Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Harm in Homosexuality?
Tusko
Member (Idle past 101 days)
Posts: 615
From: London, UK
Joined: 10-01-2004


Message 151 of 309 (160548)
11-17-2004 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by Silent H
11-17-2004 9:28 AM


We can muddy the waters of "informed consent" as much as you like with examples that make it at best seem a questionable approach. I think its wrong that adults not in the position to give informed consent because of serious learning difficulties might be denied sexual closeness with another (sentence edited so it made some sense). How the hell do we go about establishing if sex is going to have a net detriment or benefit for someone? Is it any of my business? Probably not.
Talking about cultural relativism and child sex, what about those Pitcarin Islanders that were in the news recently. Maybe this didn't make your news?
BBC NEWS | Asia-Pacific | Pitcairn sex trial men sentenced
The confusing thing was that women were saying that it was okay, and that it was done to them when they were little girls too.
But I think there ARE differences between the way adult/adult sexual relationships and child/adult ones function in our culture. I personally believe that all of these differences can be ascribed to societal pressures; but nonetheless, I think the differences are profound.
The practical reality is that where there are children who haven't been educated about sex and relationships, and where there are adults who use threats, coercion or physical violence to have sex with children, because our culture forces them to act clandestinely, then the likelyhood of harm being caused is great.
Is that too full of asertions again? Sorry if it is. I'm going to have to hunt down some paedo-stats if you insist. I don't know where from though.
This message has been edited by Tusko, 11-18-2004 12:42 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by Silent H, posted 11-17-2004 9:28 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by Silent H, posted 11-17-2004 3:15 PM Tusko has replied

coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 477 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 152 of 309 (160590)
11-17-2004 3:05 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by Silent H
11-17-2004 6:41 AM


holmes writes:
I thought we were going to talk about reality. 11 states do not a nation make.
True, but this is a state issue, not a federal one... unless Bush successfully pushes through an amendment in the US constitution.
And it is pretty clear is it not that many of the people that rushed to the polls in fear of gay marriage did so because of the scare gay activists helped create via acts of civil disobediance?
Yes, I know. I'm an unapologetic progressive. I don't believe in compromises that are unjust.
Should black people be allowed to sit anywhere on the bus 1 day a week while sitting in the back of the bus the other 6 days? After a while when people are a little used to seeing black people sitting somewhere else beside the back section, we could make it so they could sit anywhere 2 days a week. Slowly and eventually they'd get to 6 days and then 7 days a week.
Call me crazy, I don't believe in unjust compromises. If the majority are illogical enough to make judgements out of fears, well, tough. Justice is justice.
I don't believe all of the amendments voted on had all three of those points, but you can correct me if I am wrong (a link would be nice if you could).
Actually, I'm not sure. However, I am sure that at least half of them have those points.
But lets say they were. Do you honestly believe most people actually understood what they said? Or would not have been amenable to a lesser proscriptive amendment?
My question is would you have tolerated that black people be allowed to sit anywhere on the bus for 1 day a week? I mean, it's better than always sitting in the back of the bus.
What you saw was a victory for kneejerk reactions and general election ignorance... and I will repeat that it was not necessarily a representation of most people.
Again, more people showed up to the polls than ever before and in those states the amendments passed by double digits. It should tell you something.
This issue is not necessarily like that at all. I think one of the largest bits of groupthink is that gay activists are missing the real point that marriage has a history and a connotation that really is important to some people. While personally I don't care about changing the laws, the reality is that others are, and it doesn't have to do with being antigay (though that always helps).
Yes it is! Remember that before the civil rights movement it was already ingrained in the culture that black people were supposed to be second class citizens. By allowing them to drink out of the same drinking fountains, it threatened a lot of people's beliefs.
Gays are trying to create a brand new tradition in society. It really didn't even exist (in the form we are discussing now) back in the days when homosexuality was considered okay, and that was at least 1000 years ago.
Blacks tried to create a brand new tradition in society, too. The tradition that they tried to create was one where white and black children attend the same school.
The problem is everytime there's a movement to call for justice, there's always going to be people like you who thinks that this time it's different. It's all the same to me. People are being discriminated against and that ain't right.
Maybe it would have been wiser, more realistic, to go slowly and not make wild overt gestures and reach out to moderates?
Again, would you say that it would have been better for black people to be able to sit anywhere on the bus for 1 day a week, 2 days a week, 3 days a week, and so on?
That's funny becuase that's not what I said at all. It is fingerpointing like that which is not helping your case.
Ok, I apologize for not misrepresenting your position.
Am I now correct to think that you thought it was better for blacks to be able to drink out of any drinking fountain 1 day of the week, 2 days of the week, 3 days, and so on?
Don't you get it that instead of being practical and realistic, this is being pursued with an all or nothing with us or against us mentality?
Well...
If I were not as openminded as I am you would have just alienated me from your cause. In this case you just made me shake my head.
Well, tough for those that aren't as openminded.
It is true that I generally don't like to sugar coat an argument. If I'm standing in front of a slave owner, I believe it is the right thing to say "slavery is evil." I don't believe that I should say, "slavery is only evil 1 day of the week." Then a month later I come back and say, "slavery is only evil 2 days of the week." Then next month, "slavery is evil 3 days of the week."
Slavery is evil, period. There's no other way to describe it, so is our current situation. Discrimination ain't right.
Uhhhh, that's what your opposition is saying.
Huh? Didn't I make it clear that I don't compromise? Right is right. Wrong is wrong. Anywhere in between is still wrong. Deal with it.

