The world's gayest nation

[salivor]

As usual Goangod you've failed to quote big parts of my argument, missing the one question I actually posed to you. Surprise surprise? Didn't want to answer that one did you? You've been avoiding it for several posts. No doubt you won't even quote this first paragraph.

In your previous post I clicked on the medical institute link summerising the whole lot and surprise surprise the address was Austin, Texas, USA. Most of our argument has evolved around the United States, when faced with Africa's AIDS epedemic amongst heterosexuals you didn't want to know. Though doesn't it bother you when you go to that effort to get sources and then someone doesn't read them? I know it does because thats exactly what you did to me earlier in the debate when my sources didn't exactly back up your argument :lol: .

Simple fact is I've told you that yes I have a moral viewpoint against child pornography and beastiality but the fact that I view these as child and animal abuse has nothing to do with morals. You conviently failed to address this.

Whether you like it or not we don't have an accurate measure on the homosexuals in our society. I've never been asked my sexuality on a census form, never been asked by a doctor or anyone carrying out research. We don't know, you only assume that homosexuals make up a small percentage of the community. Yet I know you don't want to directly address this so its ok goangod you don't have to.

 

[JoeD]

Not in church mate, or on church grounds, if I saw anyone of the same sex touching each other in a queer manner I would throw them out without hesitation.
I wouldnt care who they were.

Nothing is more important than our freedom to choose.

Don't you see the contradiction here?

 

[Moffo]

](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,)
Moffo, you didn't even read a word of my post and don't tell me to answer a question when you've failed to answer about 20 that I've put to you. Go away because your wasting my time. Geez I never thought I'd say this but goangod has got more legs to stand on than you.

I refer you back to post 150 again. And yes, i did read your post. Question is, did u read mine?

Thanks and in anticipation of a prompt response,
Moffo

 

[salivor]

Prompt is the response. I'm not bothering to debate with you moffo. You've failed to answer any question I've put to you or reply to any point I've raised since about the third reply I directed at you. I won't be wasting any more time writing replies for you to ignore. If you don't want to debate a topic then don't enter it and waste other peoples time.

 

[Moffo]

Prompt is the response. I'm not bothering to debate with you moffo. You've failed to answer any question I've put to you or reply to any point I've raised since about the third reply I directed at you. I won't be wasting any more time writing replies for you to ignore. If you don't want to debate a topic then don't enter it and waste other peoples time.

Your full of shit salivor. I took out a whole post of yours earlier and answered every question individually. You've said the same thing for 10 posts, yet you won't give me a question to answer

The word laughable springs to mind

 

[salivor]

You took out a whole post of mine and answered every question. Oh well remind me to put your bloody medal in the mail moffo. I replied to that post discussing every point you raised. All you gave back was a couple of paragraphs making a joke. Well sorry but the only joke in this debate has been you.
You started off debating and then just decided you'd ignore whole parts of my replies well sorry debates don't work like that moffo. I've had to resort to repetition and still it flies right over your head. Well I'm not going to bother trying anymore moffo because I don't have the time to talk to someone who is not willing to listen. The only laughable thing here is you, you've made a mockery of this debate. You know exactly what you've got to answer before I'll enter back into this discussion with you but I'd have more luck pissing in the wind than getting that through to you because I've already discussed it in about 10 posts and you haven't said a word.

 

[Anonymous]

Go for it lads. I'm just waiting here for goangod to say, "look, some of my best friends are gay."

 

[Moffo]

For the benefit of Mr Salivor and fellow readers of the politics forum:

All you could say was that the paedophilia thing was a different kettle of fish and you never said that homosexuals were paedophiles. Well no sh*t sherlock. What you won't discuss is the logic behind both arguments.

Logic behind argument 1 (The Paedophilia Problem):

Paedophilia has nothing to do with homosexuality. I think any reasonable person would agree with that. Although it was not my intention to discuss paedophilia in this thread (i did intend to focus my comments on gay people), but seeing as though it has been repeatedly requested, i will briefly comment.

Paedophilia is a fascination with kids. It spans both the homosexual and hetrosexual communities. Hetro guys may be fascinated with young girls and Homo guys may be fascinated with young boys. No argument at all with that one. The fact that paedophiles have been linked with gays is because of all the priests who have abused little kids lately. Its an inherently stupid argument, as just as many girls have been abused by hetro males in sickening kid porn movies.

Logic behind argument 2 (That feminity is linked with gay people):

To make it clear at the outset, i will say it again - Not ALL gays are feminine. I have towed the line however that there is a strong correlation between gay people and feminine characteristics. Define feminine characteristics i hear you say? Come on, i thought that would be rather a straight forward definitional issue.

