people having sex in bathroom...oh the HUMANITY!!

[jverne]

Gays!!!

fixt

overreactionchar

 

[Kadayi]

Au contraire. I use the term 'homosexual', you're the one bandying around the word 'Gay' :dozey:

 

[Maestro]

Holy **** this is funny!

Perez Hilton is such a douche.

"The 'B' word." AHAHAHA! What a PC peter-puffer.

 

[Stigmata]

The sexual act in its fullness is an act that ultimately leads to procreation. Anything else is just group masturbation when you boil it down to its essence. How people float their boat is entirely up to them, but contrary to popular belief, the notion that homosexuality is anything more than a personal sexual predilection is a mistaken one (the 'gay' gene theory was a myth). There is nothing natural about it. You might as well argue that Furries or autophiles should be allowed equal rights.

Really, was it? Because I've heard absolutely nothing of the sort outside of Christian Science websites. And what of sex with birth control? Is that merely "group masturbation" because it doesn't lead to procreation?

 

[Kadayi]

Really, was it? Because I've heard absolutely nothing of the sort outside of Christian Science websites.

What you can't reach a logical conclusion yourself without a source? This has nothing to do with religious thought (though thanks for trying), merely a broad examination of the facts boiled down to the basics as they stand through the cold lens of logical assessment.

And what of sex with birth control? Is that merely "group masturbation" because it doesn't lead to procreation?

On the most basic logical level yes. In the grand scheme of things it's not going anywhere genetically. :dozey:

 

[The Monkey]

The sexual act in its fullness is an act that ultimately leads to procreation. Anything else is just group masturbation when you boil it down to its essence. How people float their boat is entirely up to them, but contrary to popular belief, the notion that homosexuality is anything more than a personal sexual predilection is a mistaken one (the 'gay' gene theory was a myth). There is nothing natural about it. You might as well argue that Furries or autophiles should be allowed equal rights.

Given the above, and the fact that young children are easily influenced by the behaviour of their parents and surrounding adults there are hard questions to be asked regarding allowing homosexual couples to raise children. Rightly or wrongly the principal should always be how will that impact upon the child concerned, not on the rights of consenting adults to be allowed to raise a family.

If a child was being subjected to graphic homosexual acts everyday, I'd say that probably wouldn't be a good environment to bring them up in (likewise if it was graphic heterosexual acts) .

The only reason you would find it bad is if you consider homosexuality bad. Two men or two women raising a child won't make it a better or worse child than one raised by a man or a woman.

And it's absurd to say that sex that doesn't aim at procreation is masturbation. That stopped being the main purpose of sex for most people a long time ago.

 

[Stigmata]

What you can't reach a logical conclusion yourself without a source? This has nothing to do with religious thought (though thanks for trying), merely a broad examination of the facts boiled down to the basics as they stand through the cold lens of logical assessment.

Do gay parents raise only gay kids? Do straight parents raise only straight kids?

And I wasn't trying to impose any sort of religious colouring on your words. I'm simply stating that Christian or other religious sources are pretty much the only sources I see claiming that homosexuality isn't inherited or otherwise biologically determined.

 

[Kadayi]

]The only reason you would find it bad is if you consider homosexuality bad. Two men or two women raising a child won't make it a better or worse child than one raised by a man or a woman.

Children are not raised in isolation, they are raised in the circles their parents move in.

And it's absurd to say that sex that doesn't aim at procreation is masturbation. That stopped being the main purpose of sex for most people a long time ago.

You think small when you need to think big.

 

[VirusType2]

the notion that homosexuality is anything more than a personal sexual predilection is a mistaken one (the 'gay' gene theory was a myth).

You are saying that all people are born straight, yet only gain a preference for something else through ... living life. An acquired taste - if you will?

I don't know. I always figured people were born a certain way as well. Though obviously, people tend to develop strange fetishes and aren't born with them.

OK. I won't argue this.

There is nothing natural about [homosexuality].

But homosexuality is natural because it exists in nature and in the human mind. It is the most simple branch (and therefore probably the most prevalent) of sexual deviation: same sex.

Homosexuality, as well as cross-species sex and other deviations have been witnessed in nature, with animals.

