Homosexuality

[th87]

Yeah, I know, but how are you defining homosexuality exactly? Is it just the sexual attraction to one of the same sex? Or is it the actual act of carrying out that sexual attraction, i.e., sexual acts?

The latter, and we like Lesbians around here....

So then you're saying that there is something wrong with engaging in the sex that would make them happy?

Then persecuting homosexuality would be akin to someone attempting to curb heterosexual sex. It would be unnatural.

And in the same way, it is unnatural to wish homosexuality away. It's just natural and biological to them.

(But of course, lots of religions attempt to curb natural instinct. No sex before marriage, for example. I guess it comes down to whether one believes in rules.)

What about Jeff Dahmer? His natural instinct was to kill people and eat their organs. Who’s religion/morals did we impose on him?

I am not equating homosexuality with being a psychopath; I am trying to show that humans do have many things that they are born with that society does try to curb. Your argument doesn’t work.

Psychopathy infringes on others' well-being. When others are harmed, the line should be drawn there.

Homosexuality does no such thing.

Further, derangement and sexuality are completely different things. People go from un-deranged to deranged. People do not go from heterosexual preference to homosexual preference.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Frankly, I have no issue with it, as long as it's not my rectum!

I always figured you to be a top man.


I don't think many people still think of homosexuality as a choice. If you know any gay people, you can't hold this view for long.

[Tarlam!]

Frankly, I have no issue with it, as long as it's not my rectum!

I always figured you to be a top man.


I don't think many people still think of homosexuality as a choice. If you know any gay people, you can't hold this view for long.

Listen, my prince, I am a trained chef. Born in 1963. So when I was 16 years old, starting out in my trade, it was trendy to fuck male asses or have yours fucked. It was just prior to the HIV years.

In those days, homos tried very fucking hard to turn you. The hospitality industry back then was 80% queer for males in Sydney. They were not passive seeking only their own kind. they were aggressive, trying to turn all straights. But it was harmless fun!

Then came AIDS.

I have been priviliged to sleep in beds that were paid for by Gays, because the alternative was sleeping in my car. They were kind enough to not expect me to put out - I never would have! But, they were civilized. They tried and failed, but didn't force it.

I met others, though, during that time. They would have forced it. Pricks.

[MadtownPacker]

I met others, though, during that time. They would have forced it. Pricks.

Good thing Harlan didnt show up to the posters game last year. As drunk as you where he would have got his grove on for sure, force or no force, though Im guessing HH prefers the ruff stuff.

[HowardRoark]

Yeah, I know, but how are you defining homosexuality exactly? Is it just the sexual attraction to one of the same sex? Or is it the actual act of carrying out that sexual attraction, i.e., sexual acts?

The latter, and we like Lesbians around here....

So then you're saying that there is something wrong with engaging in the sex that would make them happy?

Then persecuting homosexuality would be akin to someone attempting to curb heterosexual sex. It would be unnatural.

And in the same way, it is unnatural to wish homosexuality away. It's just natural and biological to them.

(But of course, lots of religions attempt to curb natural instinct. No sex before marriage, for example. I guess it comes down to whether one believes in rules.)

What about Jeff Dahmer? His natural instinct was to kill people and eat their organs. Who’s religion/morals did we impose on him?

I am not equating homosexuality with being a psychopath; I am trying to show that humans do have many things that they are born with that society does try to curb. Your argument doesn’t work.

In the counter-example you used there is the subtle but important difference that Dahmer's partners didn't consent to becoming meals.

Way to get all nuancey on me Hoosier. That’s why I caveated that the two are different. I was trying to make the point that people are born with conditions that make them happy and fulfilled that sometimes are destructive to society.

What about a pedophile? What about his happiness and fulfillment? If the kid consents, is there a problem with this?

Now, before I can log back on, someone will come back and say that it has to be “consulting adults” and the kid is not an adult. But wait a minute. Who decides at what age someone becomes an adult? Isn’t that rather arbitrary? Or, is it the definition of a word that society has agreed on?

There we go again with those pesky definitions of words. That’s the only point I have. Marriage is a word to define a union between a man and a woman. The laws concerning marriage have, over time, evolved based on that definition.

[hoosier]

Yeah, I know, but how are you defining homosexuality exactly? Is it just the sexual attraction to one of the same sex? Or is it the actual act of carrying out that sexual attraction, i.e., sexual acts?

The latter, and we like Lesbians around here....

So then you're saying that there is something wrong with engaging in the sex that would make them happy?

Then persecuting homosexuality would be akin to someone attempting to curb heterosexual sex. It would be unnatural.

And in the same way, it is unnatural to wish homosexuality away. It's just natural and biological to them.

(But of course, lots of religions attempt to curb natural instinct. No sex before marriage, for example. I guess it comes down to whether one believes in rules.)

What about Jeff Dahmer? His natural instinct was to kill people and eat their organs. Who’s religion/morals did we impose on him?

I am not equating homosexuality with being a psychopath; I am trying to show that humans do have many things that they are born with that society does try to curb. Your argument doesn’t work.

