"I have gay friends, but..." Umm... No, you don't...

Feminine and masculine attributes exist to an extent. But most things we identify with either male or female are really just learned gender roles. Meaning, they don't in reality exist, they are social roles we've made up. So to say someone is unnatural because they don't follow made up gender roles, is ridiculous. You might want to do some research into gender and sociology, because most of what we think in terms of gender is just entirely fabricated human notions.

I said it was unnatural to see a man dressed up as a woman talking and acting like a female, when in essence it is male in construct. Sociology does not naturalize human behavior it records it and chronicles it as a whole.

this thread is troll bait.

I am the Trollinator

reply to post by Maslo


a 7 year old can voluntarily join a sexual relationship too.

suggest that to a group of civil rights crusaders and watch them go up in arms.



im glad everybody understands how ludcrious of a notion it is to expect entire groups of people to suddenly accept something they find fundamentally wrong and feel disgust towards.


be it homosexuality, heterosexuality, beastiality etc...

Originally posted by RelentlessLurker
reply to post by mydarkpassenger

 

well in the same way you think pedophilia "hurts" kids.

and bestiality "hurts" animals.


some feel homosexuality "hurts" society

Ok, we've whittled it down to "some" and not the all encompassing. How do homo-abhorring heteros feel that society is hurt by two people, consenting adults, having their love recognized in law the same as any het couple?

BTW: I don't think that pedos hurt kids - they do. But sex between consenting adults who want to commit to each other?

I think this world could use more love not less.

Originally posted by Gradius Maximus

Originally posted by RelentlessLurker
reply to post by mydarkpassenger

 

well in the same way you think pedophilia "hurts" kids.

and bestiality "hurts" animals.


some feel homosexuality "hurts" society

Society can go #### itself, but then again thats just my opinion.

Separation of church and state.
Separation of intimacy and public knowledge
Separation of McDonalds and Food Industry.

Ahh, wonderful.

edit on 24-12-2010 by Gradius Maximus because: (no reason given)

you ever thought about running for prez?

reply to post by mydarkpassenger


i dont know how society is hurt by anybodies sexuality period.


i dont concern myself with other people, unless they make it impossible for me to ignore them.

i.e. parades, signs, threads on the internet....

if it were up to me, they would all be allowed just so everybody shuts the hell up.


but i would make it clear that neither sex nor love is a civil right.

it is not the job of the state to ensure you have love. be it whatever your preference.

Originally posted by RelentlessLurker

Originally posted by SpaceJ

Originally posted by RelentlessLurker
look skippy,

if your going to go all civil rights hero on us, then you better stickup for pedo's, dog lovers and polygamists too.

theres nothing i hate more than a half assed civil rights position.

I don't agree here. Being gay doesn't hurt anyone. There is no comparison. Being a pedo hurts kids, dog lover hurts animals, polygamy is sexist and hurts women, in my opinion. No comparison to homosexuality here.

this is hilarious i actually laughed.

so essentially your saying love = abuse if it doesnt fall under your specified parameters.

That's fine I laughed at your post too. I'm saying, essentially, that a gay person having consenting sex with someone is not abuse.

Pedo is abusing the child. Bestiality is abusing an animal, the animal doesn't have a way to consent or not obviously. Polygamy is sexist and emotionally abuses women.

Love doesn't equal or cause abuse, but acting on that love can be abuse, yes.

A gay man having sex is not abuse in any way. Where is the correlation between homosexuality and all those forms of abuse?

What's funny here?

You are equating being gay with abusive behaviors.

Originally posted by RelentlessLurker
reply to post by Maslo

 

a 7 year old can voluntarily join a sexual relationship too.

suggest that to a group of civil rights crusaders and watch them go up in arms.

Legally not, thats why it is called age of CONSENT where the limit is set.

Originally posted by RelentlessLurker
reply to post by Maslo

 

a 7 year old can voluntarily join a sexual relationship too.

im glad everybody understands how ludcrious of a notion it is to expect entire groups of people to suddenly accept something they find fundamentally wrong and feel disgust towards.

be it homosexuality, heterosexuality, beastiality etc...

A 7 year old CAN NOT voluntarily join a sexual relationship, is not of an age where they can give consent, and most often have no choice in the matter at all and are passed from pedo to pedo.

I think it ludicrous that you purport to represent the views of all heterosexuals, and fall back to the position of trying to compare pedo and beasty to the relationship of two consenting adults.

Originally posted by Bicent76

Feminine and masculine attributes exist to an extent. But most things we identify with either male or female are really just learned gender roles. Meaning, they don't in reality exist, they are social roles we've made up. So to say someone is unnatural because they don't follow made up gender roles, is ridiculous. You might want to do some research into gender and sociology, because most of what we think in terms of gender is just entirely fabricated human notions.

I said it was unnatural to see a man dressed up as a woman talking and acting like a female, when in essence it is male in construct. Sociology does not naturalize human behavior it records it and chronicles it as a whole.

this thread is troll bait.

I am the Trollinator

And I am saying that sex is related to natural behaviors, sociology is related to socially constructed ideas of proper or improper behavior in response to sex.

A man dressed up as a woman who talks like a women has to do with gender roles, not sex. Your definitions of how a man should dress and talk are based on GENDER ROLES, not someone's natural sex.

reply to post by SpaceJ

Polygamy is sexist and emotionally abuses women.

Consentual polygamy is not wrong in any way.

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by SpaceJ

 

Polygamy is sexist and emotionally abuses women.

Consentual polygamy is not wrong in any way.

If you read my first post on it, I said in my opinion. I do believe polygamy could be okay, in certain situations, but not all.

Women consenting to polygamy are still abused in some cases. Their consent doesn't negate the abuse.

