Accepting Gay People Could Bring Down Civilisation, Says Devon Newspaper Column

by Guest Tue Sep 23, 2014 1:17 am

First topic message reminder :

The editor of a Devon newspaper says he stands by a column which described homosexuality as "an aberration" and claimed social acceptance of gays signalled the end of the British, Roman and Greek empires.

The South Molton News, a monthly local paper in North Devon, received four complaints and its editor Paul Henderson was questioned by police after publishing the controversial column in its September issue.

One complainant said the article was deeply upsetting and took the small town "back into the dark ages".

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/09/22/south-molton-news-gay-column_n_5861388.html?utm_hp_ref=uk

WTF....

by Original Quill Sun Sep 28, 2014 4:38 pm

sphinx wrote:
Or are you using the argument that because a consensus can result in mob behaviour we should not allow individuals to have opinions in case too many people agree with them.

That's one opinion, wouldn't you say? Cool

by Tommy Monk Sun Sep 28, 2014 4:43 pm

It was you who first brought up the word 'icky'.
And Now you have posted loads more waffle and still no real points.
Attraction and sexual coupling is designed to be between those of opposite sex, that I, The normal and natural order of things.
If you are attracted to someone of same sex then that is clear evidence of where something has gone wrong.

by Eilzel Sun Sep 28, 2014 4:45 pm

Ah the usual lack of understanding = repeat usual mantra routine- boring.

by Original Quill Sun Sep 28, 2014 5:12 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:It was you who first brought up the word 'icky'.
And Now you have posted loads more waffle and still no real points.
Attraction and sexual coupling is designed to be`, that I, The normal and natural order of things.
If you are attracted to someone of same sex then that is clear evidence of where something has gone wrong.

I don't think I've used the word 'icky' in this thread.

"Attraction and sexual coupling designed to be between those of opposite sex..." Can you prove that statement? First as to design:

Merrium-Webster wrote:de·sign
verb \di-ˈzīn\

: to plan and make decisions about (something that is being built or created) : to create the plans, drawings, etc., that show how (something) will be made

: to plan and make (something) for a specific use or purpose

: to think of (something, such as a plan) : to plan (something) in your mind

The following discussion is taken from Fastcodesign:

Fastcodesign wrote:What is design? What makes it distinct from art, science, or engineering? The editors of this site decide dozens of times a day what is or isn’t "design." But is it ultimately subjective, or can it be rigorously defined? Charles Eames offered up a string of impishly oversimplified answers to this question in 1972. Now a pair of Canadian academics have taken the opposite approach: They’ve attempted to formulate analytically a rigorous definition of "the design concept." Should we take it seriously?

Paul Ralph was preparing his Ph.D. dissertation on "the nature of software design" when his thesis adviser, Yair Wand, suggested that "clearly defining what we meant by design was a good way to begin," Ralph tells Co.Design. "As an undergrad in computer science I became frustrated that none of the 'design’ courses had anything to do with designing--for example, 'algorithm design’ was the study of existing algorithms, not the study of generating new ones," he says. "Designers in many disciplines, especially software development, suffer from common misconceptions about the nature of their work and exploring the meaning of design can help."

Ralph and Wand’s paper is dense reading, but that’s just because they took a serious stab at puncturing common assumptions about what the practice of design is. An initial survey of academic literature showed that "design" could involve anything from optimizing processes and identifying requirements to creating artifacts and analyzing systems. After sifting and critiquing all of this fuzzy thinking, the authors settle on the following definition:

DESIGN: (noun) a specification of an object, manifested by some agent, intended to accomplish goals, in a particular environment, using a set of primitive components, satisfying a set of requirements, subject to some constraints.

That probably sounds like contentless B.S., but each chunk of that definition was carefully chosen to include certain things and exclude others. For example, take "specification of an object": This means that the output of "design" is not necessarily a physical thing, although it can be; [design] is, however, always "a detailed description of an object in terms of its structure, namely the components used and their connections." This almost gets to the very core of "design" itself: as an entity somehow distinct from the particular designed object yet tightly coupled to it. The design of the iMac is not an iMac, nor is it merely your iMac. And yet your iMac can’t exist without it.

