing how it happened. - Norman Thomas, Socialist Party Presidential candidate
Stan Shannon wrote: I absolutely disagree with that. Of course its about sexual perversion I'll leave the morality of it to others, but sticking your penis in someone's mouth is damned sure sexually perverse (even if an entirely benign form. ) Bullshit Stan. Pure bullshit! That's your morality talking. Weren't you the defender of freedom of morality? You're just as bad as "the rest of us". -- So let's just walk from place to place, as long as we don't talk face to face.
-
:-D You mean you've never recieved a b***j** ?!? Even from a chick?!? That's where all of this anger is coming from. You need some release, dude! Sucks to be you! Soooo, getting head is a sexual perversion, eh? What then is not a sexual perversion? (please answer this question, I'm positive I'll have a good comeback) yeah, yeah, keep you're political opinion, but as long as you excersize your freedom of speech, the rest of us will excercise ours. ;P Why is the phrase "It's none of my business" always followed by "BUT..." ;P
AdventureBoy wrote: You mean you've never recieved a b***j** ?!? Even from a chick?!? That's where all of this anger is coming from. You need some release, dude! Sucks to be you! With his attitude, what did you expect? :-D -- So let's just walk from place to place, as long as we don't talk face to face.
-
:-D You mean you've never recieved a b***j** ?!? Even from a chick?!? That's where all of this anger is coming from. You need some release, dude! Sucks to be you! Soooo, getting head is a sexual perversion, eh? What then is not a sexual perversion? (please answer this question, I'm positive I'll have a good comeback) yeah, yeah, keep you're political opinion, but as long as you excersize your freedom of speech, the rest of us will excercise ours. ;P Why is the phrase "It's none of my business" always followed by "BUT..." ;P
AdventureBoy wrote: You mean you've never recieved a b***j** ?!? Even from a chick?!? That's where all of this anger is coming from. You need some release, dude! Sucks to be you! I never said that. But that doesn't mean I would be marching up and down in the street with a big sign saying how proud I was of it, or expecting the government to overturn the legal system for my "right" to do it. AdventureBoy wrote: Soooo, getting head is a sexual perversion, eh? What then is not a sexual perversion? (please answer this question, I'm positive I'll have a good comeback) I think it is virtually impossible to be a human being and not be a sexual pervert. Mix the human imagination with the instinct for sex and you will get all kinds of bizarre activity. But that is not the point. The point is that a) As a society we have the right to define what constitutes "normal", and b) We should not be forced by the state to accept someone elses behavior, sexual or otherwise. If someone finds homosexuality to be morally offensive, they should be free to discriminate against them. AdventureBoy wrote: yeah, yeah, keep you're political opinion, but as long as you excersize your freedom of speech, the rest of us will excercise ours. I would expect nothing less. :rose: The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism, but under then name of Liberalism, they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program until one day America will be a Socialist nation without knowing how it happened. - Norman Thomas, Socialist Party Presidential candidate
-
F*ck the law, the laws need to be changed. People need to make decisions about what should and shouldn't be by using valid reasoning about what is right and wrong. Any form of prejudice is flat-out wrong. Have you all lost the ability to think for yourselves? There probably still exist racially-prejudice laws that noone has gotten around to officially erasing. Would you question why these law are no longer enforced? Complete legalizing of homosexuality is inevitable. Being somewhat conservative, America is a bit behind some other countries in recognition of homosexuality as a valid type of relationship, equal in every way to hetero relationships and hetero marriages. America will catch up with the times eventually though. This issue will continue to be debated until the laws are corrected. Ooooh... this is sure to spark some debate! ;P Why is the phrase "It's none of my business" always followed by "BUT..." ;P
AdventureBoy wrote: F*ck the law, the laws need to be changed. Either you care nothing for the law, or you wish it to be changed. Which is it? AdventureBoy wrote: People need to make decisions about what should and shouldn't be by using valid reasoning about what is right and wrong. And who decides what reasoning is valid? Who decides what is right and what is wrong? In your opinion, who are these people who haven't made the correct decisions yet? AdventureBoy wrote: Any form of prejudice is flat-out wrong. Any form? Always? AdventureBoy wrote: Have you all lost the ability to think for yourselves? No, but i prefer to hire professional thinkers. They help me avoid answering insulting rhetorical questions. AdventureBoy wrote: Being somewhat conservative, America is a bit behind some other countries in recognition of homosexuality as a valid type of relationship, equal in every way to hetero relationships and hetero marriages. 1) US != America 2) relationship != marriage 3) things that are unequivocally equal are indistinguishable. If there wasn't some difference, we wouldn't be discussing this. AdventureBoy wrote: This issue will continue to be debated until the laws are corrected. Yeah, that, or kids will just become so used to demonizing certain viewpoints that all debate with be squelched. It's all good, right? :rolleyes:
--- the work, which will become a new genre unto itself, will be called... -
Stan Shannon wrote: I absolutely disagree with that. Of course its about sexual perversion I'll leave the morality of it to others, but sticking your penis in someone's mouth is damned sure sexually perverse (even if an entirely benign form. ) Bullshit Stan. Pure bullshit! That's your morality talking. Weren't you the defender of freedom of morality? You're just as bad as "the rest of us". -- So let's just walk from place to place, as long as we don't talk face to face.
