<!--QuoteBegin--Talesin+Oct 23 2003, 06:04 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Talesin @ Oct 23 2003, 06:04 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--Marine01+Oct 21 2003, 11:08 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01 @ Oct 21 2003, 11:08 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Alright here is a comparision - one that has been made before and ALWAYS gets people up in arms.
Homosexuality and Beastiality.
Homosexuality is the attraction/mating between two animals of the same speicies and gender. Beastiality is the attraction/mating between two animals of different species.
Both occur in nature - but never/rarely with good results. We all agree that beastiality is filthy and disgusting, yet you will find dogs humping their masters legs. So beastiality happens in nature, homosexuality occurs in nature, following the logic of this thread then therefore beastiality is just as acceptable as homosexuality.
Goths have a dress preference. That is completely different to sexual confusion. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> But wait, Marine01... didn't you bring UP the topic of bestiality in the first place? Or was that more of a foil to attempt people to associate homosexuality with a far more widely reviled method of sexual gratification? You bring it up, and now refuse to discuss it, citing disgust?
In short, if you can't take the heat, don't start the fire.
In case people haven't noticed, I do tend to play devil's advocate. I'm almost tempted to start an entirely new thread (so as not to lead this one even further off topic) to debate this latest development... maintaining the scientific-rationale basis that has been defined for this particular thread. It'd certainly lead to some interesting conversation, as well as being a horrific flame magnet. Hopefully the 'disgust level' would be high enough to make reactionary posters veer off to safer waters. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Absolutely Talesin, I just cant stand talking about it any more, even though I started it.
Look if you think I'm backing out because everyones arguement is better than mine then I'll stay. It just feels wrong talking about such sick things as presenting yourself to an animal and such as I have been doing.
It was NOT a vilification attempt, I thought I made that abundantly clear. I simply was drawing attention to the fact that many arguements supporting homosexuality extend to beastiality as well, and while everyone is horrified by beastiality yet homosexuality can do no wrong.
Skulkbait seems to make the conclusion that in enforcing the logic he uses to justify homosexuality, he must also justify beastiality as well. Most people arent willing to go that far, they "know" beastiality is wrong.
EDIT okay reread what I had posted, guess I didnt make it abundantly clear it wasnt a vilification attempt. Still, give us a little credit here people okay?
TalesinOur own little well of hateJoin Date: 2002-11-08Member: 7710NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators
I did. I assumed subtlety. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
In any case, though you express the open social attitude toward bestiality quite well, a completely-anonymous poll would return a different story. Admittedly, you'd likely get most mainstream Theists polled responding in accordance with their theology's official stance, there would almost certainly be a number who privately do not feel the same way as their individually-identifiable words would express. Herd instinct, not wanting to be 'the freak who thinks it's okay'.
Though... after all, those previously noted laws do not outlaw, only nail down specifics of why and when it is acceptable in the eyes of the judicial system. Likely if it were brought up as a bill, that selfsame 'public face' would place it firmly into illegality (as has happened in some states). The same thing DID happen in many states in regards to homosexual activity.
Again, this is going away from the prime topic; the crux of the difference lies in your definitions. Can an individual be the initiator, carry through an act without coercion, and still not be considered 'consenting'? Is the act of legal sexual intercourse to be constrained to the act of procreation only? Is it honestly any of the neighbors' business what you do in the bedroom with a willing partner, or who that partner is? I would add on 'so long as no harm comes to either of you' to that last one, but a number of human, heterosexual couples do engage in extremely harmful bedroom-play, with no legal repercussions.
I will say something.........this is clearly from my point of view, I am a straightforward person so I will say everything.
Firstly, I dispise Homosexuals or any other uncommon sexes between people of the same sex or stuff who does not have a good reason for being the way they are . Why?
Human beings are NOT BORN to be homosexuals. We are borned to have sex between guy and gal. Surely, you dun see 2 *** producing a baby do you?
I have watched Discovery, and I have learned that Homosexuality happens in animals as well BUT 1) They do not take it seriously 2) If they do it, ALL OF THE ANIMALS ARE DOING IT . Example : 2 Male Baboons fight, after the fight, 1 male baboon holds the other male baboon's hand and use it to grasp his own ****. Thing is....they do not really take it seriously, they simply do it for fun ( cough ) and forget it. Second example : Much female antelops train for the future by pretending to be humping each other. However, A LOT of them do it and they are doing it to train, so they will be better prepared to start a normal or proper sex life.