In the counter-example you used there is the subtle but important difference that Dahmer's partners didn't consent to becoming meals.

Way to get all nuancey on me Hoosier. That’s why I caveated that the two are different. I was trying to make the point that people are born with conditions that make them happy and fulfilled that sometimes are destructive to society.

What about a pedophile? What about his happiness and fulfillment? If the kid consents, is there a problem with this?

Now, before I can log back on, someone will come back and say that it has to be “consulting adults” and the kid is not an adult. But wait a minute. Who decides at what age someone becomes an adult? Isn’t that rather arbitrary? Or, is it the definition of a word that society has agreed on?

There we go again with those pesky definitions of words. That’s the only point I have. Marriage is a word to define a union between a man and a woman. The laws concerning marriage have, over time, evolved based on that definition.

If that's all you got, it's not much of a point, Howie. Any social philosophy that can't distinguish between acts that involve consent and acts that don't, or between acts that create victims and acts that don't, is pretty useless in my view. I got all "nuancy" with you because the example that you used involved something entirely different from the topic that was being discussed--which, if memory serves, was "homosexuality." (When did this become a thread about gay marriage? I never subscribed for that thread--let me out!) Your example was a sociopath and his cravings; and now you want to throw in a pedophile too (again, let me out!). The difference, as you yourself see, is that your examples involve a person imposing his will and power on another person who hasn't consented or isn't considered by society to be capable of giving consent. In the example of two gays having consensual sex, you don't have that problem. Nor is it clear to me how that behavior is "destructive to society," since it has been going on since human societies were first formed. If anything, historical evidence would seem to indicate that you can't have a society WITHOUT homosexuality. So first of all, it's up to you to demonstrate that homosexuality has destructive social consequences.

Yes, any attempt to pin the abstract idea of responsibility and adulthood to a chronological age will be arbitrary and we will discover plenty of exceptions. So what? Are you proposing that we do away with the legal concept of responsibility and start treating five-year olds like adults? Should we also abandon the idea that you don't get to vote or register for the draft until you're 18? Should we let 12-year olds drive because responsibility is an arbitrary concept?

[mraynrand]

We've already explored the language and tradition issues. To attempt to present as indistinguishable a union between man and man to man and woman is absurd. But that is what is being attempted. Why? The issue is ultimately one of acceptance. A wish to, by force, not only to be granted the same rights, but to be sanctioned as THE SAME - to confer, via governmental certificate, a status of equivalency. Even if people ultimately vote in favor of handing out a governmental certificate of approval, the two types on unions are not the same. Some believe they are not the same morally, while others simply understand that they are not the same in their essence, even though, depending on individual relationships, it is possible to find sound gay unions and unsound heterosexual unions. A is A. A is not B. A and B can be granted equal rights without being 'made equivalent' by a governmental edict. That is why this issue remains contentious - the confusion of these two principles. And they reach back into the core of differences between constrained and unconstrained mindsets. Constrained thinkers advocate the principle of 'equality of opportunity' while unconstrained thinkers advocate for a limitless egalitarianism or 'equality of outcome.' The only way to ensure equality of outcome among individuals with different inherent properties and potentials is through force.

[HowardRoark]

If that's all you got, it's not much of a point, Howie. Any social philosophy that can't distinguish between acts that involve consent and acts that don't, or between acts that create victims and acts that don't, is pretty useless in my view. I got all "nuancy" with you because the example that you used involved something entirely different from the topic that was being discussed--which, if memory serves, was "homosexuality." (When did this become a thread about gay marriage? I never subscribed for that thread--let me out!) Your example was a sociopath and his cravings; and now you want to throw in a pedophile too (again, let me out!). The difference, as you yourself see, is that your examples involve a person imposing his will and power on another person who hasn't consented or isn't considered by society to be capable of giving consent. In the example of two gays having consensual sex, you don't have that problem. Nor is it clear to me how that behavior is "destructive to society," since it has been going on since human societies were first formed. If anything, historical evidence would seem to indicate that you can't have a society WITHOUT homosexuality. So first of all, it's up to you to demonstrate that homosexuality has destructive social consequences.

Yes, any attempt to pin the abstract idea of responsibility and adulthood to a chronological age will be arbitrary and we will discover plenty of exceptions. So what? Are you proposing that we do away with the legal concept of responsibility and start treating five-year olds like adults? Should we also abandon the idea that you don't get to vote or register for the draft until you're 18? Should we let 12-year olds drive because responsibility is an arbitrary concept?

Sorry Hoosier, I didn’t know what thread I was in; it’s starting to feel like the Castro District around here.

Obviously you can’t stop homosexuality. Some people believe in right and wrong and some people don’t. Whatever.

I just hope you celebrate my Diversity.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Frankly, I have no issue with it, as long as it's not my rectum!

I always figured you to be a top man.


I don't think many people still think of homosexuality as a choice. If you know any gay people, you can't hold this view for long.