Hate world.
Revenge soon!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by Silent H, posted 11-17-2004 6:41 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by Silent H, posted 11-17-2004 4:10 PM coffee_addict has replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 153 of 309 (160596)
11-17-2004 3:15 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by Tusko
11-17-2004 1:25 PM


with examples that make it at best seem a questionable approach.
Always remember my main point is to get at why we do things. Whether it is a reasonable approach in certain situations is a totally different state of affairs.
The reality is that we do not use it to decide moral labels regarding anything, much less about sex.
How the hell do we go about establishing if sex is going to have a net detriment or benefit for someone?
Realistically we can't. That is why no one actually does. It is all about perception and taste which is a product of our environment. And of course its always easier to judge someone else's sexual acts than it is our own. That is why it shouldn't be and really isn't anyone else's business. The hypocrisy count is too high.
Then again there are still valid arguments for creating laws regarding minors and sex. They just have nothing to do with objective inherent harm in those acts, and any inherent wrongness to them.
As a result even if they keep such laws on the books, society ought to be scaling way back on treating the issue as such a devastating "problem". We do more damage after the fact, that what occurs in it... assuming we are talking consensual variety.
The confusing thing was that women were saying that it was okay, and that it was done to them when they were little girls too.
Yeah I saw that. Although it does seem some of the actions were indeed rape, others were clearly not, and a result of the tradition of those islanders which originated from the Tahitian culture which had essentially no sexual taboos.
I don't find any of it confusing, as this isn't so uncommon.
I'm not sure if you heard about when Polanski was up for an Oscar for the Pianist and could not come to the awards because of his outstanding rape case? Without question he did rape the girl (whether she was "underage" or not), though I suppose it was not violent (he drugged her). In any case she came forward... she is now pretty old... and totally blasted all the people ripping into Polanski and trying to act like they are protecting her.
She said that society turned one slightly embarassing situation that she was over with emotionally before it went to the police, into a lifelong "tragedy" that she could not escape or live down. She would always be Polanski's victim, and the people seemed to thrive off of that. Thus she was more their victim than his.
You may have also heard of the teacher who had sex with her student and went to prison, got out had sex with the still well underage student, went back to prison and throughout it all ended up having some children of his... recently the student (now of age) went to court to have the restrictions dropped on her and they are planning to marry.
Yes there is consensual sex between adults and children, and even when there is not, it is not always as bad as we turn it into, in order to preserve our own egos by believing if we want to stop something we don't like it must be massively harmful.
The practical reality is that where there are children who haven't been educated about sex and relationships, and where there are adults who use threats, coercion or physical violence to have sex with children, because our culture forces them to act clandestinely, then the likelyhood of harm being caused is great.
I'm not in complete disagreement with this statement, it is just that this shows we are not preventing something because it is harmful. We are preventing something we don't like anyway, because in that climate, if it is done, is more likely (though still not guaranteed) to cause harm... and indeed the harm may come from us more than the "perpetrator."
And unfortunately for people pushing for this to mean we should stop it, yet are for gay rights, well this is the same argument that was used against mixed race sexual acts, and still is for homosexuality in some quarters (it certainly was less than 50 years ago).
This is about social harms not real harms and it is hypocrisy to claim such things are wrong then turn around and claim it for another.
Is that too full of asertions again? Sorry if it is. I'm going to have to hunt down some paedo-stats if you insist.
I don't think you are doing a whole lot of asserting, pretty much just conjecturing, and I don't necessarily disagree with all your conclusions. Like I said, you are the only one that appears to be doing any critical thinking on the subject.
I don't remember which pedo-stats you are talking about. If you feel they will help make an oustanding point then go ahead and bring them in. I am open to any and all info.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by Tusko, posted 11-17-2004 1:25 PM Tusko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by Tusko, posted 11-18-2004 6:08 AM Silent H has not replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 154 of 309 (160612)
11-17-2004 4:10 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by coffee_addict
11-17-2004 3:05 PM