The other concepts of "primitive components" (the basic physical materials or abstract elements that a design is constituted from) and "environment" (a design is always situated in a specific context) are also noteworthy. But are the edges of the definition truly sharp? Does fashion design, which often only has "goals" in the aesthetic sense, qualify? What about cooking? Does a chef "design" a new dish? Is a recipe a "design," or something else? Rigorously defining "design" starts to seem like measuring a coastline: The "true" edge always recedes, infinitely, no matter what scale you try to measure it at.

And in the end, what good is it? "Designers do not need a clear definition of design to be effective, any more than mechanics need a clear definition of an engine," Ralph admits. "I think the definition is more likely to be used by researchers studying design." Which isn’t a bad or useless thing, any more than academic concepts in sociology and anthropology are.

Intriguingly, though, Ralph and Wand did intend their definition to be useful "in the real world" for software designers. "Developers are often expected to estimate the cost of developing a system, but their estimates are often inaccurate," Ralph says. "The definition [of design] is useful to developers for explaining why they cannot provide accurate estimates, namely, the environment, goals, requirements, constraints, or primitives are not clear at the time the cost estimate is needed." In other words, building software is not like building (or designing) bridges.

Ralph and Wand fully admit that their proposed definition is not, well, definitive. Is it a useful thought experiment? I think so, but I also happen to be reading a monograph on the epistemological, ontological, and phenomenological foundations of interaction design for pleasure. If you’re more of a hardheaded practitioner of the Design Is a Job stripe (which, by the way, is also an amazing book), this paper might make you roll your eyes harder than you’ve ever rolled them before. Or maybe you’re somewhere in the middle. In any case, defining design may be fundamentally quixotic--but if anyone should be able appreciate the intrinsic value of tilting at windmills, it’s a designer.

http://www.fastcodesign.com/1672937/is-there-a-scientific-definition-of-design (this article arises in the context of a discussion about software design, nevertheless as it states, it is an attempt to create a timeless idea of the design concept).

As you can see Tommy, your characterization makes several leaps of logic. 'Design' is by definition an intentional act, in which a (human) agent aims to create or do something. Only, you have lost the idea of a human agent, and offered nothing in its place. Who designed sex in the manner you insist? You?

It appears it is you. Anyway, the words are coming from you and yet there is no one else in the room. At least you might try to personify Nature, but you know the pitfalls that lie there. Or, you might make it a religious notion, but is a god any better than Nature? I think you know that you are alone on this.

I suggest you abandon your creationist ideas of purpose and design in heterosexuality; in the end creationist arguments only serve the deity alleged. You might try a functionalist argument; but then there are a lot of functions in the world, and how do you know that this or that function is paramount? (Plus, you obviously would go directly to the procreation function, and that can now be recreated in the lab.)

Alas, I don't know what you can do. Maybe keep on repeating the words "waffle" and babbling on about "original intent or design," without offering any answers or reasoning...because there are none. But, well, that's what you are doing anyway, innit?

by Tommy Monk Sun Sep 28, 2014 5:21 pm

Les brought up 'icky'.

Designed by nature/evolution......

All you need to do to see proof is look around.....

What is The normal and natural way of things?

If you don't know what male/female reproductive organs are and how they work and why they fit together so well then you are beyond help.....

by Original Quill Sun Sep 28, 2014 5:29 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:Les brought up 'icky'.

Designed by nature/evolution......

All you need to do to see proof is look around.....

Look around? OK, I am looking and the first relevant thing I notice is that homosexuality exists. So, even you admit that there is design and perhaps purpose to homosexuality. Are you going to admit it is "natural" as well?

Tommy Monk wrote:What is The normal and natural way of things?

If you don't know what male/female reproductive organs are and how they work and why they fit together so well then you are beyond help.....