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: bull**** Stan. Pure bull****! That's your morality talking. Weren't you the defender of freedom of morality? Oh come on, how brain washed can you be. Nature did not design the mouth as part of any animal's sexual anatomy, or the anus for that matter. I'm putting no moral judgement on it at all, I'm not even saying that I would pass up the opportunity, but, good lord, it is certainly "perverse". If that isn't perverse than what is? The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism, but under then name of Liberalism, they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program until one day America will be a Socialist nation without knowing how it happened. - Norman Thomas, Socialist Party Presidential candidate
-
Stan Shannon wrote: Because we are not talking about race, or genetics or anything at all to do with biology. Many would argue that we are talking about biology. Alot of gays realize their sexual orientation as young as puberty. As a hetero male, if I see a sexually attrative naked woman, I'm going to sprout a woody. That's not by decision, I'm not saying 'C'mon little buddy, time to wake up' My litle buddy wakes when he wants to. That's the nature of a hetero. A gay guy can try as hard as he wants, but a naked female figure standing 6 inches from his face is just not going to do anything for him. Show him biceps and beards though, and he'll pitch a tent. How many times have you seen a guy walking down the street, and you just know that he's a homosexual. Why is that gay men are nearly always effinate in some way, no matter what culture he's from? My answer is that there is a 'gay gene' and it carries along with it a set of characteristics. Seconldy, once again, you're confused. If either o us is, it's you who are suggesting that the government should dictate our beliefs and enforce laws to that end. PS look up the definition of tyranny. "So you can freely exercise your religious convictions so long as you do it precisely according to the dictates of the state. Wow, that is what I call freedom. Gee, you Canadians are so advanced." Straw man. ;P Why is the phrase "It's none of my business" always followed by "BUT..." ;P
AdventureBoy wrote: Many would argue that we are talking about biology. Alot of gays realize their sexual orientation as young as puberty. As a hetero male, if I see a sexually attrative naked woman, I'm going to sprout a woody. That's not by decision, I'm not saying 'C'mon little buddy, time to wake up' My litle buddy wakes when he wants to. That's the nature of a hetero. A gay guy can try as hard as he wants, but a naked female figure standing 6 inches from his face is just not going to do anything for him. Show him biceps and beards though, and he'll pitch a tent. How many times have you seen a guy walking down the street, and you just know that he's a homosexual. Why is that gay men are nearly always effinate in some way, no matter what culture he's from? My answer is that there is a 'gay gene' and it carries along with it a set of characteristics. I'm very familiar with that rediculous argument. Recessive or otherwise, any gene that caused someone to actually want to have sex in a way that assured the impossibility of a genetic offspring would quickly be eliminated from the gene pool. You might as well teach creationism as to teach such nonsense. Take a course in genetics sometime. I accept that some men are genetically predisposed to be more effiminate than others, and some women are more masculine than others, but that doesn't equate to homosexuality. I've known men who were extremely effiminant who were happily married and had large families. I absolutely believe that it has far more to do with nurture than with nature. AdventureBoy wrote: Seconldy, once again, you're confused. If either o us is, it's you who are suggesting that the government should dictate our beliefs and enforce laws to that end. No, I'm saying any society has the right to define what is "normal" and that the government should respect that decision, but beyond that, I should be free to follow the dictates of my own conscious and discriminate freely against anyone's behaivor. AdventureBoy wrote: look up the definition of tyranny. hmmm, my dictionary shows a Canadian flag. The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism, but under then name of Liberalism, they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program until one day America will be a Socialist nation without knowing how it happened. - Norman Thomas, Socialist Party Presidential candidate