this is a state issue, not a federal one...
Yes, but that does not help your case. You are claiming a greater state of victimization or hatred toward you than might actually exist.
Call me crazy, I don't believe in unjust compromises. If the majority are illogical enough to make judgements out of fears, well, tough. Justice is justice.
Wait you just said in the post before that civil unions with full rights weren't an unjust compromise and that is what Gay activists were explicitly rejecting, saying that was not enough.
I'm not calling you crazy, but perhaps a bit unreasonable on the subject. Ironically that makes you illogical and making bad judgements out of fears... just like your opponents, many of whom could just as easily have been your ally.
My question is would you have tolerated that black people be allowed to sit anywhere on the bus for 1 day a week? I mean, it's better than always sitting in the back of the bus.
No because that is a silly comparison. I already have a better analogy out there... it is kosher food. I do agree that if gays are not allowed civil unions with full rights then there is no other choice than to get revolutionary about it. But if this stays about the word marriage or not, well I'd vote a person into office that's for gay marriage, but I'm not going to riot in the streets.
more people showed up to the polls than ever before and in those states the amendments passed by double digits. It should tell you something.
It does tell me something, but not necessarily what you seem to be getting out of it. The fact that Bush got elected told me something to, but it certainly isn't what the Republicans seem to be getting out of it.
Yes it is! Remember that before the civil rights movement it was already ingrained in the culture that black people
No it is not. But thanks for hurting your own cause by telling people what they think.
I'm sort of getting tired of your comparing the use of the term marriage to disenfranchisment of blacks, it's not the same. While there may be many true bigots out there, there are plenty who are not and instead have some weird semantic/faith issue. You can find support among them, and it appears to be a majority.
There is no similarity to going to the same schools and drinking out of the same fountains, and having the same name on your legal document. There just isn't. What you ought to be more concerned about is lingering issues like being able to get into the military... THAT is a frigging civil rights issue.
This is like having had kosher food, and now you want to have your own food available for market and it doesn't fit the traditional term. Both sides sticking to their guns on this is what is ridiculous. Only if you cannot get unions at all, does this become something else entirely.
The problem is everytime there's a movement to call for justice, there's always going to be people like you who thinks that this time it's different.
People like me... That's right. Keep criticizing the people around you that are actually supporting your cause (remember I'm actually for gay marriage) when they point out some realities... like there is support for reasonable alternatives which are more likely to get you what you want.
You keep counterproducing for your cause.
It's all the same to me. People are being discriminated against and that ain't right.
No, you have already made quite clear it is about you and your issues, and not about discrimination in general. Its one of the things pervasive in gay activism and makes me sick everytime I see it... a willingness to hate, as long as its not yourself.
Again, would you say that it would have been better for black people to be able to sit anywhere on the bus for 1 day a week, 2 days a week, 3 days a week, and so on?
Again I was not talking about slowly getting one right and then another or something like that. I was saying if a segment of the population wants to keep legal contracts titled marriage contracts with their original traditional definition, because they were without question based on that traditional definition, but they are willing to support another legal contract with the same rights which cover a slightly different definition, and using a different name, then work with them.
The result is not piecemeal change. It is getting everything you want, minus a name, and there is a credible reason for this, even if not wholly based in logic.
If someone suggests civil unions without all of the rights, then there is reason to fight.
It is true that I generally don't like to sugar coat an argument.
No you like to act the selfrighteous jerk, blow your argument out of proportion and then kick at the people who are actually on your side.
I ain't sugar coating it, that is what you are doing.
How many times in this single post have your repeated your inane question, with innuendo, that I would possibly be for alternate days of discrimination? What was the point?
I have already said I am for gay marriage as I have no semantic concerns on it. I am only pointing out THE FACT that the laws on the books regarding those legal contracts were created with the definitions for a reason, and it was not discrimination. Indeed you would be hard pressed to find historical examples of fullfledged marriages between gays even in fully gay accepting cultures.
This is a recent phenomenon.
And so instead of changing laws to revise the definition within old contracts, that are using a name with a heavy traditional meaning, it would be equally valid to just set up a new form of contract. If that would get more votes to your side, why on earth kick people that would get you it? Because they have some semantic hangup?
And what's great is that with the new contract and all the rights you can stick it to the antigay crowd all you like. You can sit anywhere on the bus and at any time.
Those are the facts. I'm just laying them out.
In my daily life I support gay marriage.
Huh? Didn't I make it clear that I don't compromise? Right is right. Wrong is wrong. Anywhere in between is still wrong. Deal with it.
Gee that's what the antigay marriage activists say. And that policy sure worked great for Bush. Boy and you all sound so... credible.
Intolerance and ignorance is surely the mark of this new century and everyone seems to like the design. Whatever you get Lam, you deserve it.
This message has been edited by holmes, 11-17-2004 04:16 PM