In other words, you are avoiding your own question. (Or, as you put it, 'waffling'.) Isn't that another way of saying what I suggested above...that you have no "answers or reasoning" for your assertions? And, in turn, isn't that because there are none?

by Guest Sun Sep 28, 2014 10:58 pm

Tommy, you are in error,

simply put ALL descritions of any actions as "abnormal or un natural " are invalid without there being a whole host of explanation and (usually) morality and law being attached..

moreover this fact does not preclude actions that are therefor natural or normal being considered outside the realm of what is acceptable to society and what is not.

an activity being "normal" of "natural" does not mean its desirable howevver when such an action harms no-one and is "sociologicaly neutral" then it is wrong to condemn it for illogical reasons (and your reasons lack logic for the reasons stated)

IF we took your "nature" argument to its logical conclusion, man would only at best move around on horses, since we are NOT naturally adapted to flying, nor indeed would we be exploring space..

what you are doing is attempting to mix two areas to support your own predjudice, you are mixing an appeal to "natural behaviour" with an ill thought out "morality" to justify an illogical, and it has to be said unsustainable, point of view....

by nicko Mon Sep 29, 2014 2:27 am

"As long as they don't frighten the horses" let them get on with it! Who said that bye the way?

by Original Quill Mon Sep 29, 2014 4:20 am

"Does it really matter what these affectionate people do, so long as they don't do it on the street and frighten the horses?"

----Beatrice Stella Tanner Campbell (Mrs Patrick Campbell), in George Bernard Shaw's Pygmalion.

by nicko Mon Sep 29, 2014 10:01 am

Thanks Quill,i reckon that was a very aproprate comment.

by Tommy Monk Mon Sep 29, 2014 2:40 pm

Sorry victor but you are just conflating the argument by including science and technological breakthroughs.

The biological and mechanical design and purpose of our reproductive organs has not changed for millennia and attraction And interaction is designed to be between opposite sexes.

No matter how anyone tries to spin it, this are the fundamental facts of it.

Homosexuality is unnatural because it goes against the natural way of things, it is abnormal because it is behaviour which is totally different to the normal, and therefore fundamentally wrong.

by Original Quill Mon Sep 29, 2014 6:03 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:Sorry victor but you are just conflating the argument by including science and technological breakthroughs.

So were Copernicus, Sir Issac Newton and Einstein. What is wrong with bringing together (conflate) modern ideas?

Tommy Monk wrote:The biological and mechanical design and purpose of our reproductive organs has not changed for millennia and attraction And interaction is designed to be between opposite sexes.

No matter how anyone tries to spin it, this are the fundamental facts of it.

Homosexuality is unnatural because it goes against the natural way of things, it is abnormal because it is behaviour which is totally different to the normal, and therefore fundamentally wrong.

Accepting Gay People Could Bring Down Civilisation, Says Devon Newspaper Column - Page 6 Normal-people

Accepting Gay People Could Bring Down Civilisation, Says Devon Newspaper Column - Page 6 Normal%20is%20an%20Illusion%7C0A

by Tommy Monk Mon Sep 29, 2014 6:51 pm

The intended use of our reproductive organs is obvious.

That intended use would be called the normal use and the natural use and the right use.

by Ben Reilly Mon Sep 29, 2014 7:22 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:The intended use of our reproductive organs is obvious.

That intended use would be called the normal use and the natural use and the right use.

You're presupposing "intent," Tommy. What, do you think we was intelligently designed by the baby Jesus, boogity boogity boogity amen?

Are you against oral sex? Do you rail against hetero oral sex on message boards, or form strong opinions about how those who do it are unnatural?

Do you wear clothing, eyeglasses, take medicine, drive a car, fly in planes? Do you think that even if human beings were designed, we were designed to do any of those things?

Have you ever had sex and tried to avoid pregnancy? Because if our reproductive organs were designed for reproduction, it's unnatural to do the reproductive deed but try to prevent reproduction, isn't it?

by Tommy Monk Mon Sep 29, 2014 8:15 pm

Beside the point and you know it.....

Sexual attraction is still designed to be between opposite sexes and THe reprodutive organs fit like hand in glove as of purpose.

by Ben Reilly Mon Sep 29, 2014 8:19 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:Beside the point and you know it.....

Sexual attraction is still designed to be between opposite sexes and THe reprodutive organs fit like hand in glove as of purpose.

Please demonstrate how anything I said was "beside the point." I think it was right on top of the point. Jumping up and down, emphatically.

by Tommy Monk Mon Sep 29, 2014 10:59 pm

We are designed to be attracted to and have sexual coupling with those of opposite sex.