It's still sexist, if polygamy is okay for men, then I think it should be okay for both men and women. Until then, polygamy in my eyes is sexist and abusive, where I live.

A lot of people in relationships of domestic violence consent to be in that relationship, does that make the abuse they receive okay?

And again, a child might consent to sex, even though they might not have reached the mental level where they fully understand what they are consenting to. Does the abuse a consenting child receives become okay?

Everyone in this worlds 'waaants' to be bisexual, but we are just too afraid to.

Culture has shackled humanity into an epic battle of right and wrong.

A man wants to get it on, all the time. In his mind are the acceptable receivers of the rod

Lets observe my biased vision of ancient greco roman society.

Making sweet sweet lovin to everyone - Absolute freedom of sensuality and expression.

Now I've never been to an Orgy, but this seems like the kind of cultural wrecking ball that creates the new world, and I can bet anything that this phase is starting again with our current generation as a reflection of the greco roman world.

So there we have it folks, in order to achieve that new age ascension process, Orgies may be the only way.

Maybe then we'll stop thinking so much less of everyones sexual opinions.

reply to post by SpaceJ


the funny thing is not the nonexistant correlation between homosexuality and abuse.

its your notion that an underaged individual cannot voluntarily initiate a sexual relationship. and therefor any sexual relationship under a specified age is "abuse".


not sure how its abuse if its consensual.

this is the part where you refer back to the law.

and then i point to shariah law and countries like suadi arabia.

i love circles.

or even funnier, your concept of "abuse towards women" (i hate to break it to you but all those ladies said "i do")
care to explain how this is abuse? its just as consensual, if not more so, than any other relationship, yet it is not legal. and they are even of age!

you say all of these relationships are "abuse" yet people still voluntarily join them.

please explain.

Originally posted by Maslo

Originally posted by RelentlessLurker
reply to post by Maslo

 

a 7 year old can voluntarily join a sexual relationship too.

suggest that to a group of civil rights crusaders and watch them go up in arms.

Legally not, thats why it is called age of CONSENT where the limit is set.

ok so you think that homosexuals should only be allowed rights in places where its legal?

that doesnt sound very "civil rightish" to me.

sounds more like exclusive rights

Originally posted by RelentlessLurker
reply to post by SpaceJ

 

you say all of these relationships are "abuse" yet people still voluntarily join them.

please explain.

This could tie into the concept of the Triangle of pain.

Abuser - Victim - Rescuer

The idea that one of these 3 archetypes will attract the other 2 towards them in an ever shifting battle of control that is only released once it is observed and felt with compassion by all 3 members of the triangle.

Just a theory, dont hate, dont hate.

Link to the Theory

lol.

Weather a child can consent or not is a question that should not even be broached.

I know at 7 years old, the last thing on my mind was sex. I kissed a girl, and i thought that was emotionaly intense.

There is no young child in the world that could concent to sex without being the subject of ongoing abuse.

Just thingking about it makes me upset. I can only imagine how i would have felt, having something so completely beyond the scope of my nightmares forced on me. It would ruin any childs life.

Again. an argument not worth having!


Id like to state again that, if we cant make social concessions for a fringe group who is really not that different from a standard couple.... then social change cannot happen.

And then american quickly becomes a backward place to live, instead of the land of free expression and equal rights.

parading down the street, comparing homosexuals to criminals, is no basis for denying their rights.

Originally posted by RelentlessLurker
reply to post by SpaceJ

 

the funny thing is not the nonexistant correlation between homosexuality and abuse.

its your notion that an underaged individual cannot voluntarily initiate a sexual relationship. and therefor any sexual relationship under a specified age is "abuse".


not sure how its abuse if its consensual.

this is the part where you refer back to the law.

and then i point to shariah law and countries like suadi arabia.

i love circles.

or even funnier, your concept of "abuse towards women" (i hate to break it to you but all those ladies said "i do")
care to explain how this is abuse? its just as consensual, if not more so, than any other relationship, yet it is not legal. and they are even of age!

you say all of these relationships are "abuse" yet people still voluntarily join them.

please explain.

Just because someone consents to a relationship does not mean they are consenting to be abused. A woman can say I do and have the thought that her relationship won't be abusive, then when she's actually in the relationship it becomes abusive. Yes, she said "I do," what bearing does that have on abuse?

A child may consent, because the child doesn't fully understand what they are doing, why they should or shouldn't do it, a child doesn't KNOW that it's abuse. It's still abuse.

All I am saying is that JUST because a person consents to something, that does not mean they aren't still being abused. They'd be consenting to an act, not consenting to be abused. Like I said, many abused women stay in their abusive relationships, they are consenting to the relationship, NOT to being abused.

reply to post by Gradius Maximus


It seems you're not considering an important factor. Promiscuity leads to an unfit species. It causes dysgenics within the species. I don't think this is too hard for most individuals to grasp, rather that it's merely conveniently overlooked so as to ...get it on with whomever, whenever. There is reason promiscuity is regarded as a societal sin, throughout a good chunk of our history. It's an obvious err for anyone who has a basic understanding of microbiology. Sticking it in the bum increases std's, as the anal lining easily tears, and the anal tract is a cesspool reservoir. If two individuals strongly desire to engage in anal sex, I strongly encourage the use of a condom, and to make this partner your only.

reply to post by SpaceJ


I find the whole notion of government regulated marriage ridiculous anyway. Polygamy, polyandry, gay marriage etc. is a non-issue created by this absurd social construct of the state controlling the institute of marriage, for which there is absolutely no need to.

reply to post by SpaceJ


so your saying grown men are the only group of people that are not capable of being abused?

it seems you have the rest covered.