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by coffee_addict, posted 11-17-2004 3:05 PM coffee_addict has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by The Dread Dormammu, posted 11-17-2004 4:29 PM Silent H has replied
 Message 156 by coffee_addict, posted 11-17-2004 5:02 PM Silent H has not replied

The Dread Dormammu
Inactive Member


Message 155 of 309 (160617)
11-17-2004 4:29 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by Silent H
11-17-2004 4:10 PM


Uh oh wrong thing to say.
Whatever you get Lam, you deserve it.
Umm, what do you mean by this?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by Silent H, posted 11-17-2004 4:10 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by Silent H, posted 11-17-2004 6:59 PM The Dread Dormammu has not replied

coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 477 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 156 of 309 (160629)
11-17-2004 5:02 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by Silent H
11-17-2004 4:10 PM


holmes writes:
Yes, but that does not help your case. You are claiming a greater state of victimization or hatred toward you than might actually exist.
How is it not as bad as I made it? You can still get dismissed from the armed forces for being gay. If you've been living with your partner for 30 years and he dies, his family gets to kick you out of the house and get the house. If your partner of 30 years needs to go to the emergency room, you can't just say "I'm his partner" and get the same treatment as hetero couples. There are many more examples.
Wait you just said in the post before that civil unions with full rights weren't an unjust compromise and that is what Gay activists were explicitly rejecting, saying that was not enough.
Yes, I did say that, but I also said that I believe such a thing can't exist. Again, seperate does not mean equal.
'm not calling you crazy, but perhaps a bit unreasonable on the subject. Ironically that makes you illogical and making bad judgements out of fears... just like your opponents, many of whom could just as easily have been your ally.
Ok...
No because that is a silly comparison. I already have a better analogy out there... it is kosher food. I do agree that if gays are not allowed civil unions with full rights then there is no other choice than to get revolutionary about it. But if this stays about the word marriage or not, well I'd vote a person into office that's for gay marriage, but I'm not going to riot in the streets.
It's not just about the word marriage, though. It is about what comes with it. As long as it is called something else, there will always be loopholes for people to jump through.
I'm sort of getting tired of your comparing the use of the term marriage to disenfranchisment of blacks, it's not the same.
Yes, it is!
(1) Civil union versus marriage.
(1) Black schools versus white schools.
(2) Civil union gets the same rights as marriage.
(2) Black schools get the same treatment as white schools.
Do you see where I'm coming from? Did black schools get the same fundings and treatments as white schools? Will civil union get the same apparent rights as marriage? Get real!
What you ought to be more concerned about is lingering issues like being able to get into the military... THAT is a frigging civil rights issue.
That too. I seem to recall black soldiers being able to die for their countries but not have any other rights in their their country.
This is like having had kosher food, and now you want to have your own food available for market and it doesn't fit the traditional term. Both sides sticking to their guns on this is what is ridiculous. Only if you cannot get unions at all, does this become something else entirely.
The food example is lame, to be frank.
People like me... That's right. Keep criticizing the people around you that are actually supporting your cause (remember I'm actually for gay marriage) when they point out some realities... like there is support for reasonable alternatives which are more likely to get you what you want.
Segregation used to be called reasonable alternatives.
No, you have already made quite clear it is about you and your issues, and not about discrimination in general. Its one of the things pervasive in gay activism and makes me sick everytime I see it... a willingness to hate, as long as its not yourself.
Huh?
