The world's gayest nation

[Anonymous]

I think the thing here is that me and goangod see the same problem and yet our solutions to it are polar opposites.

Basically, we both see that you can't just go around deciding that some sorts of sex are ok and some aren't, which is what people ALWAYS do.

Yep well... ALWAYS is a little rigid.
Just to clarify... I dont make decisions about what is ok with sex. If someone is comfortable with their sexuality, then who are we to decide if it is normal or not?

Of course, goangod's response to this problem is that we should crack down on everything except good old fashioned heterosexual sex (preferably between married couples?).

Whereas me, being a complete far left anti-morality lunatic, just thinks we should let anything and everything go that isn't rape.

Feel free to correct my analysis goangod.

I agree with the view that what happens between consenting adults is no one else's business. Some people seem to have trouble accepting this.
btw, I don't blame you for distancing yourself from goangod.

 

[Anonymous]

Just to clarify... I dont make decisions about what is ok with sex. If someone is comfortable with their sexuality, then who are we to decide if it is normal or not?

I agree but to be honest I'm not sure if you do. It sounds here like you're allowing for paedophilia and all sorts of other things.

Something I'm not afraid to argue, but I've never met anyone else who is really willing to go there.

 

[millersnose]

hmmm

thought provoking

but lets face it most of us were sex mad throughout our teens

still this isnt going to sit well with other posters when they arrive here tomorro

should be a fun day

 

[Anonymous]

Just to clarify... I dont make decisions about what is ok with sex. If someone is comfortable with their sexuality, then who are we to decide if it is normal or not?

I agree but to be honest I'm not sure if you do. It sounds here like you're allowing for paedophilia and all sorts of other things.

Something I'm not afraid to argue, but I've never met anyone else who is really willing to go there.

No.... I never said that. I said between consenting adults.... you should have read the rest of my last post.
Defining 'adult' seems to be the issue.

You might recall my example of a 17 year old boy and a 15 year old girl. The girl is quite possibly more mature than the boy.
But then there's the much older men who argue that 'she was 14 going on 24' - in which case its gets very dodgy indeed. Its the excuse that one particular Aussie pop star used in the 70s just before he went down for carnal knowledge.

 

[ozcrusader]

It hasn't proven anything goangod, all its proven is that there will always be idiots in society wanting to push the boundaries.

You freakin lunatic :lol: - this is exactly my point. People like YOU push the boundaries to allow homosexuality - yet when Thierry pushes the very same boundaries - he is an 'idiot'

LOL
LOL
LOL

I have been strong all along that paedophilia is child abuse, beastiality is animal abuse etc. Homosexuality is sex between consenting adults, no abuse or illegal activity involved. Its a totally different kettle of fish.

Uh huh - but if the child consents - then there is no problem. And if both children consent - then they are two consenting children so there is no abuse there.

 

[ozcrusader]

Proves a point though. He'd even support a pro-paedophile argument if it meant laying the boot into a twinkieism.

Ah Willow - you strive so hard to disguise your stupidity, yet it always shines through.

It would be obvious to anyone with the least bit of intelligence (this excludes you) that I am in no way supporting Thierry. What I have said (I hate having to spell things out for idiots), is that Thierry's point proves what I have been saying all along.

Someone comes up (Salivor) and says, "The moral arguments against homosexuality are stupid and should be dispensed with. Anyone who disagrees is a homophobe. We should allow free sexual expression"

Then someone else comes up (Thierry) and says "The moral arguments against pedophilia are stupid and should be dispensed with. Anyone who disagrees is a pedophiliaphobe. We should allow free sexual expression"

This is my point - once you push the boundaries for one argument, you have to do it for another.

 

[ozcrusader]

I think the thing here is that me and goangod see the same problem and yet our solutions to it are polar opposites.

Basically, we both see that you can't just go around deciding that some sorts of sex are ok and some aren't, which is what people ALWAYS do.

Of course, goangod's response to this problem is that we should crack down on everything except good old fashioned heterosexual sex (preferably between married couples?).

Whereas me, being a complete far left anti-morality lunatic, just thinks we should let anything and everything go that isn't rape.

