What would you suggest?


Stupid library computer, always closes out my post if I take to long, so I need to type fast. Had a good responce all typed out... got to start over... I'm crying, sorry.

Thank you for taking the time to chat with me on this subject Vile, it's been very pleasent talking to you.

Remember when I said, the act of homosexual is akin to sleeping with a sibling?
Describe that in detail. Not sleeping with a sibling but the emotional strain of it. The grossness of it. Like the pyro statement I made, where the pyro tells his shrink fires hot so the shrink shoves him back in the padded room.

Same thing here. You have to go into detail about why hetersexuals find gay sex gross and make it sound as if youre sympathic toward their feelings at the same time.
You'll get ungrounded for sure.

God's honest truth.

How do you know if Gays actually contemplate
or are driven by sexuality.?

Gays (as a group) are no more "driven" by anything than straights (as a group). There are individuals in both groups that are more, or less, driven than other individuals in either group.


And at what age does EITHER a Gay or a Straight,know when
Society { Or pressure driven by such } is right or wrong.

Rightness and wrongness aren't something you can "know" only something you can "believe". Again, this varies from person to person regardless of sexual orientation.


Simply put,you are making huge,juvenile leaps about both
what a human feels internally,which are very personal and subjective
and whatever Societal dictums warrant the negation of such.
You are merely making excuses,and excuses that are not very
well thought out.

Excuses for what?

Gays (as a group) are no more "driven" by anything than straights (as a group). There are individuals in both groups that are more, or less, driven than other individuals in either group.



Rightness and wrongness aren't something you can "know" only something you can "believe". Again, this varies from person to person regardless of sexual orientation.



Excuses for what?

I swear,I can't honestly tell if that was you or Dharma.
Exact same debating technique.
What gives.?
I mean,it ain't like Dharm has won too many debates,
round dis pop stand.

Thank you for taking the time to chat with me on this subject Vile, it's been very pleasent talking to you.

You're welcome. I'm always up for pleasant conversation on any subject.


Remember when I said, the act of homosexual is akin to sleeping with a sibling?
Describe that in detail. Not sleeping with a sibling but the emotional strain of it. The grossness of it.

I'm afraid I can't make that comparison. I see them as two very distinct things.


Same thing here. You have to go into detail about why hetersexuals find gay sex gross and make it sound as if youre sympathic toward their feelings at the same time.
You'll get ungrounded for sure.

God's honest truth.

I can understand and accept that homosexual behavior isn't everyone's cup of tea, but I can't understand or accept that I should not participate in behavior because someone else finds it offensive for themselves. I guess I'm asking how my sleeping with another guy in private could possibly offend anyone who wasn't forced to participate or at least watch.

I swear,I can't honestly tell if that was you or Dharma.
Exact same debating technique.
What gives.?
I mean,it ain't like Dharm has won too many debates,
round dis pop stand.

Was there something you didn't understand in my response? Something specific?

I can understand and accept that homosexual behavior isn't everyone's cup of tea, but I can't understand or accept that I should not participate in behavior because someone else finds it offensive for themselves. I guess I'm asking how my sleeping with another guy in private could possibly offend anyone who wasn't forced to participate or at least watch.[/QUOTE]

*******************************************8
Why can't you simply admit that a Gay's proclivity Overides their
conscience.Because if it didn't they would honestly have to deal
with right and wrong and the shame involved.
You do know that sleeping with one's sister is wrong.
You do know what a norm or a more is.
In civilized society,certain behavior is expected.
You can't expect to traipse down main street,completely nude.
Or just belch,real loud in a nice restaurant.Heck,even McDonalds
requires shirt & shoes.

Just like kids,have to attend school.It's isn't merely up to the
Parents,but a requirement of Civilized society.

Why can't you simply admit that a Gay's proclivity Overides their
conscience.

Because that's not a position I agree with. Put bluntly, it's complete bullshit.


Because if it didn't they would honestly have to deal
with right and wrong and the shame involved.

I'm not ashamed of being gay. No shame to deal with.


You do know that sleeping with one's sister is wrong.

Sure, but that's incest, not homosexuality.


You do know what a norm or a more is.
In civilized society,certain behavior is expected.

Indeed, and those norms and mores change form society to society, and even within a single society over time. Our society is currently changing their attitudes towards gays. At least some of it's more civilized members are. :)

You do know that sleeping with one's sister is wrong.
How, exactly, is that wrong?

How, exactly, is that wrong?
Borg, you need to get out of the house more, or move to PA.

How, exactly, is that wrong?

Inbreeding ~is wrong

Inbreeding is unwise from a genetic standpoint, but I can't think of any reason that it would be morally wrong other than the fact that a lot of people seem to think so.

How, exactly, is that wrong?

Incest and inbreading leads to or can cause the Incest Taboo to
become recessive { genes that are responsible for incest avoidance,
to diminish rather than prosper} as per the Westermarck Effect.
You are famaliar with that effect,I assume.?

Incest and inbreading leads to or can cause the Incest Taboo to
become recessive { genes that are responsible for incest avoidance,
to diminish rather than prosper} as per the Westermarck Effect.
You are famaliar with that effect,I assume.?

There may be genes for "incest avoidance" or there may not. Most anthropologists believe that the incest taboo is a matter of social convention, not genetically driven. The Westermarck Effect has been proven to exist, but it only applies to close relatives who lived in close proximity to their relatives at an early age. It seems to me if there were a genetic component to incest avoidance, it would apply even to siblings that were separated early and then met again later in life.