Again I was not talking about slowly getting one right and then another or something like that. I was saying if a segment of the population wants to keep legal contracts titled marriage contracts with their original traditional definition, because they were without question based on that traditional definition, but they are willing to support another legal contract with the same rights which cover a slightly different definition, and using a different name, then work with them.
That's what they said with segregation. Seperate but equal. Seperate but equal. Seperate but equal. Seperate but equal.
The result is not piecemeal change. It is getting everything you want, minus a name, and there is a credible reason for this, even if not wholly based in logic.
People thought blacks were going to get the same rights and benefits with with the seperate but equal policies. Everything seemed perfect until it was actually implimented.
If someone suggests civil unions without all of the rights, then there is reason to fight.
When they proposed segregation, they guaranteed that those who are seperate would get equal treatment. Did they get equal treatment?
No you like to act the selfrighteous jerk, blow your argument out of proportion and then kick at the people who are actually on your side.
I'm sorry if I've been such a jerk.
What I've been trying to say is it doesn't matter if they promise that civil union will get the same rights and benefits as marriage because in the end they will find some loopholes to make sure it won't be as equal as marriage, and I highly doubt that they're going to make it better than marriage.
And what's great is that with the new contract and all the rights you can stick it to the antigay crowd all you like. You can sit anywhere on the bus and at any time.
See what I mean?
When blacks were demanding to be able to drink out of the same drinking fountains as the "regular folks" and sit anywhere on the bus, people would say, "but we're not making you work in the fields... this is different."
And so instead of changing laws to revise the definition within old contracts, that are using a name with a heavy traditional meaning, it would be equally valid to just set up a new form of contract. If that would get more votes to your side, why on earth kick people that would get you it? Because they have some semantic hangup?
They tried it before and it didn't work. When slavery was ended, they said, "ok, lets come up with a set of rules to try to allow these people to be free but seperate from our traditional definition of human beings." Tell me, were they treated as equal?
Gee that's what the antigay marriage activists say. And that policy sure worked great for Bush. Boy and you all sound so... credible.
If an uneducated person insists that the derivative of X^2 is 3X^3 and I insist that "no! The derivative of X^2 is 2X!" does that make me just as ignorant as that person?
There are rights and wrongs. Discrimination of any kind is wrong. Partial discrimination is wrong. A little bit of discrimination is still wrong.
Intolerance and ignorance is surely the mark of this new century and everyone seems to like the design. Whatever you get Lam, you deserve it.
Ok...

Hate world.
Revenge soon!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by Silent H, posted 11-17-2004 4:10 PM Silent H has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by MangyTiger, posted 11-17-2004 7:03 PM coffee_addict has not replied

Itachi Uchiha
Member (Idle past 5614 days)
Posts: 272
From: mayaguez, Puerto RIco
Joined: 06-21-2003


Message 157 of 309 (160634)
11-17-2004 5:15 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by pink sasquatch
11-15-2004 9:30 PM


pink sasquatch writes:
Homosexuality and anal sex are not the same thing.
You are absolutely right. But still, its a big part of it.
pink sasquatch writes:
It is like saying heterosexuality is wrong because some heterosexual couples choose to have oral sex - that's not what a mouth is "made for", either.
That they get pleasure from it doesn't make it right either. Go ahead and give oral sex to a sick (many times they are sick without appearing it) person and wait and see what will happen to your mouth.
pink sasquatch writes:
You can't equate an infectious disease with sexual orientation, especially one like HIV where the vast, vast majority of infected people are heterosexual.
On what stats do you base this. Remember that there are other ways of getting infected outside of sex.