Obviously, its impossible to tar everyone with the same brush. The element of 'closet' gays in our community obviously don't have the opportunity to be loud and live their 'true' lifestyle. But from what i have seen (and no, i dont have definitive stats, as im sure you don't either Salivor), is that there are quite a number of gays that exhibit female mannerisms. Be it the 'emotional' aspect of things, how they dress, how they think or whatever, they must be termed to be feminine in nature. To not do so would be ridiculous

Element 3:

The gays can't be born gays argument. I think has been done to death and like the God v Science argument, there will never be a clear answer

Anything else you would like me to add?

Cheers,
Moffo

 

[millersnose]

Go for it lads. I'm just waiting here for goangod to say, "look, some of my best friends are gay."

or salivor calling moffo a F@#@#$g nice person :lol:

 

[Moffo]

Go for it lads. I'm just waiting here for goangod to say, "look, some of my best friends are gay."

or salivor calling moffo a F@#@#$g nice person :lol:

ah, u probably missed the fireworks in the 'modern music is bland thread' :lol: :lol: our argument began to span across different forums, such was the magnitude of the biff ;-) ;-)

Moffo

 

[Anonymous]

Anything else you would like me to add?

Cheers,
Moffo

Yes...
How are you coping with the Roosters crushing the Berries last weekend?

 

[Moffo]

Anything else you would like me to add?

Cheers,
Moffo

Yes...
How are you coping with the Roosters crushing the Berries last weekend?

crushing? 10 points mate ;-)

and im not coping. ive given ear bashings to at least 5 roosters fans since Sunday and blamed the ref on at least 100 different times

 

[salivor]

Well thank you moffo, now was it so hard to finally comment on something I've asked you to comment on about 10 bloody times? And you wonder why I kept bringing it up.

Moffo can you not see that the exact same logic is used in both cases? In both cases an over-representation of homosexuals is trying to be shown to prove that it is a characteristic of homosexuality. In case 1 goangod has tried to show that homosexuals are over-represented in paedophile statistics to try and show a link. In case 2 you have tried to show that feminine males are over-represented in the gay community to try and show a link. So moffo you can't use the logic to prove your point and then disagree with goangod when he uses the exact same logic to prove something else. So you either agree with the logic and agree that femininity is a male homosexual characteristic and believe that homosexuality is dangerous because of its over-representation in paedophilia statistics OR you disagree with the logic and think both feminine and paedophilia links are incorrect. Which is it moffo?

Now on gays being born gay. I think at birth is probably a poor representation of my opinion on this. Let’s face it; sexuality really begins at puberty as before then we don't really have any sexual desire towards either sex. I should've been clearer on this right from the start. Now sexuality, homosexuality and heterosexuality is about sexual desire for the other sex, actual sexual intercourse with the opposite sex or the same sex is only one part of sexuality. So if sexuality begins at puberty and as you say homosexuality is a choice then what makes it different to heterosexuality? If you believe someone can choose to be homosexuality then you are really saying that sexuality is a choice, therefore heterosexuality is a choice. Do you follow me?

Now the final thing that you didn’t mention is the Ian Roberts subject. I’d like you to provide me with some evidence that Ian Roberts had been bonking girls for 30 years as you say. Do you have anything to back this up or was it just an assumption? I’ve given you a sourced quote from the man himself that he can’t change the way he is and that the thought of heterosexual sex is repulsive. That’s not the comment of someone who has chosen to be homosexual.

 

[salivor]

PS Your a f**ken nice person moffo

 

[Moffo]

Why is it the same logic? Ridiculous. Are you saying the same piece of logic should apply to every correlation between one group of people and a particular characteristic that they exhibit? Thats ridiculous. Its like saying that all Parra fans are yobbos and that all Dogs fans are lebanese. Why am i using the same logic to come to both conclusions? Point is, the gays/paedophilia issue and the feminine/gay issue are separate topics and consequently, should have different 'logics' applied to them. I geuninely dont understand how you come to such a conclusion

I never took up the claim that gays are overrepresented in the peadophilia community. Thats an argument that Goangod has established and ill let him argue that one out.

I say that hetrosexuality is the 'default' choice. You admitted that before puberty, a person cannot be gay. So how can a person be born gay? On the other hand, can u remember your first crush? Was it before you were 12/13?? Id say for a lot of people it would be. I see what your saying, but given the make-up of guys and girls (and not just physically, as i jokingly referred to before), id say that people are born with a 'default desire' to like the opposite sex

On Roberts - You said that he found the idea of hetro sex repulsive. Fine, no argument. But does that mean he always thought the same way? No. I can't give you proof that he was porking girls for 30yrs. Its a general assumption that one would make about a footy player who goes out with a lot of girls. Shit, i might be wrong, i wasn't following his career that closely ;-)

Cheers,
Moffo

 

[Anonymous]

Anything else you would like me to add?