Feel free to correct my analysis goangod.

Thierry, your analysis both scores 100% for succintness and accuracy. I am gratified that you have been able to cut to the chase so to speak.

 

[ozcrusader]

Where is this post by goangod in the Forum Sevens? (actually I mean this as a serious question because I dont remember).
Apart from that, I have no idea what you're talking about.

You'll have to ask Brook. It was sometime ago but I pm'ed it to her because I couldnt post it myself. She can confirm this (I hope)

Well thats a nice cop out. If you deny your homophobia, then you're kidding yourself. You've already said that you have a moral / religious objection to homosexuality.

Dumbass.
Because someone has a moral/religious objection to heterosexuality does not qualify one as 'homophobic'. Maybe you should provide a definition.

Why not? How does it hurt you if two people care enough for each other to marry?

lol - then why not incest Willow? You havent been game enough to answer this one yet.

I assume that you equate marriage to something officially ordained. Fact is, it is legal for a hetrosexual couple to have a defacto marriage in Australia so imo, it should be legal for homosexual couples to expect the same equality.

Which I think is totally incorrect. De facto benefits and no fault divorce laws should both go.
However, by your logic it should also be legal for incest, bestiality and pedophilia. These are loving households with all the basics being supplied, why should anyone judge the sexuality of the parents?

LMAO... in other words, remain judgmental but leave it to others to deal with the issues. You just told everyone that you have no bloody idea. :roll:

That's correct. I would recommend they seek help from a trained professional. What if someone came to you and talked about suicide?
Same deal. I can provide basic advice - but this is someones life we are talking about here. Are you a trained therapist/psychologist/any kind of health care professional Willow? On what basis are you qualified to give advice?

rightio.. sounds like you're worried that the African figures will further weaken your position.

Sounds like someone is too chickensh*t to prove his own points.

 

[ozcrusader]

It didn't bother me in the slightest goangod as I think we've both given as good as we've got in this thread as far as insults go.

Fair enough.

What question is this? I thought I answered everything?

Goangod, it’s early in the morning and I've got up to about 20 new posts in this thread. There is a question back there someone but I'm sure neither yourself or I have the energy to go and find it lol.

lol - yes true. I intended a few posts here and there Salivor - not a 10 page debate

Yes I did freely admit that I have moral reasons against many of these things. What you can't deny is that I have been strong since the start that child pornography and paedophilia is child abuse and bestiality is animal abuse. Yet you only want to think that the only reason I am against this is because of morals.

I'm not denying that at all. But IMO, if you are so willing to discard the moral injunctions of other people, then you shouldnt very well hold onto moral injunctions yourself should you?

Secondly points 2 and 3 are not mine. Brook stated those points, I have not discussed either and don't particularly agree with either of them so please don't tar me with the same brush.

Agreed - they were Brooks. I am interested to know why you dont agree with them though.

Firstly I have given you my opinion on abortion. It’s in an earlier thread that you have obviously not read. I don't take abortion lightly so please don't throw that crap down my throat.

Hang on - I do recall reading it, but I dont remember the substance.
So let me ask you - when is an abortion acceptable for a woman?

Secondly, now your just assuming I think necrophilia is morally wrong. If a mature adult consents to have their body used in that way after death then what exactly is the problem?

Let me just get this right. You have absolutely no objection to that necrophilia if the person consents????

Like the murder example though we are talking about illegal activities so in the end consent or my morals count for zero.

LOL. Your hypocrisy astounds me.
Firstly, dont hide behind the law.
There are laws against homosexuality and homosexual marriage which you think should be overturned.

So now suddenly you have developed this newfound respect for the law?

Secondly, why do you think the law against necrophilia is in place? Its a moral reason. Why shouldnt we dispense with this moral reason and change this law the same way you are willing to do for homosexuality?

There’s no dead horse here to flog goangod. I think you've done all the work for me here. I’ll just play your game here: we don’t have an accurate measure of homosexuals in society - there could be many more or many less of them - and yet you are quite willing to place your trust in these studies.
These word games really are fun after all goangod.

