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 Wed Oct 01, 2014 6:14 pm

Tommy Monk wrote: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????

Accepting Gay People Could Bring Down Civilisation, Says Devon Newspaper Column - Page 7 If_man_were_meant_to_fly_wall_clock

by Guest Wed Oct 01, 2014 8:57 pm

Consider this Tommy.....in order to underake the totally alien (to the human) mode of locomation known a sflight we have to contrive, at great effort etc a MECHANICL device (prosthesis) to do it for us....

inorder to undertake a same sex relationship we have to do........nothing....... that we wouldn't or couldnt ordinarily do...

which is more "un-natural"?

a woman using a dildo or a bloke using a "blow up doll" is probably less natural, and certainly likely to be more deviant (since you are using an artificial device...just like flying).

sorry tommy you are on to a looser with this one...

by Tommy Monk Wed Oct 01, 2014 9:47 pm

Not at all victor, somebody flapping their arms and taking off in flight would be highly unnatural, abnormal and wrong use of arms.

A purpose built mechanical aeroplane on the other hand, that did what it was supposed to do as of intended purpose and design would be considered the normal and natural and right behaviour of said plane.

If the said plane did something outside of the intended design and purpose like fly backwards or underwater then that would be considered unnatural, abnormal and wrong behaviour.

It is fundamentally clear that we are either male or female with the biological and mechanical design and purpose of sexual interaction with each other as opposite sexes as is this design, with attraction also designed to happen between opposite sexes for this to happen successfully.

That is the natural, normal and right way of things.

There are many things that people may find to do for their own personal gratification, but that doesn't get away from the fact of what is the normal, natural and right way of things as of the intended biological design.

by Guest Wed Oct 01, 2014 10:06 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:Not at all victor, somebody flapping their arms and taking off in flight would be highly unnatural, abnormal and wrong use of arms.

A purpose built mechanical aeroplane on the other hand, that did what it was supposed to do as of intended purpose and design would be considered the normal and natural and right behaviour of said plane.

But we are NOT discussing the behaviour of the plane, and doing so is diversion...we are talking about the behaviour of the human , using an artificial device to enable his doing of something that is un-natural for humans to do i.e. fly....

If the said plane did something outside of the intended design and purpose like fly backwards or underwater then that would be considered unnatural, abnormal and wrong behaviour.

It is fundamentally clear that we are either male or female with the biological and mechanical design and purpose of sexual interaction with each other as opposite sexes as is this design, with attraction also designed to happen between opposite sexes for this to happen successfully.

That is the natural, normal and right way of things.

moreover do you consider hetero anal sex to be ok...or fellatio and a whole host of other interesting embellishments without which sex would be somewhat mundane.....

because the same arguments about design and use can be applied to those as well

it is no less un-natural (by your argument) to have anal sex with a woman than it is with a man...(since the design and purpose argument is EXACTLY the same.....)

There are many things that people may find to do for their own personal gratification, but that doesn't get away from the fact of what is the normal, natural and right way of things as of the intended biological design.

by Tommy Monk Wed Oct 01, 2014 11:26 pm

Anything that is designed for a specific purpose and used in that way is normal, natural and right.

by Guest Wed Oct 01, 2014 11:34 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:Anything that is designed for a specific purpose and used in that way is normal, natural and right.

so a nuclear bomb is "normal, natural and right" even if used in offence rather than defence???

OH DEAR Rolling Eyes

no wonder the right struggle...with people like you in their ranks, it wont matter how good the leadership is .

by Tommy Monk Thu Oct 02, 2014 2:41 am

You are conflating totally different issues again.

I didn't say nuclear bombs were right to be used, but following your example, the same thing applies.

A nuke is designed for a specific purpose, if used then the expected result would be the normal, natural and right result for that thing.

If one was used and the result was a small cloud of fairy dust and then a banana tree appeared then we can all agree that this would be unnatural, abnormal and an example of where something had gone wrong....

Why is this hypothesis so difficult for some to understand...???

by Original Quill Thu Oct 02, 2014 5:37 am

I have to laugh, vic. I'm with you completely, but I knew the nuclear bomb example wasn't going to work on a conservative. They fookin' love the things.

Razz

by veya_victaous Thu Oct 02, 2014 5:56 am

Tommy Monk wrote:You are conflating totally different issues again.

I didn't say nuclear bombs were right to be used, but following your example, the same thing applies.

A nuke is designed for a specific purpose, if used then the expected result would be the normal, natural and right result for that thing.