Ponlo todo en las manos de Dios y que se joda el mundo. El principio de la sabiduria es el temor a Jehova

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by pink sasquatch, posted 11-15-2004 9:30 PM pink sasquatch has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by pink sasquatch, posted 11-17-2004 7:42 PM Itachi Uchiha has replied
 Message 185 by Rrhain, posted 11-18-2004 4:03 AM Itachi Uchiha has not replied

Jon_the_Second
Member (Idle past 19810 days)
Posts: 33
From: London, UK
Joined: 11-07-2004


Message 158 of 309 (160636)
11-17-2004 5:29 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by Silent H
11-17-2004 9:48 AM


Look here. Men who have consensual sex under 16 have an increased incidence of psychological problems.
Those who are raped had an even higher incidence.
There's your harm.
BMJ Non-consensual sex in men study
And how would you propose determining which children give consent and which don't? Or are you claiming rape of a child, if sociologically acceptable, would not lead to any harm?
This message has been edited by Jon, 11-17-2004 05:50 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by Silent H, posted 11-17-2004 9:48 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by coffee_addict, posted 11-17-2004 5:40 PM Jon_the_Second has not replied
 Message 161 by Jon_the_Second, posted 11-17-2004 5:48 PM Jon_the_Second has not replied
 Message 188 by Silent H, posted 11-18-2004 5:27 AM Jon_the_Second has replied
 Message 193 by Tusko, posted 11-18-2004 6:27 AM Jon_the_Second has replied
 Message 209 by Tusko, posted 11-18-2004 2:57 PM Jon_the_Second has replied

Itachi Uchiha
Member (Idle past 5614 days)
Posts: 272
From: mayaguez, Puerto RIco
Joined: 06-21-2003


Message 159 of 309 (160641)
11-17-2004 5:40 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by The Dread Dormammu
11-15-2004 10:22 PM


Re: READ THE FRICIN POSTS!
The Dread Dormammu writes:
Why is doing something "unnatural" wrong? What are your criteria for deturmining what is and isn't unatural? Is getting a haircut unnatural? Becase, after all according to your logic, if God had wanted us to get our hair cut he would have had it stop growing after it becomes the approprate length? Is planting crops unnatural? After all according to your logic if god had wanted us to have feilds of crops he would have made them grow like that.
My guess is that something unnatural is wrong when it harms you. Let's take smoking for example (for the record I dont have anything against smokers or homosexuals). It's unnatural because it is not something your body needs like eating,sleeping etc. Its wrong because it affects your health in different ways especially your breathing system. The vast mayority of males I know that have HIV were infected through homosexual sex or drug addiction. Both of them (homosexual sex and drug addiction) are unnatural and therefore wrong because your body is being harmed as a result of such actions. When it comes to taking a haircut or planting crops; are they unnatural? Maybe. Are they wrong? Unless youre clumbsy and cut your ears off with the clippers or you harvest poisonous plants or drugs that harm your body no they aren't.
The Dread Dormammu writes:
That unnatural things are also immoral
These days it appears to me that morality is different from person to person. So I ain't gonna waste my time.
The Dread Dormammu writes:
If I wear glasses am I donig something immoral becase I am using the bridge of my nose and the tops of my ears to do something they "weren't intended for".
As I said before the moral aspect is irrelevant here the question is right or wrong. Yes-glasses are unnatural unless you point out to me a situation where someone was born with them. No- glasses are not wrong because they dont hurt your body. On the contrary it helps you.
The Dread Dormammu writes:
I also notice that people who post Homophobic remarks on this thread keep bringing up anal sex in grapic and inaproaprate terms. Why do you have to resort to swearing? Why are you trying to disgust us? Why can't you use the proper terminology?
I guess I am a bit homophobic cause i would have a problem if a homo touched me or said something fresh to me or look at me the wrong way. This has happened to me before and this is why they give me the creeps sometimes. I apologize again for my language. I recognize some people are more sensible than others.