Sorry - no scientific study or research ever has the exact numbers or details - it is a lame argument.

 

[Anonymous]

Proves a point though. He'd even support a pro-paedophile argument if it meant laying the boot into a twinkieism.

Ah Willow - you strive so hard to disguise your stupidity, yet it always shines through.

It would be obvious to anyone with the least bit of intelligence (this excludes you) that I am in no way supporting Thierry. What I have said (I hate having to spell things out for idiots), is that Thierry's point proves what I have been saying all along.

Someone comes up (Salivor) and says, "The moral arguments against homosexuality are stupid and should be dispensed with. Anyone who disagrees is a homophobe. We should allow free sexual expression"

Then someone else comes up (Thierry) and says "The moral arguments against pedophilia are stupid and should be dispensed with. Anyone who disagrees is a pedophiliaphobe. We should allow free sexual expression"

This is my point - once you push the boundaries for one argument, you have to do it for another.

And you were doing so well before... I mean, by slowing backing out of the room, watching your own arse and never losing eye contact, you were actually making something of a clean get away. :lol:

You live in such a black and white world. What a pity... as soon as someone suggests anything which deviates from your rigid prejudice, you feel compelled to level humourless, petty insults their way. A sure sign that you're in way above your head.

Whats next goangod...? Perhaps another twinkie-bashing post or maybe a whole new thread directed at salivor...? Most likely it'll just be more ridiculous comparisons and twisted morality. tsk tsk tsk. :roll:

 

[ozcrusader]

And you were doing so well before... I mean, by slowing backing out of the room, watching your own arse and never losing eye contact, you were actually making something of a clean get away. :lol:

You live in such a black and white world. What a pity... as soon as someone suggests anything which deviates from your rigid prejudice, you feel compelled to level humourless, petty insults their way. A sure sign that you're in way above your head.

Whats next goangod...? Perhaps another twinkie-bashing post or maybe a whole new thread directed at salivor...? Most likely it'll just be more ridiculous comparisons and twisted morality. tsk tsk tsk. :roll:

Hey Willow - congratulations - thats a whole entire post without answering a single question, addressing a single argument or making a single point. :lol:

 

[Anonymous]

Well thats a nice cop out. If you deny your homophobia, then you're kidding yourself. You've already said that you have a moral / religious objection to homosexuality.

Dumbass.
Because someone has a moral/religious objection to heterosexuality does not qualify one as 'homophobic'. Maybe you should provide a definition.

More childish insults... :roll: And now you say you have a moral/religious objection to heterosexuality...? A Freudian slip perhaps? Maybe its just sex that you dont like.
Obviously I was referring to insistence that your 'morality' is reason enough to attack Gays - people who wouldn't want to touch you with a barge pole. I still dont know what your problem is.

Why not? How does it hurt you if two people care enough for each other to marry?

lol - then why not incest Willow? You havent been game enough to answer this one yet.

Don't be silly... I dont recall you asking me this before. It would have more appropiate if you answered my question first though.
Incest isnt something I can't pass much of an opinion on because there seems to a variety of circumstances. Also, I simply dont know a great deal about it (apart from the mainsteam information).
In some cultures I believe its acceptable but its not advisable for incestious hetrosexual couples to reproduce... this being the source of the taboo. But like I said, its not something I've read up on.
You generalise too much.
Now try answering the actual question without starting another subject.

I assume that you equate marriage to something officially ordained. Fact is, it is legal for a hetrosexual couple to have a defacto marriage in Australia so imo, it should be legal for homosexual couples to expect the same equality.

Which I think is totally incorrect. De facto benefits and no fault divorce laws should both go.
However, by your logic it should also be legal for incest, bestiality and pedophilia. These are loving households with all the basics being supplied, why should anyone judge the sexuality of the parents?

Oh well... another prejudice rears its ugly head. Its not 'my logic' - its the law - it is NOT totally incorrect. Defacto marriage is legal in Australia.. but I guess you see this as a malfunction of society which needs to be 'corrected'.

You're saying that a couple should not receive benefits unless they get married. You're also saying that people should be denied their right to divorce.
Thats all a very closed minded attitude. Which boat on the First Fleet did you arrive on?