There may be genes for "incest avoidance" or there may not. Most anthropologists believe that the incest taboo is a matter of social convention, not genetically driven. The Westermarck Effect has been proven to exist, but it only applies to close relatives who lived in close proximity to their relatives at an early age. It seems to me if there were a genetic component to incest avoidance, it would apply even to siblings that were separated early and then met again later in life.
What an interesting subject! I would tend to agree with your doubts about genetic "incest avoidance". I was watching the Maury Show the other day and there was an engaged couple on there who found out that they were actually brother and sister. It was very sad.

And who said atheists don't have a moral compass?

All one has to do is watch an episode of Jerry Springer to know how WRONG it is for relatives to have sex. Or maybe those people are actually role models to some, eh?

"Buy you a trailer house and sleep with your sister!"

It's all good!

And who said atheists don't have a moral compass?


I give up...who said that?

SMW, I'm not an atheist, and I don't see what's wrong with incest from a moral standpoint. Of course it seems gross because of the social taboo against it, and I know that inbreeding causes genetic problems after several generations.

I think I said it, Vile. And everytime I see a group of atheists stating there's nothing wrong with EATING human flesh or having SEX with one's brother or sister... it just moves that belief up another notch.

I believe it's called MORAL DECAY.

I think I said it, Vile. And everytime I see a group of atheists stating there's nothing wrong with EATING human flesh or having SEX with one's brother or sister... it just moves that belief up another notch.

I believe it's called MORAL DECAY.

If you had seen a group of atheists say either of those things you might have a point...where did this happen?

And FYI, I'm not the only one who thinks it's NOT okay.

America's Moral Decay (http://www.wakeupamericainc.org/americamoraldecay.html)

America is incrementally and systematically Rejecting God. As a result, our nation is experiencing unparalleled moral decay. National immorality flourishes when the hearts of a nation's citizens reject God and His principles. Simply stated, "Spiritual decline leads to moral decay!"

A Storm of Wickedness is Raging Across America

There is a storm raging across America. Alcoholism, drug abuse, teen pregnancy, abortion, homosexuality, school violence, child abuse, pornography, rape, robbery and murder pervade our nation. America is drowning in wickedness and immorality. By all measures, this storm threatens to erode the moral and political foundations of America.

As God and His principles continue to be systematically and incrementally removed from America, our nation and individuals will continue to experience even greater moral decay.

As George Washington so wisely warned, "... Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail to the exclusion of religious principle."

George Mason, the Father of the Bill of Rights, said, "As nations cannot be rewarded or punished in the next world, so they must be in this. By an inevitable chain of causes and effects, Providence punishes national sins by national calamities."

There is good news, even in the face of such moral degradation. Many are seeking answers. Many are yearning for relief and peace in dyer circumstances. Only God's people can make a difference by pointing individuals and our nation back to God.

I think I said it, Vile. And everytime I see a group of atheists stating there's nothing wrong with EATING human flesh or having SEX with one's brother or sister... it just moves that belief up another notch.
If you could give me some actual reasons that either of those things are wrong, I might be more inclined to agree with you.

If you could give me some actual reasons that either of those things are wrong, I might be more inclined to agree with you.

Here ya go, Vile. Explain to DF why both these things are morally wrong.

Here ya go, Vile. Explain to DF why both these things are morally wrong.
He's not the one who claimed that they were wrong, so why should he be the one to explain it?

And FYI, I'm not the only one who thinks it's NOT okay.

I'm still waiting for you to show me where someone here said it was ok.

[QUOTE=smartmouthwoman]And FYI, I'm not the only one who thinks it's NOT okay.


On account yer Drama Queen brother ... right.?

I'm still waiting for you to show me where someone here said it was ok.
Borg and I both did, actually. Well, we said it wasn't "morally wrong", which I suppose is not the same as saying it's completely alright, but that's what SMW is talking about.

Here ya go, Vile. Explain to DF why both these things are morally wrong.

Morals are what societies invent to proscribe behaviors it wishes to eliminate for practical reasons.

Practically speaking, cannabalism is dangerous because it's physically unhealthy for both the eater, and of course the eaten. :)

There are several theories why incest enjoys an almost universal taboo among human societies. One theory suggests the main reason is because it muddies the social relationships between relatives and can cause a great deal of confusion where familial and tribal ties are concerned. Hard to know who's supposed to inherit when you have multiple people who can claim to be equally related.

I'm still waiting for you to show me where someone here said it was ok.

In post # 207 you formulated an acceptance Agenda.
Which is what I said was taking place,way back.
Way ta get on board.
At least,you've somewhat cleared up any hypocritcal bias that
may lurk,unbeknowst to some,uninitiated.

Borg and I both did, actually. Well, we said it wasn't "morally wrong", which I suppose is not the same as saying it's completely alright, but that's what SMW is talking about.

Asking someone to explain why something is wrong is not the same as saying it's ok.

In post # 207 you formulated an acceptance Agenda.
Which is what I said was taking place,way back.
Way ta get on board.
At least,you've somewhat cleared up any hypocritcal bias that
may lurk,unbeknowst to some,uninitiated.

Do you have something coherent to say? If not, I'd appreciate it if you'd stop clotting up this thread.

Hard to know who's supposed to inherit when you have multiple people who can claim to be equally related.
The monarchies of Europe have already found this out!

Do you have something coherent to say? If not, I'd appreciate it if you'd stop clotting up this thread.

In yer type rhetoric ... " What part of my post is confounding to you? ".

SMW, I'm not an atheist, and I don't see what's wrong with incest from a moral standpoint. Of course it seems gross because of the social taboo against it, and I know that inbreeding causes genetic problems after several generations.