If one was used and the result was a small cloud of fairy dust and then a banana tree appeared then we can all agree that this would be unnatural, abnormal and an example of where something had gone wrong....

Why is this hypothesis so difficult for some to understand...???

Because it is Fucking Stupid Rolling Eyes

Natural and working ARE NOT THE SAME THING. A dead dog is still natural but it wont play fetch!!!!!

Natural means Occurs via natural process (nukes DO NOT )in life forms that is genetics, which does cause HOMOSEXUALITY as it is as Natural as White skin or Straight Hair Or Blue Eyes!!!!

why are you struggling with this?
THE GENE was designed for a specific purpose (if you are going to be silly enough to suggest life is by design Rolling Eyes

) and it successfully completes that purpose, You obviously Struggle with the idea that Evolution is not individual but on a species level SO yes a Gay man may not pass on his Genes Directly BUT he GREATLY increases the odds of survival and resources available to his nieces and nephews.
Think about it A gay man KNOWS 100% positive that the Child his sister bares has approximate between 25%-50% of his genetic material. The Straight Male does not know with much certainty at all (100% trust) if his Female mate is ACTUALLY baring his children or another males SO the kids may have 50% to 0% of his genetic material. So if both males dedicate a life time to helping the one female raise offspring, the Gay Brother is much more likely to be successfully passing on his genes via his sister.

by Tommy Monk Thu Oct 02, 2014 2:33 pm

Conflating the isssue with mules, or aeroplanes or dead dogs doesn't get away from the fact that the biological and mechanical design and purpose of our reproductive organs and the basis of attraction is between opposite sexes.

There is no homosexual gene.

by Original Quill Thu Oct 02, 2014 5:59 pm

Violating the trust: Where Nature went wrong.

Accepting Gay People Could Bring Down Civilisation, Says Devon Newspaper Column - Page 7 0327_urinals_630x420

Accepting Gay People Could Bring Down Civilisation, Says Devon Newspaper Column - Page 7 0327_urinals_630x420

Accepting Gay People Could Bring Down Civilisation, Says Devon Newspaper Column - Page 7 Images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT5NpATdYPJj2FcUm5YtD8dgYSeVyapnuyI61r1X6fQHK5Cuzjqzw

"...the biological and mechanical design and purpose of our reproductive organs" is clear. "[T]his would be unnatural, abnormal and an example of where something had gone wrong...."
---Tommy Monk

by Tommy Monk Thu Oct 02, 2014 6:23 pm

Quill, I'm sure you would agree that someone who looked down and saw their feet, knowing what they were for, but instead decided to walk on their hands would also be quite normal and natural and right behaviour.....!?

lol!

by Original Quill Thu Oct 02, 2014 6:31 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:Quill, I'm sure you would agree that someone who looked down and saw their feet, knowing what they were for, but instead decided to walk on their hands would also be quite normal and natural and right behaviour.....!?

"Knowing what they were for"? How did they come upon this knowledge?

Accepting Gay People Could Bring Down Civilisation, Says Devon Newspaper Column - Page 7 Images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRdBAzOevUasf0285MC4Yh74wmYRDfpGzLBLnL1JnKEOydlsQRb

Accepting Gay People Could Bring Down Civilisation, Says Devon Newspaper Column - Page 7 Images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRdBAzOevUasf0285MC4Yh74wmYRDfpGzLBLnL1JnKEOydlsQRb

by Tommy Monk Thu Oct 02, 2014 7:00 pm

We are intelligent creatures.... although some will choose to override this intelligence and knowledge in the pursuit of behaviour which is unnatural, abnormal and wrong....

by Original Quill Thu Oct 02, 2014 8:25 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:We are intelligent creatures.... although some will choose to override this intelligence and knowledge in the pursuit of behaviour which is unnatural, abnormal and wrong....

Intelligent creatures? And yet we go about making up myths about Nature's intentions, and clear and evident plans to engineer our reproductive organs. Rolling Eyes

You are better off with the Old Man in the Sky...at least he doesn't hide behind words and definitions.

by Tommy Monk Thu Oct 02, 2014 10:22 pm

You are denying reality in your quest to justify homosexuality.

I am not making up any myths, male/female is seen throughout nature and clear in biological and mechanical design and purpose.