It may not be the cheery vision of love and marriage humans like to adhere to. Look, I've seen a clip of a dog trying to hump a duck.

It's natural because sexual deviation occurs in nature, not in some laboratory or dungeon, quite simply.

 

[kineaesth]

contrary to popular belief, the notion that homosexuality is anything more than a personal sexual predilection is a mistaken one (the 'gay' gene theory was a myth). There is nothing natural about it. You might as well argue that Furries or autophiles should be allowed equal rights.

God damn, I think I'm in love.

 

[Eejit]

Do gay parents raise only gay kids? Do straight parents raise only straight kids?

And I wasn't trying to impose any sort of religious colouring on your words. I'm simply stating that Christian or other religious sources are pretty much the only sources I see claiming that homosexuality isn't inherited or otherwise biologically determined.

It's more a mixture of different genetic, environmental and hormonal influences rather than there being a 'Gay Gene' like some believe. That idea mainly came about due to a study which found a single gene mutation in fruit flies which resulted in brain abnormalities causing males to believe other males were in fact female.

 

[VirusType2]

You might as well argue that Furries or autophiles should be allowed equal rights.

Perhaps homosexuals champion for equal rights because government grants special privileges to married couples, like tax breaks, while insurance companies offer discounts. Equal rights guarantees benefits like this. It would also probably cut them a little break with anti-gays in public, if gay marriage were acknowledged by law.

Then again, perhaps they want equal rights because ... they are in love.

You can't exactly be in love with a furry or automobile, because these things aren't alive and can't love you.

In fact, I think my car hates me. j/k


Also, there really is no other sexual deviation that I can think of that could be argued for equal rights. Certainly not Nepophilia, because they are babies. Not Bestiality, because, well ...

And not Necrophilia, because they aren't alive and shouldn't have the rights of the living.

I'd say, beyond Homosexuality, I can't think of any other sexual deviation that could argue for equal rights, with the exception of perhaps pedophilia, however, children are highly protected, and, at least in my country, can't get married without doing some paper-work with their parents to make them a legal adult. (forget what this is called)

 

[Stigmata]

It's more a mixture of different genetic, environmental and hormonal influences rather than there being a 'Gay Gene' like some believe. That idea mainly came about due to a study which found a single gene mutation in fruit flies which resulted in brain abnormalities causing males to believe other males were in fact female.

That's true. I probably should have elaborated more rather than let myself snap back at Kadayi. Ultimately one's sexuality is determined by, like you said, a coalition of nature and nurture. It's entirely possible and probably fairly common for homosexuality to develop in heterosexuals as a fetish rather than a biological drive. But to say that this is the explanation for all gay people is quite simply wrong.

 

[Kadayi]

But homosexuality is natural because it exists in nature and in the human mind. It is the most simple branch (and therefore probably the most prevalent) of sexual deviation: same sex.

Homosexuality, as well as cross-species sex and other deviations have been witnessed in nature, with animals.

It may not be the cheery vision of love and marriage humans like to adhere to. Look, I've seen a clip of a dog trying to hump a duck.

It's natural because sexual deviation occurs in nature, not in some laboratory or dungeon, quite simply.

Don't mistake free will for genetic determination.

 

[bbson john]

Girl: What are they doing?
Me: They are, ummm...., baking cakes.

 

[Dynasty]

Oh we MUST alert the church elders!

 

[The Monkey]

Does it really matter if it's genetic or due to the environment? The homophobes will always be against it, that's how they work. Even if people "turn" gay because of their upbringing and not because of their genes, so what? There's nothing wrong with that. I hardly think we're gonna run out of hetro- and bisexuals any time soon, so the survival of mankind isn't exactly at risk.

 

[Kyorisu]

I came into this thread expecting something entirely different but none the less I find this hilarious.

 

[CptStern]

You might as well argue that Furries or autophiles should be allowed equal rights.

? ....and what rights might those be?

 

[Kadayi]

? ....and what rights might those be?

Legal recognition. I honestly don't even see the point.

 

[Emporius]

How are they not already legally recognised? The only thing they cannot do is marry an imaginary entity or animal, which hardly seems rash to me.

Excuse me while I run down to the furry ghettos.