I've missed a lot of this thread and correct me if I'm reading something out of context but...

I know we've butted heads on ideas of morality before, but you don't see how engaging in an activity which drastically increases the probability of retardation of your children is immoral? I don't get that. Is that because you don't see retardation as a bad thing or something?

As a side note, I'm curious - could you tell me an example of what you consider immoral and why?

I've missed a lot of this thread and correct me if I'm reading something out of context but...

I know we've butted heads on ideas of morality before, but you don't see how engaging in an activity which drastically increases the probability of retardation of your children is immoral? I don't get that. Is that because you don't see retardation as a bad thing or something?
I've heard conflicting ideas on this... Most people seem to think that having children with your cousin results in retardation, but if that were true then why would it be legal to marry your first cousin in more than half the states in the U.S.? Admittedly I haven't done much research on this, which is why I'm not sure if I would classify incest as "immoral" or not, but I read somewhere that the chances of a genetic disability resulting from one generation of inbreeding is somewhere around 2% - something like 4 times as likely as if there were no inbreeding, but still not that high. Would you say it's immoral for mentally retarded people to procreate? How about people who have a gene for a serious genetic illness? Should we make it illegal for these people to have children?

EDIT: Just read that the increase in the possibility of genetic defects resulting from the offspring of two first cousins is the same as the increase in risk for a mother who is over 40. Should we say it's immoral for women over 40 to have children too?

As a side note, I'm curious - could you tell me an example of what you consider immoral and why?
Deliberate harm of any kind (physical or emotional) to another human being is immoral. Since that's practically the definition of immoral behavior, I don't think I have to explain why.

Dude! That was the funiest thing I've ever read. Perfectly logical people arguing for incest because they think it will protect gay rights or something.


Now I know why the truth is never spoken, because stupidity is born from it.

I take back everything I've said, homosexuals and homosexual activist can not understand why some people have to be hetersexual.

Dude! That was the funiest thing I've ever read. Perfectly logical people arguing for incest because they think it will protect gay rights or something.
Actually it's a completely different issue. Incest and gay rights have nothing to do with each other.

Actually it's a completely different issue. Incest and gay rights have nothing to do with each other.
Yes bnut the emotions involved with each can be used as an example.

Go ahead, explain why you wouldn't be a carpet diver?

I don't think you got the balls. lol

I also know that whenever Borg sees incest in the bible he has to point it out but in debate about homosexuals he defends it. What a croc.

I think I said it, Vile. And everytime I see a group of atheists stating there's nothing wrong with EATING human flesh or having SEX with one's brother or sister... it just moves that belief up another notch.

Boy, I must be attending the wrong atheist meetings. No one ever told me I was supposed to be eating human flesh and having sex with my brother.

I did get the nifty toaster though, when I signed up.

:rolleyes:

Go ahead, explain why you wouldn't be a carpet diver?

I don't think you got the balls. lol
I never said I wouldn't.

I also know that whenever Borg sees incest in the bible he has to point it out but in debate about homosexuals he defends it. What a croc.
I don't think Borg has ever used "incest in the Bible" in an argument about Christianity. That would be more of FT's style of attack. I could be wrong though. :)

Dude! That was the funiest thing I've ever read. Perfectly logical people arguing for incest because they think it will protect gay rights or something.

Now you're just making stuff up as you go along.


Now I know why the truth is never spoken, because stupidity is born from it.

I take back everything I've said, homosexuals and homosexual activist can not understand why some people have to be hetersexual.

And again. My question is, why?

I'm still trying to figure out how atheism got dragged into this discussion.

I'm still trying to figure out how atheism got dragged into this discussion.

I believe our resident atheist hater/baiter, SMW, had something to do with it.

By the way, have any of you other atheists gotten the bulletin about eating human flesh and having sex with your siblings? Mine must have gotten lost in the mail.

:confused:

I've heard conflicting ideas on this... Most people seem to think that having children with your cousin results in retardation, but if that were true then why would it be legal to marry your first cousin in more than half the states in the U.S.? Admittedly I haven't done much research on this, which is why I'm not sure if I would classify incest as "immoral" or not, but I read somewhere that the chances of a genetic disability resulting from one generation of inbreeding is somewhere around 2% - something like 4 times as likely as if there were no inbreeding, but still not that high.

I have the same understanding in regard to cousins - but I can't help but notice you're ignoring brothers and sisters. I think the risk of genetic disability increases to something like 13% in that scenario. With that in mind, I don't find cousins inbreeding nearly as morally reprehensible as brothers/sisters inbreeding - roughly speaking, I'd probably equate cousins inbreeding to drinking significant amounts of alcohol while you're pregnant, and siblings inbreeding to hitting your child in the head with a baseball bat.

Would you say it's immoral for mentally retarded people to procreate?

That's obviously different. You're talking about people who can't or have trouble developing ideas of immorality. Same goes with insane people or children. With that said, I think guardians have a moral obligation discourage such people from procreating.

How about people who have a gene for a serious genetic illness? Should we make it illegal for these people to have children?

Depends on the severity of the genetic illness and risk of it being passed on. But the short answer is "yes, it's probably immoral" but it doesn't equate to incest since incestuous individuals have more options than someone born with a genetic defect.

As for legality, it depends - I distinguish legality from morality. Making something illegal is a far more extreme than deciding it's immoral. For incest, I would say sibling inbreeding should be illegal, yes. Cousins - probably not. (Note: In Texas, it's legal to marry a cousin...I have no problem with that being legal)

EDIT: Just read that the increase in the possibility of genetic defects resulting from the offspring of two first cousins is the same as the increase in risk for a mother who is over 40. Should we say it's immoral for women over 40 to have children too?