Nothing you have said changes that.

by Original Quill Tue Sep 30, 2014 4:46 am

Tommy Monk wrote:We are designed to be attracted to and have sexual coupling with those of opposite sex.

Nothing you have said changes that.

And nothing you say supports it. Give it up, Tommy. You're talking outta yer arse.

Accepting Gay People Could Bring Down Civilisation, Says Devon Newspaper Column - Page 6 V777yq

Accepting Gay People Could Bring Down Civilisation, Says Devon Newspaper Column - Page 6 V777yq

by Tommy Monk Tue Sep 30, 2014 2:24 pm

Don'tbe ridiculous.

Are you seriously saying that we are designed to be attracted to the same sex and our reproductive organs are also designed to fit with the same sex?

And that is The normal natural way of things not just in humans but all across the animal kingdom...???

Absurd!

by nicko Tue Sep 30, 2014 3:19 pm

Our reproductive organs were designed to fit male/female. The fact that one will fit one it was not designed for is just a plus for homosexuals.

by Eilzel Tue Sep 30, 2014 3:24 pm

nicko wrote:Our reproductive organs were designed to fit male/female. The fact that one will fit one it was not designed for is just a plus for homosexuals.

It's incidental really. The problem for Tommy is, he associates the strong emotional bond two people can have that you and I would call 'love', as being only concerned with dicks and vaginas and nothing else. It is a sad state, I'd say there is much more to it than that- but for tommy that's all it comes down to- kind of like a plug and plug socket- pretty cold and very much denigrating of 'love' when all is said and done.

He misses quill's point regardless, he is very good at doing that too.

by Original Quill Tue Sep 30, 2014 5:09 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:Don'tbe ridiculous.

Are you seriously saying that we are designed to be attracted to the same sex and our reproductive organs are also designed to fit with the same sex?

And that is The normal natural way of things not just in humans but all across the animal kingdom...???

Absurd!

I think you haven't been following the thread, Tommy. What I am saying is we are not designed, PERIOD! Whereas you believe in some cosmic designer whom I have never met, I believe in evolution. Evolution doesn't design...evolution just happens by chance and necessity. Chance can be simple, like a genetic mutation for example. Necessity is that mutation following the environmental constraints around it, like gravity and temperature and so forth. There is no design. Existence is a series of accidents, conforming to the world in which they occur.

Amid all this, you Tommy construct a fable about some cosmic wizard and claim this creature "designed" all this we see and experience. I don't believe in wizards any more than I believe in a bearded old man who walks in the clouds and performs tricks to wow the kids. I know it's hard to wrap your head around without some cartoon character to provide you with a personification model, but in fact there is no designer. This is all the result of chance and necessity.

Now, if we haven't blown your mind already, consider this: homosexuality exists--and it continues to exist--so there must be some natural justification for it. There must be value, if not good in it. Of course, "good" is a metaphysical idea, like god, so we might substitute the term functional in here. Homosexuality is functional in the necessities of our environment...chance and necessity being all there is. This is not to say that homosexuality cannot exist side-by-side with heterosexuality...it's not a zero sum game. Both appear to be functional in our world, each in their own way.

What we now have left in this whole discussion is, you don't like it! You don't like homosexuality. So you invent all these metaphysical ideas like abnormal and deviant to explain...what? To explain yourself, Tommy. You are the abnormality and you need some explanation to describe the cognitive dissonance you feel between yourself and your environment. If you truly didn't care you wouldn't keep revisiting the subject. You care very much...you just don't know how to handle it.

Sometimes you have to adapt. That is what you face as we speak.

by Ben Reilly Tue Sep 30, 2014 5:45 pm

Tommy & Nicko, do you two really believe we were designed in the first place? If so, by whom, and why do you believe this?

by nicko Tue Sep 30, 2014 6:10 pm

Designed by evolution, not by the man "upstairs"

by Ben Reilly Tue Sep 30, 2014 6:18 pm

Evolution is not a designing process, it's quite random ... evolution has no intelligence, goal, etc.

by nicko Tue Sep 30, 2014 6:41 pm

Evolution has no intellegence. I think you should read Darwin!

by Ben Reilly Tue Sep 30, 2014 7:56 pm

nicko wrote:Evolution has no intellegence. I think you should read Darwin!