Ponlo todo en las manos de Dios y que se joda el mundo. El principio de la sabiduria es el temor a Jehova

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by The Dread Dormammu, posted 11-15-2004 10:22 PM The Dread Dormammu has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by Rrhain, posted 11-18-2004 4:17 AM Itachi Uchiha has not replied

coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 477 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 160 of 309 (160642)
11-17-2004 5:40 PM
Reply to: Message 158 by Jon_the_Second
11-17-2004 5:29 PM


Please edit your link so the page size is scaled down.
Press the edit button and put in place
[url=your link goes here]name you wish to call the link[/url]
The result is problems of non-consensual sex in men.
Thanks.
This message has been edited by Lam, 11-17-2004 05:49 PM

Hate world.
Revenge soon!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by Jon_the_Second, posted 11-17-2004 5:29 PM Jon_the_Second has not replied

Jon_the_Second
Member (Idle past 19810 days)
Posts: 33
From: London, UK
Joined: 11-07-2004


Message 161 of 309 (160654)
11-17-2004 5:48 PM
Reply to: Message 158 by Jon_the_Second
11-17-2004 5:29 PM


thanks for that. It's editted.
This message has been edited by Jon, 11-17-2004 05:50 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by Jon_the_Second, posted 11-17-2004 5:29 PM Jon_the_Second has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by coffee_addict, posted 11-17-2004 5:50 PM Jon_the_Second has not replied

coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 477 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 162 of 309 (160655)
11-17-2004 5:50 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by Jon_the_Second
11-17-2004 5:48 PM


Go up there and edit your post, not post another one. Your link is too long and it is messing up the page.
Press "edit" not "reply".
This message has been edited by Lam, 11-17-2004 05:51 PM

Hate world.
Revenge soon!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by Jon_the_Second, posted 11-17-2004 5:48 PM Jon_the_Second has not replied

Itachi Uchiha
Member (Idle past 5614 days)
Posts: 272
From: mayaguez, Puerto RIco
Joined: 06-21-2003


Message 163 of 309 (160656)
11-17-2004 5:50 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by The Dread Dormammu
11-15-2004 10:32 PM


Re: And another thing.
The Dread Dormammu writes:
Well, why not. Lets say I have a big propane tank that I decide to turn into a doghouse, if I wash it out and clean it up so that it makes a good doghouse why is that wrong? Why is using something in a way other than for its intended use morraly wrong?
Thats a good idea. Try it and it will prove my point to you. Youll find out that a tank will be a bad dog house when
1) The sun hits the tank directly. It will be most likely that the tank is made out some metal so the dog will roast inside it.
2) Winter time. If it snows where you live he will freeze.
3) lack of oxygen. Since tanks are made with the purpose of sealing one gas in outside gases or vapors wont get in and even if you make a big hole in it it wont be enogh for anything to live.
So as you can see using a tank as a doghouse is unatural and wrong because your dog will most likely die or suffer injuries to its health.

Ponlo todo en las manos de Dios y que se joda el mundo. El principio de la sabiduria es el temor a Jehova

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by The Dread Dormammu, posted 11-15-2004 10:32 PM The Dread Dormammu has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by coffee_addict, posted 11-17-2004 5:52 PM Itachi Uchiha has replied
 Message 165 by Jon_the_Second, posted 11-17-2004 5:59 PM Itachi Uchiha has not replied

coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 477 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 164 of 309 (160658)
11-17-2004 5:52 PM
Reply to: Message 163 by Itachi Uchiha
11-17-2004 5:50 PM


Re: And another thing.
hey jazzlover, a word of advice. Think before you talk to people on here. You are embarrassing yourself.

Hate world.
Revenge soon!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by Itachi Uchiha, posted 11-17-2004 5:50 PM Itachi Uchiha has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by Itachi Uchiha, posted 11-18-2004 7:42 AM coffee_addict has not replied

Jon_the_Second
Member (Idle past 19810 days)
Posts: 33
From: London, UK
Joined: 11-07-2004


Message 165 of 309 (160660)
11-17-2004 5:59 PM
Reply to: Message 163 by Itachi Uchiha
11-17-2004 5:50 PM


Re: And another thing.
put some insulation in, that'll stop the heat/cold.
And cut some air holes?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by Itachi Uchiha, posted 11-17-2004 5:50 PM Itachi Uchiha has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024