(When I say 'mechanical' I mean it in the physiological and functional workings etc)

by Eilzel Fri Oct 03, 2014 1:08 am

The fact you used the word choice just shows how much you know nothing about this subject monk.

by Tommy Monk Fri Oct 03, 2014 2:02 am

Everything we do is result of choice unless you are trying to suggest that we have our whole lives mapped out for us and predetermined etc and we are merely holding on for the ride....???

by Ben Reilly Fri Oct 03, 2014 2:15 am

Tommy Monk wrote:Conflating the isssue with mules, or aeroplanes or dead dogs doesn't get away from the fact that the biological and mechanical design and purpose of our reproductive organs and the basis of attraction is between opposite sexes.

There is no homosexual gene.

Where do you get off assigning design and purpose to anything that isn't man-made? We were not designed, nor given any specific purpose for existing.

We can't breath under water and we don't have fins, but we still swim, even though we suck at it compared to everything else that swims. Are you going to tell people they can't swim; of course not, because people swimming isn't doing any harm. Well, people being gay isn't doing any harm either.

by Tommy Monk Fri Oct 03, 2014 3:56 am

I'm saying that there IS biological and mechanical design, not by who or what, just that there IS!

And there IS a purpose of normal and natural and right use of this, BY intended biological and mechanical workings of this design.

And that this normal and natural and right usage is what would be consistent with this undeniable design and purpose.

A usage that goes against this is therefore by definition, unnatural, abnormal and wrong.

by Ben Reilly Fri Oct 03, 2014 5:03 am

Well, I deny this mysterious "biological and mechanical" design, so I guess it's not so undeniable, is it? Accepting Gay People Could Bring Down Civilisation, Says Devon Newspaper Column - Page 7 4214183177

Accepting Gay People Could Bring Down Civilisation, Says Devon Newspaper Column - Page 7 4214183177

by veya_victaous Fri Oct 03, 2014 5:23 am

by Tommy Monk Fri Oct 03, 2014 8:09 am

Tommy Monk wrote:You are denying reality in your quest to justify homosexuality.
I am not making up any myths, male/female is seen throughout nature and clear in biological and mechanical design and purpose.
(When I say 'mechanical' I mean it in the physiological and functional workings etc)

See above.....

by Ben Reilly Fri Oct 03, 2014 6:03 pm

So to sum up your position, Tommy, you aren't anti-gay -- you just think it's a wrong, unnatural perversion that children should not be educated about. You're all for leaving gay people to do what they will, except you're not, because you claim they're not satisfied with that ... and you believe human genitalia was designed for a purpose, but you won't say who or what designed it.

No wonder this has gone on for seven pages ...

by Tommy Monk Fri Oct 03, 2014 7:08 pm

I think children should be taught only about the right and normal and natural workings.

I don't think they should be taught about any sexual deviant behaviour.

The design of our reproductive organs is for opposite sexes to connect.

And much the same as any number of other animals.

How this design came about is irrelevant really, but the normal and natural function is undeniable.

by Original Quill Fri Oct 03, 2014 7:39 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:I think children should be taught only about the right and normal and natural workings.

Right, because learning about photosynthesis is non-controversial, whereas learning about things you have already prejudged is controversial?

Tommy Monk wrote:I don't think they should be taught about any sexual deviant behaviour.

But, since it is not deviant--it exists in nature--you should not have any objection to homosexuality being taught to kids.

Tommy Monk wrote:The design of our reproductive organs is for opposite sexes to connect.

And for other things: What about urinating? Oh...it just dawned on me...you might also be against talking about pee-pee to young children. Conceivably, it's too icky a subject.

Tommy Monk wrote:And much the same as any number of other animals.

How this design came about is irrelevant really, but the normal and natural function is undeniable.

Not if it was invented in your mind, Toms...as is likely the case. Let's not talk about Tommy's ideas, lest they be shown to be fraudulent. That's the idea, isn't it? But that is precisely where everyone is at by now, Tom. We already know you are a wack-job, we just want to know how you came to be that way.

It's a fair question.

by Tommy Monk Fri Oct 03, 2014 8:04 pm

Pure waffle.....

by Original Quill Fri Oct 03, 2014 8:07 pm

Nevertheless, true.

Meh...you brought it up, long ago.

by Tommy Monk Fri Oct 03, 2014 8:27 pm

Look, you were waffling earlier, what has photosynthesis got to do with male and female reproductive organs?

Why would it be a problem explaining what pee pee is and why and howt it happens?

Natural and normal and right functions......