No, I wouldn't say that is immoral - One can't change their age, but one can easily change who they have sex with. However, it's worth encouraging women to have children earlier in life for that reason, among others.

Deliberate harm of any kind (physical or emotional) to another human being is immoral. Since that's practically the definition of immoral behavior, I don't think I have to explain why.

What if I threw a knife at somebody and missed? Is that immoral? Assuming you think so, then you must agree that the risk of harming someone is immoral as well. If you knowingly act in such a way that causes your kid to have a 13% (if that's the right figure) chance of being retarded, whether it's beating them with a baseball bat or having sex with your brother, then I would think anyone would consider that immoral.

With that in mind, I don't find cousins inbreeding nearly as morally reprehensible as brothers/sisters inbreeding - roughly speaking, I'd probably equate cousins inbreeding to drinking significant amounts of alcohol while you're pregnant, and siblings inbreeding to hitting your child in the head with a baseball bat.
I don't think cousins inbreeding carries nearly the amount of risk of drinking significant amounts of alcohol while pregnant.

As for legality, it depends - I distinguish legality from morality. Making something illegal is a far more extreme than deciding it's immoral. For incest, I would say sibling inbreeding should be illegal, yes. Cousins - probably not. (Note: In Texas, it's legal to marry a cousin...I have no problem with that being legal)
I agree.

What if I threw a knife at somebody and missed? Is that immoral? Assuming you think so, then you must agree that the risk of harming someone is immoral as well. If you knowingly act in such a way that causes your kid to have a 13% (if that's the right figure) chance of being retarded, whether it's beating them with a baseball bat or having sex with your brother, then I would think anyone would consider that immoral.
I agree with this too. Obviously you also agree that there are degrees of immorality, and I'd hardly call beating a child with a baseball bat on the same level as sibling incest, even if they do carry the same amount of risk for retardation.

I don't think cousins inbreeding carries nearly the amount of risk of drinking significant amounts of alcohol while pregnant.

I'm sure it depends on how much a "significant amount of alcohol" we're talking about.

I agree with this too. Obviously you also agree that there are degrees of immorality, and I'd hardly call beating a child with a baseball bat on the same level as sibling incest, even if they do carry the same amount of risk for retardation.

Maybe not the "same" level but it's comparable - but I think sibling incest is worse than beating a child with your fist. (note: I meant to say only "your child" not just "a child" since I think attacking a stranger's child is worse than attacking your own).

Anyways, it sounds like we're close to actually being in agreement - assuming you're agreeing that sibling incest is immoral. Right?

I think that's one of the reasons that the "incest taboo" developed. People probably realized that mating within the family caused genetic disorders, and they decided that these people were cursed. To prevent the curse, no more nookie.

Anyways, it sounds like we're close to actually being in agreement - assuming you're agreeing that sibling incest is immoral. Right?
I'm not 100% sure about this, as I'd have to see more actual scientific facts to be convinced, but I'd say yes.

I have the same understanding in regard to cousins - but I can't help but notice you're ignoring brothers and sisters. I think the risk of genetic disability increases to something like 13% in that scenario. With that in mind, I don't find cousins inbreeding nearly as morally reprehensible as brothers/sisters inbreeding - roughly speaking, I'd probably equate cousins inbreeding to drinking significant amounts of alcohol while you're pregnant, and siblings inbreeding to hitting your child in the head with a baseball bat.
But sex doesn't necessarily lead to children--in fact, in the vast majority of cases, sex does not lead to children. I don't think a brother and a sister having a kid would be a good idea, and it'd probably be unfair to the kid if he was born with some sort of inherited disability. But just sex? What's the problem, aside from the "ickiness factor"?
No, I wouldn't say that is immoral - One can't change their age, but one can easily change who they have sex with. However, it's worth encouraging women to have children earlier in life for that reason, among others.
Is it immoral for merely stupid people to have children? Ugly people? People with a family history of heart disease?
I also know that whenever Borg sees incest in the bible he has to point it out but in debate about homosexuals he defends it.
Making shit up about me, eh? Nice move, dickhead.
I'm still waiting for you to show me where someone here said it was ok.
If a brother and a sister want to have sex, or a guy leaves in his will that he wants to be eaten and a couple people decide to give peopleburgers a shot, who the hell am I to say that's wrong? Nobody is having their rights violated. It's none of my business.

But sex doesn't necessarily lead to children--in fact, in the vast majority of cases, sex does not lead to children. I don't think a brother and a sister having a kid would be a good idea, and it'd probably be unfair to the kid if he was born with some sort of inherited disability. But just sex? What's the problem, aside from the "ickiness factor"?
This is where it gets sticky for me. I would agree that a brother and sister deliberately bringing children into the world with a high risk of disabilities is immoral. The problem is deciding if the risk of getting pregnant is high enough to call just the sex immoral. My instinct is to say no, but it raises questions. For instance, if a brother and sister are having "safe" sex with condoms and birth control pills, and they still manage to get pregnant, would you say they're immoral if they don't have an abortion? I can't make up my mind on this.

Is it immoral for merely stupid people to have children? Ugly people? People with a family history of heart disease?
Quite logical. I believe there is a test now for the genetic predisposition for breast cancer (saw it on Dr. Phil...). If two people with a long history of breast cancer in their families get married, and it's found that they both carry this breast cancer gene, would it be immoral for them to have children because their daughter(s) would be at increased risk for breast cancer? Again I would bring up the issue of women over 40, because I believe Leper dismissed it unfairly. If a woman over 40 has the same risk of having a child with a genetic disorder as a woman who has kids with her first cousin, why do we see sex with our cousins as "yucky" and "bad", while no one ever calls 45 year olds who want kids "immoral"?