I'm quite familiar with Darwin, and no, evolution is not an intelligent force with a goal in mind. Evolution is a process, like light reflection or gravitational attraction.

It goes like this: Any characteristic possessed by an organism that helps (or at least doesn't hurt) that organism's chances of surviving and reproducing tends to be passed to future generations of the species. Any characteristic possessed by an organism that hurts that individual's ability to survive and reproduce tends to disappear from the gene pool over time. (This is natural selection.)

Evolution happens because of the gradual changes in the world's various environments; sometimes local changes put a species at risk. Any individuals that have mutations that allow them to survive the change will be the future of the species, while the rest die out. Allow this to happen constantly for 3,500,000,000 years, and you end up with a lot of different species.

by nicko Tue Sep 30, 2014 8:12 pm

There must be some intelligence involved even at a unconscious level for a specious to realise that "this isn't working" and set about changing the problem for a better way of doing things all be it in the body's make up.
I hope you can see what I'm trying to get across.

by Tommy Monk Tue Sep 30, 2014 8:57 pm

When have I said anything about designed by some bearded wizard in the sky?

I'm talking about the design of our reproductive organs, by whatever means you want to believe, the purpose and function is pretty obvious to anyone.

Evolution, nature, divine intervention, whatever.....

And for evolution being completely random, it certainly made a lot of things very much alike.....

Male/ female for example, and the reproductive system being 'randomly selected' to be about male/female interaction......

by Original Quill Tue Sep 30, 2014 9:10 pm

nicko wrote:There must be some intelligence involved even at a unconscious level for a specious to realise that "this isn't working" and set about changing the problem for a better way of doing things all be it in the body's make up.
I hope you can see what I'm trying to get across.

The species doesn't realize it. The species is oblivious to it. Adaptation is 'success' occurring, whereas 'failure' would wipe the species out.

You want to make Nature like us: thinking and feeling. That would be personification. But Nature isn't like us. Like Ben says, it's only a cold, insensitive process. Survival of the fittest is simply 'success' leading to survival, and 'failure' leading to extinction.

Homosexuality survives. It's not a choice. It doesn't think about it. It simply IS.

by Tommy Monk Tue Sep 30, 2014 9:39 pm

Yes, 'is' an example of where things can go wrong and result in abnormal and unnatural behaviour......

by Ben Reilly Tue Sep 30, 2014 9:45 pm

nicko wrote:There must be some intelligence involved even at a unconscious level for a specious to realise that "this isn't working" and set about changing the problem for a better way of doing things all be it in the body's make up.
I hope you can see what I'm trying to get across.

No, absolutely wrong. Mutations happen randomly, it's not any kind of primordial striving to be fitter. Sometimes they confer benefits, often they don't or are even a hindrance.

by Ben Reilly Tue Sep 30, 2014 9:52 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:Yes, 'is' an example of where things can go wrong and result in abnormal and unnatural behaviour......

But your entire basis for judging it "abnormal and unnatural" is this supposed fascination with the interlocking of the penis and vagina. What about other criteria that could be used to judge whether something is abnormal or unnatural? Under every other criteria, we find either no effect or a positive effect:

* Women who have gay sons also tend to have fertile daughters -- a net benefit to the propagation of the species http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/12/why-are-there-gay-men_n_1590501.html

* In other great apes, homosexual relations smooth over disputes, leading to fewer violent conflicts http://www.ansci.wisc.edu/jjp1/ansci_repro/misc/project_websites_07/thur07/bonobo%20reproduction/behavior.html

* Homosexuality has always been too rare a trait to threaten the overall proliferation of any species

So your entire basis for seeing homosexuality as abnormal comes down to your own personal disgust with it. You should just admit it ...

by Tommy Monk Tue Sep 30, 2014 10:26 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:Yes, 'is' an example of where things can go wrong and result in abnormal and unnatural behaviour......
But your entire basis for judging it "abnormal and unnatural" is this supposed fascination with the interlocking of the penis and vagina. What about other criteria that could be used to judge whether something is abnormal or unnatural? Under every other criteria, we find either no effect or a positive effect:
* Women who have gay sons also tend to have fertile daughters -- a net benefit to the propagation of the species http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/12/why-are-there-gay-men_n_1590501.html

So having one less child being actively involved in the normal and mal and natural equals a net benefit to propagating the species....... you might as well tell me that having one less wheel on my car makes for better handling!!!