The kind of Homosexuals I do not hate are those who were natually born that way. Example : A guy SOMEHOW transformed into a female , reason? He was supposed to have a twin sister but their genes combined and now, hes a part-male , part-female. The other kind of Homosexuals I dun really dispise are those who were seriously curious, who wanted to understand more about this and that, so they simply try it out of curiousity THEN they return to a NORMAL SEX LIFE.
The kind whom I hate are those who do not do it for a good reason. Example : A sees his friends turning ****. A says " I WILL BE **** TOO! " From then on, A becomes a ****. Another example : B and C are good friends, so good, they turn into Lesibians.............
Firstly, I do not hate ALL Homosexuals, I have already listed those whom I do not hate and those whom I dispise.
<!--QuoteBegin--Nomble+Oct 23 2003, 03:48 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nomble @ Oct 23 2003, 03:48 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> This is <b>all</b> my opinions. I really recommend listening to this. rant.mp3
<span style='color:red'>Original link nuked. Not nice to mirror other people's work without permission. To listen to this rant, visit <a href='http://www.ranting-gryphon.com/index2.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.ranting-gryphon.com/index2.htm</a>, click on the 'audio' link at the top of the page, and find the 'G*y Pride' rant (it's on page 2). Listen to some of his other stuff too... funny and insightful most of the time. Careful though, many of the later rants are NOT bleeped, and he doesn't shy away from coarse language. -Talesin</span><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> That = win.
TalesinOur own little well of hateJoin Date: 2002-11-08Member: 7710NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators
edited October 2003
You realize that's kinda impolite, Nomble? It'd be better to just post a link to 2's homepage, and direct people toward the 'G*y Pride' rant. They could take advantage of his other wonderful pearls of wisdom that way, too.
As well, that rant does NOT have bearing on this particular discussion. It is in regards to those who take their homosexuality and push it in other people's faces, as in the case of g*y pride parades. Pay attention, do not just post a link felt to be circumstantially related. It is not pertinent, nor does it contribute to the discussion.
And Fire Eel, please define what you consider to be a 'Good Reason'. Yes, there are 'trendy g*ys' and 'matchstick bisexuals'. But what about people who are honestly attracted to the same gender/sex? And whether or not homosexuality is genetic or environmental-development in nature, NO ONE knows.
As well, yes. Many times in nature, homosexual behaviour is observed as a <b>dominance display</b>. However, there are also MANY documented cases of individuals in nonhuman species who do not only use it as an exertion of dominance or expression of bonding, but will outright refuse to mate heterosexually, even when free of a dominance-order. In a number of cases, even when they are at the head of their dominance-structure, when that same role has been stereotypically shown to be the only one who breeds at all (Lions and wolves being the first that spring to mind).
As well, you have confused a number of other aspects. There are homosexuals (attracted to their own gender), transsexuals (who feel that they are the wrong gender), formative-branches (an individual resembling a male in all aspects, but having the genetalia of a female, or vice-versa... your 'chromosome switch'), hermaphrodites (containing XXY or XYY genetic code, does not neccessarily develop both types of genetalia), body and species-dysmorphics (feel that their body is not their own, something is wrong with it, or that they are the wrong species entirely)... the list keeps going.
Who you 'despise' are the trendy-homosexuals and matchstick-bisexuals. Who will sometimes choose to engage in homosexual activity, but either (1) are not actually attracted to the same gender, (2) are bisexual but use the word 'g*y' to simplify explanation and stop people from assuming that they could just be straight, or (3) most commonly simply say they are g*y or bisexual for the social impact.
<!--QuoteBegin--Fire Eel+Oct 23 2003, 05:16 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Fire Eel @ Oct 23 2003, 05:16 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I will say something.........this is clearly from my point of view, I am a straightforward person so I will say everything.
Firstly, I dispise Homosexuals or any other uncommon sexes between people of the same sex or stuff who does not have a good reason for being the way they are . Why?
Human beings are NOT BORN to be homosexuals. We are borned to have sex between guy and gal. Surely, you dun see 2 *** producing a baby do you? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Hmm, says who? Human beings are NOT BORN to fly miles high in the sky either, or waste their lives on their fat **** in front of a computer. There are lots of things we aren't supposed to, perhaps, but please give a source of such things. From where does this view stem from? Human intelligence allows us to do many things which can seem inconceiveable. To declare that humans are not supposed to have sex with other humans of same gender is basically the same as declaring those persons are not real proper humans. That is awfully close on being discriminating!