But sex doesn't necessarily lead to children--in fact, in the vast majority of cases, sex does not lead to children. I don't think a brother and a sister having a kid would be a good idea, and it'd probably be unfair to the kid if he was born with some sort of inherited disability. But just sex? What's the problem, aside from the "ickiness factor"?

Sex = risk of reproducing - if you can definitively say there's no way to reproduce, that would change my opinion, yes.

Is it immoral for merely stupid people to have children? Ugly people? People with a family history of heart disease?


No. I don't equate retardation with ugliness, stupidity, or heart disease. I'm not arguing that you're morally obligated to have perfect babies.

Sex = risk of reproducing - if you can definitively say there's no way to reproduce, that would change my opinion, yes.
So two siblings having oral or anal sex would not be immoral, then?

So two siblings having oral or anal sex would not be immoral, then?
You can get pregnant from (male-female) anal sex... Highly unlikely, but with the close proximity... well you know what I'm saying.

That brings up a good point though. Leper, would you say that homosexual sex between siblings is fine then?

That brings up a good point though. Leper, would you say that homosexual sex between siblings is fine then?

Hmmm...it's a good question. I wouldn't say it's "immoral," but it's certainly disgusting.

So two siblings having oral or anal sex would not be immoral, then?

When it comes to siblings of the opposite sex, I wouldn't bother making the distinction - micromanaging their sexual activity is not practical, so I would label it all as incest.

Now you're just making stuff up as you go along.
Rotfl.

No I'm not, did you miss two pages in this thread? :p



And again. My question is, why?
Why homosexuals wont understand? or why hetersexuals could only be hetersexual?

I'll answer both.
You admitted yourself that every time you ask a hetersexual about the gay issue you always come back to the Lima bean question because they cant seem to give you a strieght answer. It seemed to be my understanding that it was your understanding that heterosexuals themselves didn't know.

I submit that that is not the case, that one of two things is happening.
First thing, is that any heterosexual you talk to is someone who would not want to hurt your feelings, so they're lyeing to you.
Me personally, I have more faith in you and understand the truth would only benefit you. So I'm explaining it the best I can.

Answer number two, hetersexuals simply dont know why, they take it for advantage that they are heterosexual.

In case that wasnt the question you were asking I'll give a third answer to a different question.
"What rights would homosexuals be violating"
As it is quite a few hetersexuals are completely disturbed by the idea of gay sex and find that getting the romantic attention of a homosexual is upsetting.
That in and of itself is the violation I'm speaking about.
I'm not saying this to be rude or insulting, I'm saying it because it is a fact of life. I feel I must alos point out that it's only being said to point out how heterosexuals feel about the "act" and not the person.
This "upsetting" feeling people get when approached by homosexuals "IS" very "upsetting" to quite a few people.

I really didn't want to bring this up but I'll give another example of the emotions involved.
In much the same way a man would run from a bull who is sexually interested, he would also want to run from a homosexual. It's a defencesive thing. Up until the gay guy says to the streight guy, I want your bod. The straight guy is perfectly alright with the gay guy.

There are a "few"(and I mean a "few") heterosexual men with enough wisdom to have the forsight of understanding. Who would not want to harm a gay guy emotionally and take his feelings into consideration. This catagory would also fall under the "I'm not confused about who I am" catagory.
There are some people who are confused and take the heterosexual stand who dont care if they get hit on by gay guys. Please don't let them confuse you.

Making shit up about me, eh? Nice move, dickhead.

Fuck you Borg.

When I first came here we were talking and I was using scriptures to debate with. Every time there was incest involved you pointed it out.

That was two years ago, so I'm sure you forgot, but you're still an ass for being a dick yourself.

Inviolable, we do not have the right not to be upset or offended in this country. If a gay person offends/upsets a straight person by coming onto them, this is not a violation of any rights. I'm surprised that you would say that it was, since I know you don't think anyone's rights are violated when people are offended by Christmas decorations or crosses on the side of the highway or anything like that.

When I first came here we were talking and I was using scriptures to debate with. Every time there was incest involved you pointed it out.
http://www.allforums.net/search.php?searchid=37812

Fuck you Borg.Lets try to keep this thread calm :)

Inviolable, we do not have the right not to be upset or offended in this country. If a gay person offends/upsets a straight person by coming onto them, this is not a violation of any rights. I'm surprised that you would say that it was, since I know you don't think anyone's rights are violated when people are offended by Christmas decorations or crosses on the side of the highway or anything like that.

DF, you're pretty smart for someone your age and I believe you have the ability to step up and get past this kind of two dimensional pattern of thought.

There is more to a persons rights then Christmas decorations.

I'll tell you a funny story. I often spend my time with people who are mentally ill. There was a guy who for no known reason just yanked his penis out when ever, where ever he felt like it and masterbated. Because he was mentally ill and people were trying to "help" him. They would ignore it.

I was standing in the office of a building thats there to help the mentally ill and talking to the people who ran the place when the guy stepped up and went to town. Everyone just kept going about what they were doing.
I started laughing at this, kind of a Benny Hill thing about it.
The guy masterbating walked toward me as he did his thing and asked what I was laughing at.
I yelled, Put your dick away dumbass you're in a public place!

Guess what, he put his dick away. Said he was sorry and walked away.