* In other great apes, homosexual relations smooth over disputes, leading to fewer violent conflicts http://www.ansci.wisc.edu/jjp1/ansci_repro/misc/project_websites_07/thur07/bonobo%20reproduction/behavior.html

Yeah.... I suppose they are too busy giving the grisly one a makeover and choosing new fabrics for their scatter cushions....!

* Homosexuality has always been too rare a trait to threaten the overall proliferation of any species
So your entire basis for seeing homosexuality as abnormal comes down to your own personal disgust with it. You should just admit it ...

Well, actuall your last point just confirms what I've been saying all along....'too rare' means that it is not the normal or natural thing to be doing or by definition it would not be so rare amongst so many humans and other animal species who have The opportunity of demonstrating it!!!!

by Ben Reilly Tue Sep 30, 2014 10:46 pm

In the study on women who have gay sons, they also have MORE fertile daughters than women who don't have gay sons. It's a net benefit, as I explained.

Read up on the bonobos for yourself, unless you just want to mock rather than learn something new.

And there are all sorts of rare human traits -- red hair is more rare than homosexuality. Blue eyes are more rare. Albinism is FAR more rare.

In the U.S., more than 10 percent of women between 15 and 44 are infertile. Worldwide, only one in four people have white skin.

Again, your problem isn't that homosexuality is rare (you don't have a problem with other rare human traits, presumably). You shouldn't have a problem with any false theory of a negative impact on population propagation -- you do realize that with a global population of 7 billion, human beings are propagating just fine. You shouldn't have a problem with whether it's "designed," because NOTHING about biology is designed, nor should you have a problem with whether it's "natural," because it occurs throughout the animal kingdom.

Your problem with homosexuality is simply that you think it's icky. Why won't you just admit it?

by Guest Tue Sep 30, 2014 11:11 pm

you all seem to miss a rather important point whilst getting caught up trying to argue sense into our resident dinosaur...

IF accepting homosexuality caused a society to collapse, then perhaps that society deserved to collapse, due to a far too purile interest in what others are doing...

If it offends you so much Tommy...the answer is simple.....mind yer own feckin business...its nowt to do wi you what other (consenting) folks do

by Tommy Monk Wed Oct 01, 2014 12:00 am

Ben, it is clear that two children actively propagating society is more beneficial than one homosexual and another with a debatable minutely different fertility factor.

Secondly you are confusing an extremely rare abnormal and unnatural sexually deviant practice that may exhibit across all human populations (while the widespread in animal kingdom claim has been conclusively smashed previously...)... with other physiological and distinct differences that are only usually found within certain 'tribal' regions.

The colour of hair, skin, eyes etc is superfluous to use of And purpose of reproductive organs and as seen throughout.

The infertility in women in USA is most likely down to a number of other factors not remotely connected to your claims. Diet, being overweight, drink/drugs etc probably being major causes.

And victor, I have said many times that it's none of my business what two consenting adults do behind closed doors etc, but it is not just that is it?

by Ben Reilly Wed Oct 01, 2014 12:06 am

If it's "not just that," than what else is it?

And no, homosexual behavior has indeed been observed throughout the animal kingdom. You probably found some lying hate site that claimed otherwise, but that doesn't make it true ...