-
jhaga wrote: It is not a question about where you stick your penis, it is more about who will inherit you when you die. Your partner or somebody else. What if I wanted to leave my inheritence to a bullfrog? Should the state sanction that marriage? How far are we to go to fully inact this wonderful new morality we have discovered? The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism, but under then name of Liberalism, they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program until one day America will be a Socialist nation without knowing how it happened. - Norman Thomas, Socialist Party Presidential candidate
Stan Shannon wrote: How far are we to go to fully inact this wonderful new morality we have discovered? The only thing I don't like is when I see men kissing in the street, in restaurants and in TV series. Other than that, I find it hard to believe that my morality or my sense for what is right or wrong would be influenced by gay marriage being allowed or not. jhaga --------------------------------- Every generation laughs at the old fashions, but follows religiously the new. Henry David Thoreau, "Walden", 1854
-
AdventureBoy wrote: F*ck the law, the laws need to be changed. Either you care nothing for the law, or you wish it to be changed. Which is it? AdventureBoy wrote: People need to make decisions about what should and shouldn't be by using valid reasoning about what is right and wrong. And who decides what reasoning is valid? Who decides what is right and what is wrong? In your opinion, who are these people who haven't made the correct decisions yet? AdventureBoy wrote: Any form of prejudice is flat-out wrong. Any form? Always? AdventureBoy wrote: Have you all lost the ability to think for yourselves? No, but i prefer to hire professional thinkers. They help me avoid answering insulting rhetorical questions. AdventureBoy wrote: Being somewhat conservative, America is a bit behind some other countries in recognition of homosexuality as a valid type of relationship, equal in every way to hetero relationships and hetero marriages. 1) US != America 2) relationship != marriage 3) things that are unequivocally equal are indistinguishable. If there wasn't some difference, we wouldn't be discussing this. AdventureBoy wrote: This issue will continue to be debated until the laws are corrected. Yeah, that, or kids will just become so used to demonizing certain viewpoints that all debate with be squelched. It's all good, right? :rolleyes:
--- the work, which will become a new genre unto itself, will be called...>Either you care nothing for the law, or you wish it to be changed. Which is it? Obviously I care greatly for the law. That is why I wish it to be changed. >And who decides what reasoning is valid? Who decides what is right and what is wrong? In your opinion, who are these people who haven't made the correct decisions yet? I suppose public debate will eventually shift the concensus, and eventually the law-makers elected by the people will listen. >Any form?[of prejudice is wrong] Always? Let me define my position for you. 1) Prejudice is always wrong 2) When prejudice gives an unfair disadvantage to, or in some other way harms, an individual or group, for no erason other than unfair discrimination, then it is wrong and the situation should be remeied. Don't come back and say 'Oh, well then I assume you want to protect the rights of those who believe in child-sacrifice'. Such an act is wrong for other reasons. >No, but i prefer to hire professional thinkers apparently so (aka your government) >1) US != America >2) relationship != marriage >3) things that are unequivocally equal are indistinguishable. If there wasn't some difference, we wouldn't be discussing this. that == nonsense. You're trying to point out flaws in my grammar or word-usage, because you can't come up with a valid counter-arguement. Fine, substitute 'relationship or marriage' and substitute 'equal in every way pertinant to this debate' I suspect this sub-thread is going nowhere... ;P Why is the phrase "It's none of my business" always followed by "BUT..." ;P
-
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: bull**** Stan. Pure bull****! That's your morality talking. Weren't you the defender of freedom of morality? Oh come on, how brain washed can you be. Nature did not design the mouth as part of any animal's sexual anatomy, or the anus for that matter. I'm putting no moral judgement on it at all, I'm not even saying that I would pass up the opportunity, but, good lord, it is certainly "perverse". If that isn't perverse than what is? The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism, but under then name of Liberalism, they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program until one day America will be a Socialist nation without knowing how it happened. - Norman Thomas, Socialist Party Presidential candidate