Why is it not a sufficiently good reason for being **** because "you feel like it"? It's the bloody same reason that makes some people want to sky dive. An irrational desire towards something basically not supposed to happen according to strict evoluationary protocol.
Oh yeah, just wanted to clear out that I did nothing wrong with hosting that file. Just somone forgot to do some research on 2´s site that there is a adress with my name it saying that I'm a offical mirror. Oh well we got that sorted out now.
TalesinOur own little well of hateJoin Date: 2002-11-08Member: 7710NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators
My apologies, Nomble. Though on my prior visits there I'd not even noticed that he *had* mirrors (are they a recent addition, or was I just unobservant?)
Comments
Homosexuality and Beastiality.
Homosexuality is the attraction/mating between two animals of the same speicies and gender. Beastiality is the attraction/mating between two animals of different species.
Both occur in nature - but never/rarely with good results. We all agree that beastiality is filthy and disgusting, yet you will find dogs humping their masters legs. So beastiality happens in nature, homosexuality occurs in nature, following the logic of this thread then therefore beastiality is just as acceptable as homosexuality.
Goths have a dress preference. That is completely different to sexual confusion. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But wait, Marine01... didn't you bring UP the topic of bestiality in the first place? Or was that more of a foil to attempt people to associate homosexuality with a far more widely reviled method of sexual gratification? You bring it up, and now refuse to discuss it, citing disgust?
In short, if you can't take the heat, don't start the fire.
In case people haven't noticed, I do tend to play devil's advocate. I'm almost tempted to start an entirely new thread (so as not to lead this one even further off topic) to debate this latest development... maintaining the scientific-rationale basis that has been defined for this particular thread. It'd certainly lead to some interesting conversation, as well as being a horrific flame magnet. Hopefully the 'disgust level' would be high enough to make reactionary posters veer off to safer waters. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Absolutely Talesin, I just cant stand talking about it any more, even though I started it.
Look if you think I'm backing out because everyones arguement is better than mine then I'll stay. It just feels wrong talking about such sick things as presenting yourself to an animal and such as I have been doing.
It was NOT a vilification attempt, I thought I made that abundantly clear. I simply was drawing attention to the fact that many arguements supporting homosexuality extend to beastiality as well, and while everyone is horrified by beastiality yet homosexuality can do no wrong.
Skulkbait seems to make the conclusion that in enforcing the logic he uses to justify homosexuality, he must also justify beastiality as well. Most people arent willing to go that far, they "know" beastiality is wrong.
EDIT okay reread what I had posted, guess I didnt make it abundantly clear it wasnt a vilification attempt. Still, give us a little credit here people okay?
In any case, though you express the open social attitude toward bestiality quite well, a completely-anonymous poll would return a different story. Admittedly, you'd likely get most mainstream Theists polled responding in accordance with their theology's official stance, there would almost certainly be a number who privately do not feel the same way as their individually-identifiable words would express. Herd instinct, not wanting to be 'the freak who thinks it's okay'.
Though... after all, those previously noted laws do not outlaw, only nail down specifics of why and when it is acceptable in the eyes of the judicial system. Likely if it were brought up as a bill, that selfsame 'public face' would place it firmly into illegality (as has happened in some states). The same thing DID happen in many states in regards to homosexual activity.
Again, this is going away from the prime topic; the crux of the difference lies in your definitions. Can an individual be the initiator, carry through an act without coercion, and still not be considered 'consenting'? Is the act of legal sexual intercourse to be constrained to the act of procreation only? Is it honestly any of the neighbors' business what you do in the bedroom with a willing partner, or who that partner is?
I would add on 'so long as no harm comes to either of you' to that last one, but a number of human, heterosexual couples do engage in extremely harmful bedroom-play, with no legal repercussions.
I got permission cuase I'm a offical MIRROR for crying out loud.
Firstly, I dispise Homosexuals or any other uncommon sexes between people of the same sex or stuff who does not have a good reason for being the way they are . Why?
Human beings are NOT BORN to be homosexuals. We are borned to have sex between guy and gal. Surely, you dun see 2 *** producing a baby do you?