And finally, since you really seem to be struggling with this -- the mothers of gay sons tend to give birth to a larger number of fertile daughters than mothers who don't have gay sons. We're not talking about one mom with a gay son and a super-fertile daughter -- we're talking about a mother with a gay son and two or three fertile daughters, as opposed to a mother with two or three sons and one fertile daughter.

by Eilzel Wed Oct 01, 2014 12:32 am

On evolution, you can't call it design tommy or nicko, fact is there are products of evolution even in humans that would be questionable were we the products of any design process. As has been said, homosexuality is a product of nature like left handedness or blue eyes; you cannot call something like that unnatural whether you consider it 'detrimental' to society or not (which it isn't anyway, certainly not in an over populated world and considering its rarity). Normal is far more subjective, it isn't normal for us to fly, but we do it anyway because we care, how is it wrong for two people who love each other to have a relationship? Surely it would be more wrong amd unnatural and to ignore a natural, and harmless love?

by Irn Bru Wed Oct 01, 2014 12:44 am

Tommy, you focus solely on the sexual act when the love of two people can be more than just that.

You mention unnatural acts so can I ask you if you have ever used a condom and when was the last time you had a wank?

by Tommy Monk Wed Oct 01, 2014 12:52 am

Ben_Reilly wrote:If it's "not just that," than what else is it?
And no, homosexual behavior has indeed been observed throughout the animal kingdom. You probably found some lying hate site that claimed otherwise, but that doesn't make it true ...
And finally, since you really seem to be struggling with this -- the mothers of gay sons tend to give birth to a larger number of fertile daughters than mothers who don't have gay sons. We're not talking about one mom with a gay son and a super-fertile daughter -- we're talking about a mother with a gay son and two or three fertile daughters, as opposed to a mother with two or three sons and one fertile daughter.

It's being shoe horned into the public domain and being taught to children as being something that is perfectly normal, natural and right, when it isn't and people being forced to think that it is, or else threat of prosecution etc...

Sphinx brought up the animal kingdom myth earlier and the evidence was smashed.

Last bit was pure waffle.....

by veya_victaous Wed Oct 01, 2014 1:34 am

Tommy Monk wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:If it's "not just that," than what else is it?
And no, homosexual behavior has indeed been observed throughout the animal kingdom. You probably found some lying hate site that claimed otherwise, but that doesn't make it true ...
And finally, since you really seem to be struggling with this -- the mothers of gay sons tend to give birth to a larger number of fertile daughters than mothers who don't have gay sons. We're not talking about one mom with a gay son and a super-fertile daughter -- we're talking about a mother with a gay son and two or three fertile daughters, as opposed to a mother with two or three sons and one fertile daughter.

It's being shoe horned into the public domain and being taught to children as being something that is perfectly normal, natural and right, when it isn't and people being forced to think that it is, or else threat of prosecution etc...

Sphinx brought up the animal kingdom myth earlier and the evidence was smashed.

Last bit was pure waffle.....

Do I need to post more homoerotic ancient pottery to show that is was HOMOPHOBIA that was shoe horned into western Culture by the Romans and later Christian Rolling Eyes

by Tommy Monk Wed Oct 01, 2014 2:40 am

If homosexuality was so widespread then surely it would be more evident than just on a few pots out of thousands of artifacts....

Some might have had pots made to give to people as a sort of joke gift, not necessarily as an endorsement of it.

But you are coming back to the old argument that because something might have happened a little bit in the past then that make it normal, natural and right now.

There are lots of unsavoury things that have happened throughout history, by the same logic you are justifying them all for now too!?

While also forgetting to mention that in ancient Greek/Roman times, it was only the 'taker' who was deemed as homosexual and also as a sub level class/status because of it.

by Tommy Monk Wed Oct 01, 2014 3:05 am

Irn Bru wrote:Tommy, you focus solely on the sexual act when the love of two people can be more than just that.
You mention unnatural acts so can I ask you if you have ever used a condom and when was the last time you had a wank?

But it is when you include sexual acts then that changes the relationship beyond just love.....

And normal, natural and right sexual relationships are biologically and mechanically designed to be between opposite sexes as is attraction.

by veya_victaous Wed Oct 01, 2014 4:26 am

Tommy Monk wrote:If homosexuality was so widespread then surely it would be more evident than just on a few pots out of thousands of artifacts....

Some might have had pots made to give to people as a sort of joke gift, not necessarily as an endorsement of it.

But you are coming back to the old argument that because something might have happened a little bit in the past then that make it normal, natural and right now.

There are lots of unsavoury things that have happened throughout history, by the same logic you are justifying them all for now too!?