Listen, my prince, I am a trained chef. Born in 1963. So when I was 16 years old, starting out in my trade, it was trendy to fuck male asses or have yours fucked. It was just prior to the HIV years.

In those days, homos tried very fucking hard to turn you. The hospitality industry back then was 80% queer for males in Sydney. They were not passive seeking only their own kind. they were aggressive, trying to turn all straights. But it was harmless fun!

Then came AIDS.

I have been priviliged to sleep in beds that were paid for by Gays, because the alternative was sleeping in my car. They were kind enough to not expect me to put out - I never would have! But, they were civilized. They tried and failed, but didn't force it.

I met others, though, during that time. They would have forced it. Pricks.

your story made me come

[mraynrand]

Frankly, I have no issue with it, as long as it's not my rectum!

I always figured you to be a top man.


I don't think many people still think of homosexuality as a choice. If you know any gay people, you can't hold this view for long.

Listen, my prince, I am a trained chef. Born in 1963. So when I was 16 years old, starting out in my trade, it was trendy to fuck male asses or have yours fucked. It was just prior to the HIV years.

In those days, homos tried very fucking hard to turn you. The hospitality industry back then was 80% queer for males in Sydney. They were not passive seeking only their own kind. they were aggressive, trying to turn all straights. But it was harmless fun!

Then came AIDS.

I have been priviliged to sleep in beds that were paid for by Gays, because the alternative was sleeping in my car. They were kind enough to not expect me to put out - I never would have! But, they were civilized. They tried and failed, but didn't force it.

I met others, though, during that time. They would have forced it. Pricks.

your story made me come

And another Kitten bites the dust.

[Freak Out]

How many voted fag just to put some numbers up? Out of the closet now.

[hoosier]

If that's all you got, it's not much of a point, Howie. Any social philosophy that can't distinguish between acts that involve consent and acts that don't, or between acts that create victims and acts that don't, is pretty useless in my view. I got all "nuancy" with you because the example that you used involved something entirely different from the topic that was being discussed--which, if memory serves, was "homosexuality." (When did this become a thread about gay marriage? I never subscribed for that thread--let me out!) Your example was a sociopath and his cravings; and now you want to throw in a pedophile too (again, let me out!). The difference, as you yourself see, is that your examples involve a person imposing his will and power on another person who hasn't consented or isn't considered by society to be capable of giving consent. In the example of two gays having consensual sex, you don't have that problem. Nor is it clear to me how that behavior is "destructive to society," since it has been going on since human societies were first formed. If anything, historical evidence would seem to indicate that you can't have a society WITHOUT homosexuality. So first of all, it's up to you to demonstrate that homosexuality has destructive social consequences.

Yes, any attempt to pin the abstract idea of responsibility and adulthood to a chronological age will be arbitrary and we will discover plenty of exceptions. So what? Are you proposing that we do away with the legal concept of responsibility and start treating five-year olds like adults? Should we also abandon the idea that you don't get to vote or register for the draft until you're 18? Should we let 12-year olds drive because responsibility is an arbitrary concept?

Sorry Hoosier, I didn’t know what thread I was in; it’s starting to feel like the Castro District around here.

Obviously you can’t stop homosexuality. Some people believe in right and wrong and some people don’t. Whatever.

I just hope you celebrate my Diversity.

I agree that these homosexuality threads are proliferating faster than, well....rabbits. And I think celebrating diversity is a pretty boring idea, but hey, whatever floats your boat. When will you be substantiating your insinuation that homosexuality is socially destructive?

[HowardRoark]

When will you be substantiating your insinuation that homosexuality is socially destructive?

I never made that insinuation. I said:

1. Not all things we are born with that make us happy are good.

2. The word "marriage" is for men and women.

[hoosier]

When will you be substantiating your insinuation that homosexuality is socially destructive?

I never made that insinuation. I said:

1. Not all things we are born with that make us happy are good.

2. The word "marriage" is for men and women.

But you also said:

Way to get all nuancey on me Hoosier. That’s why I caveated that the two are different. I was trying to make the point that people are born with conditions that make them happy and fulfilled that sometimes are destructive to society.

Are you now claiming that this statement about "conditions...that sometimes are destructive to society" wasn't referring to homosexuality? Why bring the destructiveness up then?

[HowardRoark]

When will you be substantiating your insinuation that homosexuality is socially destructive?

I never made that insinuation. I said:

1. Not all things we are born with that make us happy are good.

2. The word "marriage" is for men and women.

But you also said:

Way to get all nuancey on me Hoosier. That’s why I caveated that the two are different. I was trying to make the point that people are born with conditions that make them happy and fulfilled that sometimes are destructive to society.

Are you now claiming that this statement about "conditions...that sometimes are destructive to society" wasn't referring to homosexuality? Why bring the destructiveness up then?

I was referring to TH87, I was not referring to homosexuality:

(But of course, lots of religions attempt to curb natural instinct. No sex before marriage, for example. I guess it comes down to whether one believes in rules.)

BTW, did you go to that Hoosier game Saturday? I was hoping you guys would have won. The quicker we change things the better.