I still laugh at that.

"I dont care who you are, that right there is funny."

Point is, getting hit on by a gay guy is the same dam thing. If we let that go un-noticed we might as well let the masterbation guy run wild in the streets.

Point is, getting hit on by a gay guy is the same dam thing. If we let that go un-noticed we might as well let the masterbation guy run wild in the streets.

You think having a gay guy politely asking you on a date is the same as a mentally ill person masturbating in public?

Not even close. Try again.

You think having a gay guy politely asking you on a date is the same as a mentally ill person masturbating in public?


It's not entirely unfair - open homosexuality is offensive and revolting to a large sector of the population. I'd agree that public masturbation is more extreme, but the same "sense of decency" is the driving force behind the resentment of such actions. I mean, public masturbation is just as harmless as having a gay guy asking you out - what makes one wrong and not the other? The question is where do you draw the line and how do you decide what behavior is indecent and which is not - it's a difficult issue because the lines are not logic-based, but based on a sociological/cultural acceptance. IMO, your dismissal of the comparison is unwarranted.

It's not entirely unfair - open homosexuality is offensive and revolting to a large sector of the population.

Can you define "open homosexuality"?


I'd agree that public masturbation is more extreme, but the same "sense of decency" is the driving force behind the resentment of such actions.

Well, I don't consider asking someone politely to go out on a date even remotely "indecent".


I mean, public masturbation is just as harmless as having a gay guy asking you out - what makes one wrong and not the other?

How about the public display of your genitalia? Frankly Leper, the comparison is absurd.


The question is where do you draw the line and how do you decide what behavior is indecent and which is not - it's a difficult issue because the lines are not logic-based, but based on a sociological/cultural acceptance. IMO, your dismissal of the comparison is unwarranted.

In my opinion, there is no realistic comparison.

Tell me, what's the difference between two straight people kissing in public, and two straight people screwing in public? Do you think these actions are even remotely comparable?

[QUOTE=Vilepagan]Can you define "open homosexuality"?




Weld,some mite say,that it means when someone Gay has a
B'day,they're a Birthday Boy no matter what.
It may entail cross-dressing of one's party favors.
Have a Good Birthday and don't eat too Mush Cake.
Drink heartily and often.

Can you define "open homosexuality"?

Homosexual behavior conducted in public.

Well, I don't consider asking someone politely to go out on a date even remotely "indecent".

Sorry Vile, but I think you're deliberately mischaracterizing the issue - it's not about asking someone on a date; It's about asking someone to engage in homosexual behavior.

How about the public display of your genitalia? Frankly Leper, the comparison is absurd.

A)I don't understand your question - I think it's an incomplete thought, no?

B) Stating that the comparison is "absurd" does not make it so.

In my opinion, there is no realistic comparison.

Of course not, you're homosexual - that behavior is normal to you. But you do understand that a large sector (roughly, a third) of the population finds homosexual behavior revolting and offensive, don't you?

Tell me, what's the difference between two straight people kissing in public, and two straight people screwing in public? Do you think these actions are even remotely comparable?

The difference is the level of acceptance in society - public kissing is routinely accepted, public sex is almost never accepted. Yes, I think the actions are "remotely comparable" - afterall, both are public displays of affection.

Homosexual behavior conducted in public.

I see.


Sorry Vile, but I think you're deliberately mischaracterizing the issue - it's not about asking someone on a date; It's about asking someone to engage in homosexual behavior.

Is that what we're discussing? Inviolable used the term "hit on", so I suppose it depends on what you might take that phrase to mean. To me, "hit on" refers to an initial advance. If I'm meeting someone for the first time, I don't usually ask them if they want a blowjob, I ask them on a date. Perhaps you move a little faster than I do. :)


A)I don't understand your question - I think it's an incomplete thought, no?

Poorly phrased on my part.

You asked:

"I mean, public masturbation is just as harmless as having a gay guy asking you out - what makes one wrong and not the other?"

My response is that the difference is the public display of genitalia.


B) Stating that the comparison is "absurd" does not make it so.

It does when you're expressing an opinion, which is what I was doing. No doubt some people would find masturbation in public to be perfectly acceptable, but I don't agree.


Of course not, you're homosexual - that behavior is normal to you. But you do understand that a large sector (roughly, a third) of the population finds homosexual behavior revolting and offensive, don't you?

Aren't we talking about society as a whole? If your figure is accurate, and I have no reason to suspect that it is or isn't, that would mean that two-thirds of the population don't think such things.


The difference is the level of acceptance in society - public kissing is routinely accepted, public sex is almost never accepted. Yes, I think the actions are "remotely comparable" - afterall, both are public displays of affection.

Both actions are committed by humans as well so you could say they are comparable because of that, but it has little relevance to our discussion.

I guess I shouldn't have used the word "remotely". Do you think there's any meaningful comparison in the context of this discussion? Do you think a reasonable person should find both behaviors equally, or nearly equally offensive?

Is that what we're discussing? Inviolable used the term "hit on", so I suppose it depends on what you might take that phrase to mean. To me, "hit on" refers to an initial advance. If I'm meeting someone for the first time, I don't usually ask them if they want a blowjob, I ask them on a date. Perhaps you move a little faster than I do. :)


Haha, I wish I moved faster. Then again, when I think about it, maybe I don't...

But it's not that I disagree with your understanding of what it means to be "hit on." Rather, I disagree with your characterizing the issue without any reference "homosexuality" in any shape or form, which makes all of the difference. As I'm sure you know, homosexuality is what has social taboos associated with it, not going out on a date.

Poorly phrased on my part.