 

[Kadayi]

How are they not already legally recognised? The only thing they cannot do is marry an imaginary entity or animal, which hardly seems rash to me.

Excuse me while I run down to the furry ghettos.

Sexual discrimination perhaps? :dozey:

 

[CptStern]

Legal recognition. I honestly don't even see the point.

legal recognition? furries and autophiles dont have legal recognition? what does that even mean? what are they being prevented from doing that the rest of us can?

 

[Kadayi]

legal recognition? furries and autophiles dont have legal recognition? what does that even mean? what are they being prevented from doing that the rest of us can?

Can a man marry his car? Can a furry take up umbrage with an individual/company legally for mocking/discriminating against their sexual preferences? Presently not as far as I'm aware.

The key point is, beyond our physical sexual definition of man/woman we are pretty much open to interpretation based on situation and circumstance. Plenty of straight men who do extended hard time in prison turn to fellatio or sodomy as a means of sexual release, but don't consider themselves necessarily homosexual at the end of the day, or practice it upon their release from prison. Bandying around terms such as homosexual or lesbian as a definition of ones character rather than purely in relation to a sexual act is kind of bizarre (and limiting) when you really think about it. Sure one could argue that it's stating a preference, but why be limited?

 

[CptStern]

Can a man marry his car?

oh come on is this a serious reply? seriously? the car cant even consent, at best it's forced marriage. regardless the human rights charter does not cover inanimate objects or else it would be called something else

Can a furry take up umbrage with an individual/company legally for mocking/discriminating against their sexual preferences? Presently not as far as I'm aware.

perhaps not in your country but discrimination based on creed colour sexual orientation is against the law in canada ..regardless if they're furries or gay. besides what kind of discrimination are we talking about? furries cant exactly come in to work dressed as the freakin easter bunny ..so how would they be discriminated against? mocked yes, discrimination probably not (they could but it's up to the employee to make a complaint to the human rights commision)

The key point is, beyond our physical sexual definition of man/woman we are pretty much open to interpretation based on situation and circumstance. Plenty of straight men who do extended hard time in prison turn to fellatio or sodomy as a means of sexual release, but don't consider themselves necessarily homosexual at the end of the day, or practice it upon their release from prison. Bandying around terms such as homosexual or lesbian as a definition of ones character rather than purely in relation to a sexual act is kind of bizarre (and limiting) when you really think about it. Sure one could argue that it's stating a preference, but why be limited?

because it is is defined as a sexual act. However that doesnt mean it cant grow to mean the relationship rather than the act. that's what eventually happens as society accepts homosexuality in the same way it does heterosexuality. dont forget homosexuality isnt a recent thing, only the acceptance of homosexuality is recent

 

[Mr Stabby]

Same thing could be said about ethnic and cultural groups.

 

[Kadayi]

oh come on is this a serious reply? seriously? the car cant even consent, at best it's forced marriage. regardless the human rights charter does not cover inanimate objects or else it would be called something else

I'm just illustrating a point. Lets go forward 200 years and consider the old blade runner replicants scenario. A machine built to replicate human responses and feel those responses, but manufactured never the less. Could a man or woman marry a replicant? Would /should the replicant be entitled to the rights of a human being?

perhaps not in your country but discrimination based on creed colour sexual orientation is against the law in canada ..regardless if they're furries or gay. besides what kind of discrimination are we talking about? furries cant exactly come in to work dressed as the freakin easter bunny ..so how would they be discriminated against? mocked yes, discrimination probably not (they could but it's up to the employee to make a complaint to the human rights commision)

Mockery is a big part of discrimination surely?

However that doesnt mean it cant grow to mean the relationship rather than the act.

Who says? There are people out there whose sexual appetites revolve wholly around being urinated upon, how come they don't get their own life category? What gives at the end of the day? Numbers? Hardly seems that fair when you really think about it? If you deny one and not the other, why bother with it at all?

Through out life we change hats all the time as to what we are doing. Why does any one hat count for more than another? Do you love Samuel/Samantha because they are a man/woman or do you love them because they are Samuel/Samantha? It seems to me that when you take that step backwards to sexuality you reduce intimacy rather than strengthen it. It's no longer about the person, it's about their make.