I have watched Discovery, and I have learned that Homosexuality happens in animals as well BUT 1) They do not take it seriously 2) If they do it, ALL OF THE ANIMALS ARE DOING IT . Example : 2 Male Baboons fight, after the fight, 1 male baboon holds the other male baboon's hand and use it to grasp his own ****. Thing is....they do not really take it seriously, they simply do it for fun ( cough ) and forget it. Second example : Much female antelops train for the future by pretending to be humping each other. However, A LOT of them do it and they are doing it to train, so they will be better prepared to start a normal or proper sex life.
The kind of Homosexuals I do not hate are those who were natually born that way. Example : A guy SOMEHOW transformed into a female , reason? He was supposed to have a twin sister but their genes combined and now, hes a part-male , part-female. The other kind of Homosexuals I dun really dispise are those who were seriously curious, who wanted to understand more about this and that, so they simply try it out of curiousity THEN they return to a NORMAL SEX LIFE.
The kind whom I hate are those who do not do it for a good reason. Example : A sees his friends turning ****. A says " I WILL BE **** TOO! " From then on, A becomes a ****. Another example : B and C are good friends, so good, they turn into Lesibians.............
Firstly, I do not hate ALL Homosexuals, I have already listed those whom I do not hate and those whom I dispise.
<span style='color:red'>Original link nuked. Not nice to mirror other people's work without permission.
To listen to this rant, visit <a href='http://www.ranting-gryphon.com/index2.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.ranting-gryphon.com/index2.htm</a>, click on the 'audio' link at the top of the page, and find the 'G*y Pride' rant (it's on page 2). Listen to some of his other stuff too... funny and insightful most of the time. Careful though, many of the later rants are NOT bleeped, and he doesn't shy away from coarse language. -Talesin</span><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That = win.
As well, that rant does NOT have bearing on this particular discussion. It is in regards to those who take their homosexuality and push it in other people's faces, as in the case of g*y pride parades. Pay attention, do not just post a link felt to be circumstantially related. It is not pertinent, nor does it contribute to the discussion.
And Fire Eel, please define what you consider to be a 'Good Reason'. Yes, there are 'trendy g*ys' and 'matchstick bisexuals'. But what about people who are honestly attracted to the same gender/sex? And whether or not homosexuality is genetic or environmental-development in nature, NO ONE knows.
As well, yes. Many times in nature, homosexual behaviour is observed as a <b>dominance display</b>. However, there are also MANY documented cases of individuals in nonhuman species who do not only use it as an exertion of dominance or expression of bonding, but will outright refuse to mate heterosexually, even when free of a dominance-order. In a number of cases, even when they are at the head of their dominance-structure, when that same role has been stereotypically shown to be the only one who breeds at all (Lions and wolves being the first that spring to mind).
As well, you have confused a number of other aspects. There are homosexuals (attracted to their own gender), transsexuals (who feel that they are the wrong gender), formative-branches (an individual resembling a male in all aspects, but having the genetalia of a female, or vice-versa... your 'chromosome switch'), hermaphrodites (containing XXY or XYY genetic code, does not neccessarily develop both types of genetalia), body and species-dysmorphics (feel that their body is not their own, something is wrong with it, or that they are the wrong species entirely)... the list keeps going.
Who you 'despise' are the trendy-homosexuals and matchstick-bisexuals. Who will sometimes choose to engage in homosexual activity, but either (1) are not actually attracted to the same gender, (2) are bisexual but use the word 'g*y' to simplify explanation and stop people from assuming that they could just be straight, or (3) most commonly simply say they are g*y or bisexual for the social impact.
Firstly, I dispise Homosexuals or any other uncommon sexes between people of the same sex or stuff who does not have a good reason for being the way they are . Why?
Human beings are NOT BORN to be homosexuals. We are borned to have sex between guy and gal. Surely, you dun see 2 *** producing a baby do you?
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hmm, says who? Human beings are NOT BORN to fly miles high in the sky either, or waste their lives on their fat **** in front of a computer. There are lots of things we aren't supposed to, perhaps, but please give a source of such things. From where does this view stem from? Human intelligence allows us to do many things which can seem inconceiveable. To declare that humans are not supposed to have sex with other humans of same gender is basically the same as declaring those persons are not real proper humans. That is awfully close on being discriminating!
Why is it not a sufficiently good reason for being **** because "you feel like it"? It's the bloody same reason that makes some people want to sky dive. An irrational desire towards something basically not supposed to happen according to strict evoluationary protocol.