While also forgetting to mention that in ancient Greek/Roman times, it was only the 'taker' who was deemed as homosexual and also as a sub level class/status because of it.

IF something was Common in any society that was not infected with the Abrahamic Cult of Hate.

Alexander the Great was openly gay with Hephaestion and took a Eunuch lover

Japan
http://rictornorton.co.uk/samurai.htm
Samoa
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fa%27afafine
Germanic/north European
http://www.connellodonovan.com/heruli.html

Most cultures only see any issue with once an Abrahamic faith or Romanisation comes into it.. and considering that Roman culture played a large part in what was included and exuded from the bible we can pretty much lay Homophobia at their feet, and even in Rome hostility to gays extends from a Racist/patriotic rivalry with the Greeks. at points to be called an Athenian in Rome was the exact same as being called Gay.
the idea of the taker being Homosexual was a Roman Invention, Greeks(Athenians) generally did not feel the same.

Homosexuality is simply a deviation of the genes.. exactly the same as white skin or straight hair. Rolling Eyes

the gene that causes it in males makes for more fertile and promiscuous females. AND a female is worth far more than a male when it comes to passing on genes because to put it simply with out DNA testing you only REALLY DEFINITELY know who your mother is.

Even a weaker female is still likely to pass on her genes because she will have kids even if she is the 6th wife of strong guy. where not all males in primal societies got the breed, a weak man may never get a mate because being the 6th wife of the strong guy is still more appealing than being the only wife of the weakling.
This then goes a step further in social animals like humans where if it is passed on to a brother and sister, she is more likely to have multiple kids than an average woman AND there is a male around to support her EVEN if the biological father buggers off OR she is the 6th Wife of the Strong Guy but because of her Gay brother her children are better protected than the other wives children because there is a second male looking out for them as they are the main way her brother is going to pass his genes on since he will not directly father children.

SO Homosexuality Exists because it is actually a Successful Gene.

by Original Quill Wed Oct 01, 2014 6:31 am

Tommy Monk wrote:And normal, natural and right sexual relationships are biologically and mechanically designed to be between opposite sexes as is attraction.

But not exclusively. That is the beauty of the process...it was designed to embrace more than one way.

Oh, and I found this......

Accepting Gay People Could Bring Down Civilisation, Says Devon Newspaper Column - Page 6 Bz-panel-05-03-13

Accepting Gay People Could Bring Down Civilisation, Says Devon Newspaper Column - Page 6 Bz-panel-05-03-13

by nicko Wed Oct 01, 2014 6:51 am

Can't see what all the arguing's about, it thats what consenting adults want to do let them get on with it. it don't bother me.

by Ben Reilly Wed Oct 01, 2014 8:14 am

Tommy Monk wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:If it's "not just that," than what else is it?
And no, homosexual behavior has indeed been observed throughout the animal kingdom. You probably found some lying hate site that claimed otherwise, but that doesn't make it true ...
And finally, since you really seem to be struggling with this -- the mothers of gay sons tend to give birth to a larger number of fertile daughters than mothers who don't have gay sons. We're not talking about one mom with a gay son and a super-fertile daughter -- we're talking about a mother with a gay son and two or three fertile daughters, as opposed to a mother with two or three sons and one fertile daughter.

It's being shoe horned into the public domain and being taught to children as being something that is perfectly normal, natural and right, when it isn't and people being forced to think that it is, or else threat of prosecution etc...

Sphinx brought up the animal kingdom myth earlier and the evidence was smashed.

Last bit was pure waffle.....

You're a hate-filled moron, dude.

by Tommy Monk Wed Oct 01, 2014 12:34 pm

Veya, what a load of waffle!!!

There is no homosexual gene.

And it is not a success, it is a failure, evidence of where something has gone wrong, not right!!!

lol!

And Ben, I am not hate filled at all, or a moron, I am merely speaking the truth!!!

by Tommy Monk Wed Oct 01, 2014 1:42 pm

And why do people keep bringing planes into the argument????

It is totally spurious to compare a purpose designed and built aeroplane doing exactly what it is supposed to be doing with a sexually deviant behaviour that is abnormal and unnatural and wrong as it completely goes against the purpose of biological and mechanical design????

by Sponsored content