Stan Shannon wrote: I'm putting no moral judgement on it at all, I'm not even saying that I would pass up the opportunity, but, good lord, it is certainly "perverse". I fail to see the perversity in it. There is no longer a "master design" of humans. We developed free will - we don't act by instinct anymore. And where did you read those "designs" of yours? Have you ever seen a dog sniffing and/or licking the anus of another dog? Have you seen both male and female dogs washing their genitals using nothing but their tongues? Have you ever seen bulls "practicing" on eachother in the absense of cows? Male chimpanzees humping eachother? The list goes on... You can't use animals to protect your moral claims - they're obviously perverted. As long as you're not the penetrator or being penetrated, you cannot judge that action without using your own moral standards. -- So let's just walk from place to place, as long as we don't talk face to face.
-
Stan Shannon wrote: How far are we to go to fully inact this wonderful new morality we have discovered? The only thing I don't like is when I see men kissing in the street, in restaurants and in TV series. Other than that, I find it hard to believe that my morality or my sense for what is right or wrong would be influenced by gay marriage being allowed or not. jhaga --------------------------------- Every generation laughs at the old fashions, but follows religiously the new. Henry David Thoreau, "Walden", 1854
jhaga wrote: The only thing I don't like is when I see men kissing in the street, in restaurants and in TV series. Interesting.. why? -- So let's just walk from place to place, as long as we don't talk face to face.
-
AdventureBoy wrote: Many would argue that we are talking about biology. Alot of gays realize their sexual orientation as young as puberty. As a hetero male, if I see a sexually attrative naked woman, I'm going to sprout a woody. That's not by decision, I'm not saying 'C'mon little buddy, time to wake up' My litle buddy wakes when he wants to. That's the nature of a hetero. A gay guy can try as hard as he wants, but a naked female figure standing 6 inches from his face is just not going to do anything for him. Show him biceps and beards though, and he'll pitch a tent. How many times have you seen a guy walking down the street, and you just know that he's a homosexual. Why is that gay men are nearly always effinate in some way, no matter what culture he's from? My answer is that there is a 'gay gene' and it carries along with it a set of characteristics. I'm very familiar with that rediculous argument. Recessive or otherwise, any gene that caused someone to actually want to have sex in a way that assured the impossibility of a genetic offspring would quickly be eliminated from the gene pool. You might as well teach creationism as to teach such nonsense. Take a course in genetics sometime. I accept that some men are genetically predisposed to be more effiminate than others, and some women are more masculine than others, but that doesn't equate to homosexuality. I've known men who were extremely effiminant who were happily married and had large families. I absolutely believe that it has far more to do with nurture than with nature. AdventureBoy wrote: Seconldy, once again, you're confused. If either o us is, it's you who are suggesting that the government should dictate our beliefs and enforce laws to that end. No, I'm saying any society has the right to define what is "normal" and that the government should respect that decision, but beyond that, I should be free to follow the dictates of my own conscious and discriminate freely against anyone's behaivor. AdventureBoy wrote: look up the definition of tyranny. hmmm, my dictionary shows a Canadian flag. The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism, but under then name of Liberalism, they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program until one day America will be a Socialist nation without knowing how it happened. - Norman Thomas, Socialist Party Presidential candidate