You asked:

"I mean, public masturbation is just as harmless as having a gay guy asking you out - what makes one wrong and not the other?"

My response is that the difference is the public display of genitalia.

Understood - so what makes the public display of genitalia wrong and open homosexuality okay?

Aren't we talking about society as a whole? If your figure is accurate, and I have no reason to suspect that it is or isn't, that would mean that two-thirds of the population don't think such things.

We are talking about society as a whole - but society does often cater to minority populations, particularly minority populations that compose as much as a third of the population.

Both actions are committed by humans as well so you could say they are comparable because of that, but it has little relevance to our discussion.

Fair enough - looking back, I can see my response was somewhat obtuse.

I guess I shouldn't have used the word "remotely". Do you think there's any meaningful comparison in the context of this discussion? Do you think a reasonable person should find both behaviors equally, or nearly equally offensive?

Still, my answer is yes - I think the two behaviors (public sex and public kissing) are comparable in the sense that both behaviors are guided by a common sense of decency. Likewise, open homosexuality and public masturbation are guided by a common sense of decency.

I guess the issue, which I think Inviolable touches on, is what's decent and what's not. Public hetero kissing clearly falls on one side of the issue while public hetero sex and public masturbation clearly fall on the other side. However, it seems open homosexuality falls somewhere in a grey area where we, as a society, are divided as to what's "decent."

The issue begs a couple of questions: How do you define what's decent in society? What purpose does a sense of decency serve to a society in the first place?

Anyways, my point was that I thought you were unduly dismissive of Inviolable's point - which was basically an argument that homosexual behavior is indecent. I don't think I agree, but I can't deny that I don't like being associated with homosexuals and I would be somewhat chagrined/turned off if a guy asked me out on a date.

Understood - so what makes the public display of genitalia wrong and open homosexuality okay?. LOL.. is this guy for real?


I can't deny that I don't like being associated with homosexuals. from reading what you posted I dont think they would mind much at that fact.

I would be somewhat chagrined/turned off if a guy asked me out on a date. well,i wouldn't imagined you would be turned on either. If i homosexual male asked me out,i would treat it like i would treat an unattractive female. i would smile,decline politely. I wouldn't take it as a show of disrespect. I wouldn't be outraged. Infact it might even inflate my ego somewhat in either case.

But it's not that I disagree with your understanding of what it means to be "hit on." Rather, I disagree with your characterizing the issue without any reference "homosexuality" in any shape or form, which makes all of the difference. As I'm sure you know, homosexuality is what has social taboos associated with it, not going out on a date.

Understood - so what makes the public display of genitalia wrong and open homosexuality okay?

Again, I'm still not sure I understand what you mean by "open homosexuality". I don't consider asking someone on a date to be a sexual act, regardless of what my later intentions might be. If I ask you to sleep with me that's a different story.

Understood - so what makes the public display of genitalia wrong and open homosexuality okay?


You serious? If two guys walked by me and were holding hands or were sitting over on a park bench and kissed or something I wouldn't care. If they started making out then maybe I would, but then again if a man and a woman did the same thing I would tell them to get a room just the same. If a guy walked by me waving his dick around I'd call the cops. Big difference, at least to me.

so what makes the public display of genitalia wrong
The fact that our puritanical culture has a problem with the human body. There is nothing inherently wrong with traipsing about naked.

You serious? If two guys walked by me and were holding hands or were sitting over on a park bench and kissed or something I wouldn't care. If they started making out then maybe I would, but then again if a man and a woman did the same thing I would tell them to get a room just the same. If a guy walked by me waving his dick around I'd call the cops. Big difference, at least to me.

Way to miss the point of the question - the question is what makes one okay and what makes the other wrong - not "what's the difference"? If you read my entire post, I'm questioning the mechanics of how we as a society decide something is indecent. If someone shows their genitals to you, you could just as easily ignore that as harmless behavior as you could ignore people making out on the bench.

The fact that our puritanical culture has a problem with the human body. There is nothing inherently wrong with traipsing about naked.

I was wondering when you would jump in on this one - you seem to have a curiously extreme philosophy of dismissing all notions of decency. I was curious how far you will take that - would you go so far to say there's nothing wrong with masturbating in public?

I was wondering when you would jump in on this one - you seem to have a curiously extreme philosophy of dismissing all notions of decency.
Bah, I knew I'd miss my sig quotes just when I got rid of 'em. I'm sure old Barry would have some words of wisdom here vis-a-vis extremism. Although he doesn't seem like the type to go in for public nudity...though you never know.
I was curious how far you will take that - would you go so far to say there's nothing wrong with masturbating in public?
This one is tough. I would argue that doing so with intent to antagonize someone else would probably fall under sexual assault...though that intent would be hard to prove, especially because it would be based on flimsy and transient evidence like eye contact. Lacking a feasible way to differentiate between the two legally, I'd probably not be willing to legalize public sexual acts (except on private property in areas clearly designated as such, not visible from public property), but I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with exhibitionism if it isn't done with intent to antagonize or disturb. But that's a philosophical, rather than legal, point.

This reading was something however no one mentioned anything about moments in our life's. I think some may just want to get exposure or in your face attitude but some have just proposed, started a honeymoon, a wedding day or just having the first kiss. I won't want to see a couple punished for getting caught up in the moment.

I agree with Borg on this one. I have absolutely no problem with nudity, whether it involves me or other people. Of course I'd like to see the really fat/old people cover up more than the young hot ones, but it's not like I spend a lot of time looking in their direction anyways. However, public sexual acts (like masturbation) are not ok.