Cheers,
Moffo

Yes...
How are you coping with the Roosters crushing the Berries last weekend?

crushing? 10 points mate ;-)

and im not coping. ive given ear bashings to at least 5 roosters fans since Sunday and blamed the ref on at least 100 different times

I'm still waiting for someone to get the joke without having it explained to them... Thanks AliN for making it a headline on Leagueunlimited. :lol:

btw, sorry for sporticisng politics.

 

[millersnose]

dont worry willow

this was a gay thread anyway :lol:

 

[salivor]

Why is it the same logic? Ridiculous. Are you saying the same piece of logic should apply to every correlation between one group of people and a particular characteristic that they exhibit? Thats ridiculous. Its like saying that all Parra fans are yobbos and that all Dogs fans are lebanese. Why am i using the same logic to come to both conclusions? Point is, the gays/paedophilia issue and the feminine/gay issue are separate topics and consequently, should have different 'logics' applied to them. I geuninely dont understand how you come to such a conclusion

I never took up the claim that gays are overrepresented in the peadophilia community. Thats an argument that Goangod has established and ill let him argue that one out.

I say that hetrosexuality is the 'default' choice. You admitted that before puberty, a person cannot be gay. So how can a person be born gay? On the other hand, can u remember your first crush? Was it before you were 12/13?? Id say for a lot of people it would be. I see what your saying, but given the make-up of guys and girls (and not just physically, as i jokingly referred to before), id say that people are born with a 'default desire' to like the opposite sex

On Roberts - You said that he found the idea of hetro sex repulsive. Fine, no argument. But does that mean he always thought the same way? No. I can't give you proof that he was porking girls for 30yrs. Its a general assumption that one would make about a footy player who goes out with a lot of girls. sh*t, i might be wrong, i wasn't following his career that closely ;-)

Cheers,
Moffo

Yes it is the same logic moffo. You are both trying to prove that there is a link because homosexuals are over-represented. Your saying that most feminine men are homosexuals, though admit some feminine men can be heterosexuals while goangod is trying to say that most paedophiles are homosexuals but also admits some heterosexuals are also paedophiles. Same logic, how can you accept your link but deny that goangod has proved a link?

Now if we just forget about my first paragraph for a moment. I'm not denying that theres a link between femininity and homosexuality just like I agree with goangod that there seems to be a link between homosexuals and paedophilia. Now what your trying to say is that femininity is definetly part of male homosexuality therefore if some heterosexual men are feminine and some homosexual men are feminine then homosexuality is obviously a choice. What you can't refute is that some homosexuals aren't feminine at all and act exactly the same as heterosexuals making your argument irrelevant. You can't prove medically or scientifically that feminitity has anything to do with being homosexual. All you've shown is that a lot of homosexual men act feminine well thanks for stating the obvious.

Moffo I'd probably agree with you that we have a setting at birth before puberty. Now you have no proof that the default is to be heterosexual. I think this is where it comes back to the birth issue, I know I'm probably not making myself clear on this issue, I think its a combination of both our views. While we may have crushes before puberty, sexuality really comes to the fore around that stage in our lives. Now are you saying that people before puberty don't have homosexual crushes? If they do, surely that has to come down to the way they were born?

Now on Roberts. He FINDS the idea of heterosexual sex repulsive, hes still alive you know ;-) . You say he hasn't always felt that way like its a fact. You have no evidence, the proof for my argument is in the quote "I can't change the way that I am". That is the comment of someone who has always been that way, HE CAN'T CHANGE. Its not a choice, if it was he could change the way he is. You can't refute that, its straight out of his mouth, a homosexual.

 

[Terminator]

Not in church mate, or on church grounds, if I saw anyone of the same sex touching each other in a queer manner I would throw them out without hesitation.
I wouldnt care who they were.

wow this is getting exciting

(thinks millers picturing termy grabbing ian roberts by the scruff of the neck and tossing him.........out)

You can toss him Millersnose, your probably sick to death of your own, if I saw Ian Roberts tounging some guy in church I would tell him to get out, sure the guy would probably rip me to pieces, but its the princible that counts not whether I die or not.
On saying this I think Ian Roberts is too level headed and respectful of other peoples beliefs to even think of doing that.

 

[millersnose]

just having a joke termy

sorry if i caused offence

it was a crap joke