Canadian flag - LOL! Not that it made any sense. Good point about the effeminate heteros, although I still wonder... perhaps those effiminate men were still more predisposed to being gay, but they are still in the closet. There are plenty of cases of family men coming out of the closet too late, and being forced to either leave the situation, messing up the lives of those they'd already commited to, or to carry on their gay life in secrecy. Anyway, I can't make any furthur comment about hte correlation between homosexuality and effeminacy. All points have been made, all sides have stated their platform, let's call it a day. ;P Why is the phrase "It's none of my business" always followed by "BUT..." ;P
-
>Either you care nothing for the law, or you wish it to be changed. Which is it? Obviously I care greatly for the law. That is why I wish it to be changed. >And who decides what reasoning is valid? Who decides what is right and what is wrong? In your opinion, who are these people who haven't made the correct decisions yet? I suppose public debate will eventually shift the concensus, and eventually the law-makers elected by the people will listen. >Any form?[of prejudice is wrong] Always? Let me define my position for you. 1) Prejudice is always wrong 2) When prejudice gives an unfair disadvantage to, or in some other way harms, an individual or group, for no erason other than unfair discrimination, then it is wrong and the situation should be remeied. Don't come back and say 'Oh, well then I assume you want to protect the rights of those who believe in child-sacrifice'. Such an act is wrong for other reasons. >No, but i prefer to hire professional thinkers apparently so (aka your government) >1) US != America >2) relationship != marriage >3) things that are unequivocally equal are indistinguishable. If there wasn't some difference, we wouldn't be discussing this. that == nonsense. You're trying to point out flaws in my grammar or word-usage, because you can't come up with a valid counter-arguement. Fine, substitute 'relationship or marriage' and substitute 'equal in every way pertinant to this debate' I suspect this sub-thread is going nowhere... ;P Why is the phrase "It's none of my business" always followed by "BUT..." ;P
AdventureBoy wrote: I suspect this sub-thread is going nowhere... i suspect it started the same place. What's your point? AdventureBoy wrote: You're trying to point out flaws in my grammar or word-usage, because you can't come up with a valid counter-arguement. My argument was stated quite clearly in my subject line, and it is your flawed logic that backs it up. AdventureBoy wrote: Don't come back and say 'Oh, well then I assume you want to protect the rights of those who believe in child-sacrifice'. Ok, i said nothing about child sacrifice. I don't know why you're bringing that in here, but it doesn't help your cause. If you've got something against sacrificial children, then start another thread. AdventureBoy wrote: When prejudice gives an unfair disadvantage to, or in some other way harms, an individual or group, for no erason other than unfair discrimination, then it is wrong and the situation should be remeied. Who by? AdventureBoy wrote: I suppose public debate will eventually shift the concensus, and eventually the law-makers elected by the people will listen. Shift it in which direction? And what will the law-makers listen to? AdventureBoy wrote: Obviously I care greatly for the law. This is why you began your first post with "Fuck the law"? Inflammatory bullshit. :|
--- the work, which will become a new genre unto itself, will be called... -
jhaga wrote: The only thing I don't like is when I see men kissing in the street, in restaurants and in TV series. Interesting.. why? -- So let's just walk from place to place, as long as we don't talk face to face.
Probably because I am not used to see it. If I sit in front of the TV and see things like that I loose my apetite. :sigh: jhaga --------------------------------- Every generation laughs at the old fashions, but follows religiously the new. Henry David Thoreau, "Walden", 1854
-
Probably because I am not used to see it. If I sit in front of the TV and see things like that I loose my apetite. :sigh: jhaga --------------------------------- Every generation laughs at the old fashions, but follows religiously the new. Henry David Thoreau, "Walden", 1854
Sounds like me before I got over it. :) I think it's very common for men to feel threatened by homosexuality. It makes the observers unsure of themselves and their own sexuality. You just have to confront it and accept it. Gay people are humans too you know, and contrary to many's belief, they do not want to have sex with every man they see. -- So let's just walk from place to place, as long as we don't talk face to face.