And your comparison to beastiality etc is totally irrelevant. For heaven's sake, I'm not suggesting that we all go and live in abusive relationships. Once again, you generalise too much.

LMAO... in other words, remain judgmental but leave it to others to deal with the issues. You just told everyone that you have no bloody idea. :roll:

That's correct. I would recommend they seek help from a trained professional. What if someone came to you and talked about suicide?
Same deal. I can provide basic advice - but this is someones life we are talking about here. Are you a trained therapist/psychologist/any kind of health care professional Willow? On what basis are you qualified to give advice?

There's your attitude in a nutshell. You actually think that there is something wrong with gays that needs to be corrected. Your absurd comparison with suicide says that you believe there to be a psychological disorder of some sort with homosexuals.

FYI, I have advised a person with suicidal tendancies but that was only because there was no 'trained professional' on hand.
I wouldn't even attempt to advise a homosexual on their sexuality because in basic terms, I dont consider that person to need therapy.

Tell me, who do you think is best qualified to 'help' a gay person. What sort of moral counselling should they get?
By suggesting that homosexuals need professional psychological therapy is proof enough that you really don't know what you're talking about.

rightio.. sounds like you're worried that the African figures will further weaken your position.

Sounds like someone is too chickensh*t to prove his own points.

So you dont like Chickenshitism as well? Thats very mature of you and another rung on the petty insult ladder. Keep trying goangod... one day you'll be able to get through a whole thread with it getting the better of you. :lol:

 

[salivor]

I'm not denying that at all. But IMO, if you are so willing to discard the moral injunctions of other people, then you shouldnt very well hold onto moral injunctions yourself should you?

Your right, throw those out the window because my argument actually has something other than morals to back it up.

Agreed - they were Brooks. I am interested to know why you dont agree with them though.

.

It simply hasn't been part of my argument but you were quite to tar me with the same brush.

Hang on - I do recall reading it, but I dont remember the substance.
So let me ask you - when is an abortion acceptable for a woman?

I believe that life doesn't start until the start of independent thought while those who are anti-abortion genuinely believe it starts at conception. It may well be just a "hunk of meat" but abortion isn't a matter to be taken lightly and should be a last resort. You may be trying to pin me into a corner but its not working. Just because abortion is an option, it doesn’t mean that incestuous couples will use it. What’s to stop them going ahead and having a baby that risks having birth defects?

Let me just get this right. You have absolutely no objection to that necrophilia if the person consents????
LOL. Your hypocrisy astounds me.
Firstly, dont hide behind the law.
There are laws against homosexuality and homosexual marriage which you think should be overturned.

So now suddenly you have developed this newfound respect for the law?

Secondly, why do you think the law against necrophilia is in place? Its a moral reason. Why shouldnt we dispense with this moral reason and change this law the same way you are willing to do for homosexuality?

Tell me who is being harmed by necrophilia? If a sane, mature adult wishes to consent to such a proposal as you put forward, just who is being harmed? The murder example probably wasn't the best one to use as there is a victim involved whether consent is given or not.

Sorry - no scientific study or research ever has the exact numbers or details - it is a lame argument.

Your words not mine.

 

[salivor]

It hasn't proven anything goangod, all its proven is that there will always be idiots in society wanting to push the boundaries.

You freakin lunatic :lol: - this is exactly my point. People like YOU push the boundaries to allow homosexuality - yet when Thierry pushes the very same boundaries - he is an 'idiot'

LOL
LOL
LOL

I have been strong all along that paedophilia is child abuse, beastiality is animal abuse etc. Homosexuality is sex between consenting adults, no abuse or illegal activity involved. Its a totally different kettle of fish.

Uh huh - but if the child consents - then there is no problem. And if both children consent - then they are two consenting children so there is no abuse there.

I'm not pushing any boundaries goangod. For the 1000th time, homosexuality is between consenting adults, paedophilia isn't. A child can't consent because they don't have the maturity to make that judgement. FFS, who is the dumbarse in this debate? Next time you want to cover old ground come back to this reply and remind yourself that broken records aren't fun to hear.