No they arent......

I like being Nude and i wish there were more areas where you could do it w/o worrying of people laughing,etc....... (Nothing wrong with no clothes i dont think)

Bah, I knew I'd miss my sig quotes just when I got rid of 'em. I'm sure old Barry would have some words of wisdom here vis-a-vis extremism. Although he doesn't seem like the type to go in for public nudity...though you never know.

This one is tough. I would argue that doing so with intent to antagonize someone else would probably fall under sexual assault...though that intent would be hard to prove, especially because it would be based on flimsy and transient evidence like eye contact. Lacking a feasible way to differentiate between the two legally, I'd probably not be willing to legalize public sexual acts (except on private property in areas clearly designated as such, not visible from public property), but I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with exhibitionism if it isn't done with intent to antagonize or disturb. But that's a philosophical, rather than legal, point.

Well, I disagree somewhat but you're consistent - I'll give you that. Let me ask you this - do you think notions of decency serve any practical purpose in society? If not, do you think society should dispense with all notions of decency? Why or why not?

Let me ask you this - do you think notions of decency serve any practical purpose in society? If not, do you think society should dispense with all notions of decency? Why or why not?
Depends on how you define "decency". If by decency you mean a distrust of sex and the human body, no, I don't think it serves any practical purpose. In fact, a notion of decency in that sense is causally related to the spread of unwanted pregnancies and STDs, as the same people calling for decency are often the ones calling for restrictions on condoms and birth control.

You think having a gay guy politely asking you on a date is the same as a mentally ill person masturbating in public?

Not even close. Try again.
Says, the homosexual who tells a hetersexual his views on hetersexuality are opinion.
I'm not gay, I have no idea what makes a gay person tick so I wouldn't expect you to understand the same when it comes to heterosexuals.
I am however a rational human being. As are you. Clearly we're both capable of seeing each others points of view.

Lets just say, some opinions are more popular then others. Which leaves the popular ones in the realm of reality and they do effect our every day lives.

My opinions on homosexuality are very effectively leaving their mark on your reality and mine. The entire point of this conversation was to see if we could meet in the middle.
So far we haven't been able to.

When a shrink wants their patient to overcome their dissability, they sometimes use a school of thought that helps the patient to deal with reality.

Quite often people will recoil from someone they think has something wrong with them mentally.
Say for instance, you seen a guy screaming to himself as he walked down the street. You'd steer clear of him.
But there is a reason the guy is screaming at himself. Something that happened to him in his life that he has lost control of. If in fact you yourself knew what that was, you would probably feel sympathy for the guy and instead of steering clear you might want to reach out to him.
You would of course have to know what it was that happened to the screaming guy before you offered him help.
It's a two way street. Before you even know why the guy is screaming you're ready to give him a wide birth.
You're reacting to him defensively for no other reason then the fact that you think he may not know wrong from right. When all he needs to do is overcome that one moment in his life.

You know why you're a homosexual, because you have no choice.
But to a hetersexual who absolutely doesn't like the act of homosexuality, they only know that you have no choice.
It's the same two way street.
If a 6' 6", 300+ pound, guy came at me with bedroom eyes, I'd run the other way.
I don't know his story and he surely doesn't know mine, otherwise he wouldn't have bothered to approach me in the first place.

It's important that someone some where explain why they have no choice so we can all share the street.
Understand?

Says, the homosexual who tells a hetersexual his views on hetersexuality are opinion.
I'm not gay, I have no idea what makes a gay person tick so I wouldn't expect you to understand the same when it comes to heterosexuals.
I am however a rational human being. As are you. Clearly we're both capable of seeing each others points of view.

Lets just say, some opinions are more popular then others. Which leaves the popular ones in the realm of reality and they do effect our every day lives.

My opinions on homosexuality are very effectively leaving their mark on your reality and mine. The entire point of this conversation was to see if we could meet in the middle.
So far we haven't been able to.

When a shrink wants their patient to overcome their dissability, they sometimes use a school of thought that helps the patient to deal with reality.

Quite often people will recoil from someone they think has something wrong with them mentally.
Say for instance, you seen a guy screaming to himself as he walked down the street. You'd steer clear of him.
But there is a reason the guy is screaming at himself. Something that happened to him in his life that he has lost control of. If in fact you yourself knew what that was, you would probably feel sympathy for the guy and instead of steering clear you might want to reach out to him.
You would of course have to know what it was that happened to the screaming guy before you offered him help.
It's a two way street. Before you even know why the guy is screaming you're ready to give him a wide birth.
You're reacting to him defensively for no other reason then the fact that you think he may not know wrong from right. When all he needs to do is overcome that one moment in his life.

You know why you're a homosexual, because you have no choice.
But to a hetersexual who absolutely doesn't like the act of homosexuality, they only know that you have no choice.
It's the same two way street.
If a 6' 6", 300+ pound, guy came at me with bedroom eyes, I'd run the other way.
I don't know his story and he surely doesn't know mine, otherwise he wouldn't have bothered to approach me in the first place.

It's important that someone some where explain why they have no choice so we can all share the street.
Understand?

Waaaaaaaay TOO wordy.I was beginnin to sense I mite need to put
me jammies on,and call it a night.
You need to present valid argument in a far more concise and
direct point of view.
How many times do i gotta tell yuz'all bout this.

Haha I love you Foolie. :)

foolie is totally ACES in my book. i would love to sit down with a bottle of scotch and pick his brain.

foolie is totally ACES in my book. i would love to sit down with a bottle of scotch and pick his brain.An electron microscope might work better than a bottle of scotch. :)