-
Stan Shannon wrote: I'm putting no moral judgement on it at all, I'm not even saying that I would pass up the opportunity, but, good lord, it is certainly "perverse". I fail to see the perversity in it. There is no longer a "master design" of humans. We developed free will - we don't act by instinct anymore. And where did you read those "designs" of yours? Have you ever seen a dog sniffing and/or licking the anus of another dog? Have you seen both male and female dogs washing their genitals using nothing but their tongues? Have you ever seen bulls "practicing" on eachother in the absense of cows? Male chimpanzees humping eachother? The list goes on... You can't use animals to protect your moral claims - they're obviously perverted. As long as you're not the penetrator or being penetrated, you cannot judge that action without using your own moral standards. -- So let's just walk from place to place, as long as we don't talk face to face.
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: I fail to see the perversity in it. There is no longer a "master design" of humans. We developed free will - we don't act by instinct anymore. And where did you read those "designs" of yours? Have you ever seen a dog sniffing and/or licking the anus of another dog? Have you seen both male and female dogs washing their genitals using nothing but their tongues? Have you ever seen bulls "practicing" on eachother in the absense of cows? Male chimpanzees humping eachother? The list goes on... You can't use animals to protect your moral claims - they're obviously perverted. As long as you're not the penetrator or being penetrated, you cannot judge that action without using your own moral standards. I guess we are getting into underlieing philsophies here. I do believe in a "master design" although not necessarily an intentional or conscious one. I think it is fair to characterize all the behaviors you mention as "perverse" or "abnormal" or whatever, in that they reflect a psychological influence on instinctive behaviors. And I will have to continue to insist that I put no moral judgement on it. The only "immoral" form of sex is when someone gets hurt. I do not find homosexual behavior to be in the least bit immoral. I simply insist that when one group makes a political issue out of their (perverse) sexuality they should expect to meet political opposition. The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism, but under then name of Liberalism, they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program until one day America will be a Socialist nation without knowing how it happened. - Norman Thomas, Socialist Party Presidential candidate
-
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: I fail to see the perversity in it. There is no longer a "master design" of humans. We developed free will - we don't act by instinct anymore. And where did you read those "designs" of yours? Have you ever seen a dog sniffing and/or licking the anus of another dog? Have you seen both male and female dogs washing their genitals using nothing but their tongues? Have you ever seen bulls "practicing" on eachother in the absense of cows? Male chimpanzees humping eachother? The list goes on... You can't use animals to protect your moral claims - they're obviously perverted. As long as you're not the penetrator or being penetrated, you cannot judge that action without using your own moral standards. I guess we are getting into underlieing philsophies here. I do believe in a "master design" although not necessarily an intentional or conscious one. I think it is fair to characterize all the behaviors you mention as "perverse" or "abnormal" or whatever, in that they reflect a psychological influence on instinctive behaviors. And I will have to continue to insist that I put no moral judgement on it. The only "immoral" form of sex is when someone gets hurt. I do not find homosexual behavior to be in the least bit immoral. I simply insist that when one group makes a political issue out of their (perverse) sexuality they should expect to meet political opposition. The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism, but under then name of Liberalism, they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program until one day America will be a Socialist nation without knowing how it happened. - Norman Thomas, Socialist Party Presidential candidate
Fair enough. But I'd rather see you use another word than then perverse as it supposedly means:
perverse
3: marked by immorality; deviating from what is considered
right or proper or good; "depraved criminals"; "a
perverted sense of loyalty"; "the reprobate conduct of a
gambling aristocrat" [syn: depraved, immoral, perverted,
reprobate]If I understand you correctly, then what you really mean to say is that it's wrong. Perverse is a word, in my mind at least, loaded with morality. -- So let's just walk from place to place, as long as we don't talk face to face.
-
Sounds like me before I got over it. :) I think it's very common for men to feel threatened by homosexuality. It makes the observers unsure of themselves and their own sexuality. You just have to confront it and accept it. Gay people are humans too you know, and contrary to many's belief, they do not want to have sex with every man they see. -- So let's just walk from place to place, as long as we don't talk face to face.
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: I think it's very common for men to feel threatened by homosexuality I think we humans feel threatened when ever we see something unusual. That's why the laws are so important. The laws should be based on what is right, not on what we feel. jhaga --------------------------------- Every generation laughs at the old fashions, but follows religiously the new. Henry David Thoreau, "Walden", 1854