 

[salivor]

That's correct. I would recommend they seek help from a trained professional. What if someone came to you and talked about suicide?
Same deal. I can provide basic advice - but this is someones life we are talking about here. Are you a trained therapist/psychologist/any kind of health care professional Willow? On what basis are you qualified to give advice?

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Goangod, goangod, goangod, you have just shown how out of touch with reality and society you really are. I recommend you want the movie "But I'm a cheerleader". You'd love it; it’s quite a humorous movie really taking the piss out of these camps that feel they can cure homosexuality. Sadly I think you'd take most of it seriously and feel the people were actually changed in the end such is your delusion. Unfortunately there are still some people out there that think homosexuality is a curable disease, sort of in the same bracket as those that thought the holocaust never happened :lol: .

 

[Moffo]

The laws in a society at any one point in time should be a reflection of the views of society at the time

Back in Ancient Rome, sex with kids was acceptable. Hence there was legal sex

In 2003, such an act is frowned upon. So it is illegal. Whats changed? The attitude of society to the act

So who is right, the ancient Romans or us? The law is a reflection of the values of society. In 200 years time, sex with kids may somehow become legal again due to some whacked out justification.

Homosexuality has been acceptable at different times throughout society. In some cultures, it still is. But what makes our view more correct then those who had a different opinion of it in the past?

Absolutely nothing. It comes back to the individuals beliefs. And if i don't personally believe in homosexual sex or paedophilia, i don't think i need to prove anything else beyond that. And that argument works on the flip side as well.

I can see Thierry's argument. Values change, attitudes change, laws change. For the last 2000yrs, most of our laws and values have revolved around religion. Now, with the number of non-religious people at an all time high, we are in for an interesting future

Cheers,
Moffo

 

[ozcrusader]

Tell me who is being harmed by necrophilia? If a sane, mature adult wishes to consent to such a proposal as you put forward, just who is being harmed?

Before I get to the rest of your post (tonight), I just want to make sure everyone reads this so they know how you think.

I'm trying to argue homosexuality is unnatural to someone who thinks having sex with corpses is A-Ok. :roll:

Brook, Thierry, e2w,Willow, Millers, Moffo - I take it you all agree with this logic??

 

[Moffo]

Tell me who is being harmed by necrophilia? If a sane, mature adult wishes to consent to such a proposal as you put forward, just who is being harmed?

Before I get to the rest of your post (tonight), I just want to make sure everyone reads this so they know how you think.

I'm trying to argue homosexuality is unnatural to someone who thinks having sex with corpses is A-Ok. :roll:

Brook, Thierry, e2w,Willow, Millers, Moffo - I take it you all agree with this logic??

Umm..to each their own i guess. Some people have weird value systems mate, what else can i say :lol:

But its not for us to say that they are wrong

Cheers,
Moffo

 

[Anonymous]

Tell me who is being harmed by necrophilia? If a sane, mature adult wishes to consent to such a proposal as you put forward, just who is being harmed?

Before I get to the rest of your post (tonight), I just want to make sure everyone reads this so they know how you think.

I'm trying to argue homosexuality is unnatural to someone who thinks having sex with corpses is A-Ok. :roll:

Brook, Thierry, e2w,Willow, Millers, Moffo - I take it you all agree with this logic??

I thought it was pretty funny.
Necrophilia is OK as long as its between consenting adults. :lol:

 

[Moffo]

Tell me who is being harmed by necrophilia? If a sane, mature adult wishes to consent to such a proposal as you put forward, just who is being harmed?

Before I get to the rest of your post (tonight), I just want to make sure everyone reads this so they know how you think.

I'm trying to argue homosexuality is unnatural to someone who thinks having sex with corpses is A-Ok. :roll:

Brook, Thierry, e2w,Willow, Millers, Moffo - I take it you all agree with this logic??

I thought it was pretty funny.
Necrophilia is OK as long as its between consenting adults. :lol:

how can they consent if their dead? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

\\/ \\/ \\/ \\/ \\/ \\/

Cheers,
Moffo