Same thing could be said about ethnic and cultural groups.

Indeed, and bang on the money. Notions of common and inherent identity are often dangerously incestuous affairs that stifle progressive thinking. How we are ever going to get off this rock is a utter mystery whilst we continue to perpetuate tribal and divisive thinking.

 

[CptStern]

I'm just illustrating a point. Lets go forward 200 years and consider the old blade runner replicants scenario. A machine built to replicate human responses and feel those responses, but manufactured never the less. Could a man or woman marry a replicant? Would /should the replicant be entitled to the rights of a human being?

you're speculating what might happen in 200 years but only from a technological standpoint and ignore the fact that we'd also evolve culturally and socially in that same time frame. and really any answer I can give you is speculative at best and does nothing to prove your point that people should be able to marry their car

Mockery is a big part of discrimination surely?

"he called me fat"

is not the same as

"I was passed for promotion because I'm fat"

Who says? There are people out there whose sexual appetites revolve wholly around being urinated upon, how come they don't get their own life category? What gives at the end of the day? Numbers? Hardly seems that fair when you really think about it?

not really because urination fetish is a lifestyle choice. homosexuals much like heterosexuals dont get to choose their sexual orientation

Through out life we change hats all the time as to what we are doing.

yet rarely if ever does it involve changing our sexual orientation

Why does any one hat count for more than another? Do you love Samuel/Samantha because they are a man/woman or do you love them because they are Samuel/Samantha? It seems to me that when you take that step backwards to sexuality you reduce intimacy rather than strengthen it. It's no longer about the person, it's about their make.

the law sees the populace as a whole not as individuals. it cant afford to

 

[kineaesth]

yet rarely if ever does it involve changing our sexual orientation

I'd disagree here. Of course, people can't really change their orientation by will, but sexual preference is fluid and can change over a lifetime. People can also influence their sexuality by choosing which aspects of it to act on or portray to others.

 

[Mr Stabby]

not really because urination fetish is a lifestyle choice.

Why would someone choose to be sexually aroused by pissing, it's very unhygienic.

 

[Kadayi]

you're speculating what might happen in 200 years but only from a technological standpoint and ignore the fact that we'd also evolve culturally and socially in that same time frame. and really any answer I can give you is speculative at best and does nothing to prove your point that people should be able to marry their car

Indulge me

"he called me fat"

is not the same as

"I was passed for promotion because I'm fat"

A lot of legal cases revolve around people feeling they are forced to leave, rather than being passed over. Esp if the environment is hostile, so mockery is a valid issue.

not really because urination fetish is a lifestyle choice. homosexuals much like heterosexuals dont get to choose their sexual orientation

yet rarely if ever does it involve changing our sexual orientation

There are plenty of cases of formerly married men, some of whom have had children who've then changed teams in later life (one of my bosses had 3 kids before he decided to 'come out' ). Were they just confused or did their appetites change?

the law sees the populace as a whole not as individuals. it cant afford to

Then why delineate at all beyond physical differences? Does a penchant for same sex sodomy really constitute a need for 'special' treatment in the eyes of the law and society at the end of the day? It's utterly absurd when you think about it. Such a trivial thing.

 

[CyberPitz]

ITT: Kadayi tries to make a silly point...lol.

 

[Kadayi]

ITT: Kadayi tries to make a silly point...lol.

Tries? So far no ones coming up with a strong counter argument. Feel free to step up to the plate through

 

[lefty]

Someone sum up this quotewar for me with bullet points or something. Like, basic arguments for each person and maybe a picture to go with it I can color with crayons.

 

[Kadayi]

tl: dr

Fixed.

 

[lefty]

basically, except I still want to know what's going on. sort of.

 

[Kadayi]

Read Wittgenstein, preferably the Philosophical Investigations rather than the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. Understand that and you understand the position.

 

[Stigmata]

A hell of a lot more convenient than summarising your position.

For you, anyway.

 

[MJ12]

Basically, Jverne was like "It's ok for people to **** in public and kids should watch it"

Stern was like "No it's not, because I hate faggits"

 

[lefty]

If there aren't people arguing pro- or anti-bathroom sex then why the hell is there a debate going on in this thread.