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

nicko wrote:Elizel,   as soon as gay men are mentioned the instant thought of straight men is ugh, cock up bottom. however much you try you will never change this conception!

veya_victaous wrote:

nicko wrote:Elizel,   as soon as gay men are mentioned the instant thought of straight men is ugh, cock up bottom. however much you try you will never change this conception!

that is actually true in a lot of cases particularly teenagers and some straight men will never associate with gay men enough to get past the teenage level of thinking.

But I think Like most things it is familiarity that breeds indifference. When I was 16, when I meet a gay person it went through my head but.. you know teenage boys.... pretty much any woman you meet you thought about what she would look like naked too....          

Tommy Monk wrote:

Eilzel wrote:Ok, but sexual attraction aside the feelings you have for your wife are the same kinds of feelings I have for my partner. These are not the same feelings I have for other male or female friends.

To try to simplify for you. If a man falls in love with another man but never acts on this, and in fact forces himself to commit to a heterosexual marriage which makes him feel miserable and dirty does this man qualify as not gay and normal to you?

Still comes back to the fact that attraction is designed to be between opposite sexes as of biological and mechanical design.


This is The normal and natural and right way of things.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:


Still comes back to the fact that attraction is designed to be between opposite sexes as of biological and mechanical design.


This is The normal and natural and right way of things.

Couple things for you to consider. Though I really don't know why this thread is still active ...

First -- if you're arguing design, you're arguing a designer. Now, who in their right mind would design a body in which the male had his genitalia dangling unprotected in front of him? Or either sex with a head perched atop the most vulnerable part of the body, without even any bones to protect the two most vital arteries?

So that's enough to show that if we were designed, we were designed by a very stupid designer who didn't think it through.

But let's say we were designed; that something with some modicum of intelligence intended us to exist, to procreate; had intended purposes for all of our body parts -- even our wisdom teeth, tailbones and male nipples (the uses for those we just, you know, haven't figured out yet).

Haven't you ever used something for something other than its designed purpose? I know I have on a few occasions used a brick to tap in a nail. Bu-but bricks are for making buildings, not for hammering nails! Fuck you, it worked as a hammer, too.

What's the great evil in using something for something other than what it was designed for? It didn't hurt anybody when I used a brick to drive in a nail. If I'd used the brick as a weapon, that would have been bad, but the simple act of using a thing for something other than its original purpose can't be inherently wrong.

There's no evidence, of course, to suggest that we're anything other than the end result of letting slime on a rock evolve for a few billion years -- certainly not creatures who were put here for a purpose -- but even if we were, that wouldn't make homosexual behavior wrong.

Even if every single person on Earth went gay, we stopped procreating and we went extinct -- well hell, extinction is part of nature too, right? There are more extinct vertebrate species than there are living ones.

Tommy Monk wrote:I am saying that the biological and mechanical design and intended purpose of our reproductive organs is....... reproduction!

(The clue is in the name!!!)


And this is evident throughout nature.... being the normal and natural and right way of things, and undeniable.

Tommy Monk wrote:I am saying that the biological and mechanical design and intended purpose of our reproductive organs is....... reproduction!

(The clue is in the name!!!)

And this is evident throughout nature.... being the normal and natural and right way of things, and undeniable.

Original Quill wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:I am saying that the biological and mechanical design and intended purpose of our reproductive organs is....... reproduction!

(The clue is in the name!!!)

And this is evident throughout nature.... being the normal and natural and right way of things, and undeniable.

There is more insight than you realize in that middle passage, Tommy.  Essentially you are saying: the name is the proof for that which I personally name.

It's called a Tautology.  Yes, that bit of circular reasoning is why you are left spinning your wheels for ten pages in this thread.  You don't realize the difference between the 'thing in itself' as Kant said, and the words (which are mental images, or ideas, if you like) used to describe it.  There are a million different ways to show you this, and so many of your friends have offered it to you.  

You are struggling to reify your idea of the purpose of your genitals, and you end up saying the proof is in the name...the name you give it!  So this whole thing is simply going on in your own mind (which is to say, you're a legend in your own mind! Lol).  Why don't you just accept the fact that the world is what it is, and leave it at that.  No purpose.  No design.  No grand architect.  No god.  Your theory is not a 'thing in itself' but simply a way for you to memorize and retain it in your mind.

So there is no moral justification in a world that simply is.  Thus there is no moral justification for your homophobia.  This is why Nietzsche wrote a whole book entitled, Beyond Good and Evil.  Morals are simply man-made opinions about what should be...they are not 'things in themselves.'  Your homophobia is simply your opinion, or taste in lifestyle.

No matter how you writhe and sputter, you can't make more of it than that.  

Tommy Monk wrote:They are called reproductive organs for a reason.... and seen being put to same use throughout animal kingdom, male female coupling as is intended.

Tommy Monk wrote:Was happening before we even had name for them.


And throughout the animal kingdom, they don't have names for their reproductive organs but they still do the same thing.

Tommy Monk wrote:Pissing is clever design, part cleaning organs as slightly acidic and.....


http://www.smart-publications.com/articles/human-pheromones-the-science-behind-the-scent-of-attraction

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1885393/



And pleasure is a byproduct, a stimulation designed to encourage the primary purpose as of biological and mechanical design........