I think you are the whack job for trying to tell us something that is compoaj, unnatural and wrong is normal, natural and right!!!

by nicko Fri Oct 03, 2014 9:02 pm

I have read the arguments on here and would like to put my slant on it,il'l keep it short. A vagina was made for a Penis,a penis was made for a Vagina.The end result is to make babies. I could not care less if it was used somewhere else.

by Guest Fri Oct 03, 2014 9:25 pm

tommy, you have consistantly dodged this question I notice, presumably since it proves the undoing of your carefully knitted fiction......

what about hetero anal sex
what about hetero oral sex
what about f on m anal sex with a strap on
what about f on f oral sex
what about "tribbing" (go google if you have to, I am NOT explaining on here....)

come to that what about f on f sex with a strap on, as opposed to f masturbation with a dildo, which you seemed to think was acceptable?

more over is m masturbation ok by you
and thus what about two men indulging in a mutual masturbate....no penis involved

you are a one trick pony ATM Tommy......

by Eilzel Sat Oct 04, 2014 2:59 am

Tommy the choice factor is what you are ascribed to simply being gay, there is no choice.

As for schools, this is another area where your claimed 'harmless' opinion in fact becomes intrusive and destructive.'

Fact- there are gay kids in schools. And these kids struggle as it is, why shouldn't their sexuality also be discussed in open class like heterosexuality? They shouldn't be made to feel abnormal just because a few extant neanderthals say they are.

This is why views like yours are dangerous.

by Original Quill Sat Oct 04, 2014 4:21 am

nicko wrote:I have read the arguments on here and would like to put my slant on it,il'l keep it short. A vagina was made for a Penis,a penis was made for a Vagina.The end result is to make babies. I could not care less if it was used somewhere else.

Assuming you are not another religious netter:

1. Who made this vagina and why did s/he make it for the penis?

2. Who made the penis and why did s/he make it for the vagina?

3. Why is "the end result to make babies"? Who determined that?

What proof do you offer?

by Tommy Monk Sat Oct 04, 2014 5:42 am

Victor, what about any of those things?

Have no idea what 'tribbing' is... anything like 'felching'...? And I suppose you are going to tell me that is normal, natural and right too....!?

And I presume you advocate the teaching of all those things to children in schools too...?

Plus all the other deviant sexual practices out there too....???

Is it the schools/states job to teach all this kind of stuff and to teach self gratification by any and all abnormal, unnatural and wrong uses of the reproductive organs???

So where do you draw the line on all of this???

Some peoples argument here comes down to saying that because some people do some things then that means that all these things are normal, natural and right.

Therefore all things must be taught to children as being normal, natural and right....!?

Anything goes and to have any opposition to anything is discrimination and stopping people from having equality...!?

Les, either we have choice or you are saying that our whole lives are mapped out for us by some over arching power etc?

Or are you saying there is a homosexual gene...?

A genetic mutation...?

Or more accurately named...... 'defect' .....???

Which kind of backs up all what I've been saying doesn't it...!?

Plus same questions to you as above to victor...?

Quill, the question of who/what designed the reproductive organs is irrelevant..... the fact is that they are here and designed in such a way that is obvious how they are intended to operate.....

And much the same as seen across the animal kingdom.

by Eilzel Sat Oct 04, 2014 5:49 am

It doesn't really matter what biological factor causes homosexuality monk- just the fact it exists. And no there is no predetermined path- but there is still as much choice involved in being gay as there is being black or having blue eyes- somethings just are- what you advocate is making those kids who are gay feel there is sonething wrong with them by cutting their sexuality out of education.

by Tommy Monk Sat Oct 04, 2014 6:13 am

Waffle.

There is no genetic reason for homosexuality.

While there is for determining male female and the biological and mechanical design of our reproductive organs.... and the predetermined normal and natural opposite sex attraction...... and hair/eye colour and racial characteristics....

by Eilzel Sat Oct 04, 2014 7:03 am

Just ignorance, crawl back under your rock, neanderthal ;-)

by veya_victaous Sat Oct 04, 2014 7:06 am

Original Quill wrote:
nicko wrote:I have read the arguments on here and would like to put my slant on it,il'l keep it short. A vagina was made for a Penis,a penis was made for a Vagina.The end result is to make babies. I could not care less if it was used somewhere else.

Assuming you are not another religious netter:

1. Who made this vagina and why did s/he make it for the penis?

2. Who made the penis and why did s/he make it for the vagina?

3. Why is "the end result to make babies"? Who determined that?

What proof do you offer?

evolution

nickos statement is true, different species genitals are 'made/evolved/designed' to fit.

and that purpose is fair enough BUT you could take second part of nicko's statement as purpose being fun.... 'whatever floats your boat'

by nicko Sat Oct 04, 2014 9:41 am

Thank you Veya, Thats exactly was i was trying to say. A vagina and Penis were made for each other, if people want to use them for other than what was intended, [making babies] it's of no interest to me!

by Original Quill Sat Oct 04, 2014 6:29 pm

In the end, my questions remain unanswered.

No probs...I knew they couldn't be answered. I just wrote to make that point.

by Tommy Monk Sun Oct 05, 2014 7:48 pm

Your questions are irrelevant to the debate about homosexuality being unnatural, abnormal and wrong.

by Original Quill Mon Oct 06, 2014 5:11 am

Tommy Monk wrote:Your questions are irrelevant to the debate about homosexuality being unnatural, abnormal and wrong.

Not very creative for a duck. Accepting Gay People Could Bring Down Civilisation, Says Devon Newspaper Column - Page 7 Smiley_duck

Lol. You've lost me...why is homosexuality unnatural, abnormal and wrong?

by Tommy Monk Mon Oct 06, 2014 2:47 pm

You question who Or what made the penis/vagina and why made for each other but that is irrelevant, the fact remains that the design and purpose are clear.

And that the basis of this attraction is also designed to be between opposite sexes for this to function correctly.

Homosexuality goes against this biological and mechanical design and purpose in a way that is unnatural, abnormal and wrong.

by Original Quill Mon Oct 06, 2014 6:15 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:You question who Or what made the penis/vagina and why made for each other but that is irrelevant, the fact remains that the design and purpose are clear.

And that the basis of this attraction is also designed to be between opposite sexes for this to function correctly.

Obviously, different people can have different designs and purposes. Whose designs and purposes are you referring to? Just.....nobody's in particular? Accepting Gay People Could Bring Down Civilisation, Says Devon Newspaper Column - Page 7 2190311264

Accepting Gay People Could Bring Down Civilisation, Says Devon Newspaper Column - Page 7 2190311264

So, anybody can make up a design/purpose to suit his or her needs?

Tommy Monk wrote:Homosexuality goes against this biological and mechanical design and purpose in a way that is unnatural, abnormal and wrong.

Not that I know of...the people I know are just fine with the 'design and purpose' of the genitals and are quite content to treat it that way. They think it is "natural, normal and right."

They think they are right, and I tend to agree with them. Leave it at that.

by Tommy Monk Mon Oct 06, 2014 8:46 pm

Back to the old argument that because some people choose to do something then that makes it normal, natural and right....?

Well it doesn't.

by Eilzel Mon Oct 06, 2014 9:41 pm

In your opinion. Fortunately your opinion counts for diddly squat Smile

by eddie Mon Oct 06, 2014 10:35 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:You question who Or what made the penis/vagina and why made for each other but that is irrelevant, the fact remains that the design and purpose are clear.

And that the basis of this attraction is also designed to be between opposite sexes for this to function correctly.

Homosexuality goes against this biological and mechanical design and purpose in a way that is unnatural, abnormal and wrong.

I just fail to see how love can ever be wrong.

by Ben Reilly Mon Oct 06, 2014 10:42 pm

Not to mention that straight people do lots of things with one another that would violate this whole notion of "design and purpose." Unless you also decide they were made for the hands and mouths of members of the opposite sex, too -- but of course, never the same sex! Smile

Still waiting for Tommy to rail about how oral sex and masturbation are "unnatural, abnormal and wrong" seeing how they go against the "biological and mechanical design of our reproductive organs."

Accepting Gay People Could Bring Down Civilisation, Says Devon Newspaper Column - Page 7 2794048296

Accepting Gay People Could Bring Down Civilisation, Says Devon Newspaper Column - Page 7 2794048296

by eddie Mon Oct 06, 2014 10:45 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:Not to mention that straight people do lots of things with one another that would violate this whole notion of "design and purpose." Unless you also decide they were made for the hands and mouths of members of the opposite sex, too -- but of course, never the same sex!

Still waiting for Tommy to rail about how oral sex and masturbation are "unnatural, abnormal and wrong" seeing how they go against the "biological and mechanical design of our reproductive organs."

I've been there done that.
He won't admit that men watch anal sex for pleasure nor lesbian porn! lol!

by Guest Mon Oct 06, 2014 11:15 pm

Tommy is rapidly heading for the title of "semi evolved simian" of the month.........

by Sponsored content