22 Mar 09
Originally posted by Metal BrainRabbits eat their own poo. What's your point?
I grew up on a dairy farm. Female cows hump each other when they are in heat. It was convenient for my father to artificially inseminate them having no bulls in the herd.
Other animal species are homosexuals. I heard seagulls are 40% gay.
I may have a hard time understanding why this is the case, but it is clearly a natural part of evolution. Go figure.
22 Mar 09
I don't understand how simple abnormality is sufficient to make something a "perversion", at least in the sense of the latter word which connotes some kind of moral status. For example, keeping it sexual, left-handed masturbation is, I would guess, a numerically abnormal practice, since right-handed people constitute a large majority. Is left-handed masturbation therefore a "perversion"? If you are one of those people who believes masturbation is a perversion in any hand, do you believe that sinistral masturbation is extra-perverted?
If not, then there must be some meaning of "abnormal" other than "infrequent in the population" which entails perversion.
22 Mar 09
4 edits
Originally posted by ChronicLeakyI think the poo's got something to do with it tigger.
I don't understand how simple abnormality is sufficient to make something a "perversion", at least in the sense of the latter word which connotes some kind of moral status. For example, keeping it sexual, left-handed masturbation is, I would guess, a numerically abnormal practice, since right-handed people constitute a large majority. Is left-handed m aning of "abnormal" other than "infrequent in the population" which entails perversion.
And HIV. I don't want to keep playing this card as I'm truly morose about what's
happening but it's a fact that we need to deal with.
And then there's the religious issues, the genetic ones, family values etc etc.
Personally I'm all in favour of change and would welcome a culture based on value
of human life. I just don't think this is the one. It seems awfully shallow to me.
Now bisexuality. That's a different story.
22 Mar 09
1 edit
Originally posted by Thequ1ckAIDS has made much progress since it was GRIDS: the plurality of HIV cases surely result from heterosexual sex; intravenous drugs and botched blood transfusions also contribute. Therefore, using HIV as a justification for the claim that homosexuality is a "perversion" requires some justification for the claim that heterosexuality is not perverted for the same reason.
I think the poo's got something to do with it tigger.
And HIV. I don't want to keep playing this card as I'm truly morose about what's
happening but it's a fact that we need to deal with.
And then there's the religious issues, the genetic ones, family values etc etc.
Personally I'm all in favour of change and would welcome a culture based on value the one. It seems awfully shallow to me.
Now bisexuality. That's a different story.
For example, it could be argued that some forms of heterosexual sex (namely those likely to spread HIV) are "perverted" as a result of that increased likelihood, but the same sorts of safe/unsafe sex distinctions can be made about homosexuality as well, so at best, HIV will only give you that unsafe homosexual sex is "perverted", unless you're willing to label sex in general as a perversion. Of course such an argument doesn't account for the non-sexual aspects of homosexuality, or the homosexuals who have sex in ways that don't contribute considerably to the spread of HIV.
Which religious issues? Which genetic issues? Which "family values" issues? What seems shallow?
As for the "poo", do you consider homosexual sex which doesn't involve anuses to be "perverted"? Do you consider heterosexual sex which does to be similarly perverted?
22 Mar 09
Originally posted by Thequ1ckI know, I own two rabbits. They do not completely digest their food the first time. There is a reason, it works for them.
Rabbits eat their own poo. What's your point?
I thought I explained it well, but I will add this. Homosexuals must be engaging in straight sex at some point in their lives if you accept it is hereditary. My guess is that homosexuality exists because it works to the extent that they reproduce and nothing more.
22 Mar 09
Originally posted by ChronicLeakyStatistics and sources please for HIV.
AIDS has made much progress since it was GRIDS: the plurality of HIV cases surely result from heterosexual sex; intravenous drugs and botched blood transfusions also contribute. Therefore, using HIV as a justification for the claim that homosexuality is a "perversion" requires some justification for the claim that heterosexuality is not perverted for t ...[text shortened]... verted"? Do you consider heterosexual sex which does to be similarly perverted?
Yes certain types of heterosexual sex are perverted, of course they are.
Therefore, using HIV as a justification for the claim that homosexuality is a "perversion"
I've done no such thing. Only voiced a concern.
Of course such an argument doesn't account for the non-sexual aspects of homosexuality, or the homosexuals who have sex in ways that don't contribute considerably to the spread of HIV.
Sources and statistics please.
22 Mar 09
Originally posted by Metal BrainHow does that work for adoption?
I know, I own two rabbits. They do not completely digest their food the first time. There is a reason, it works for them.
I thought I explained it well, but I will add this. Homosexuals must be engaging in straight sex at some point in their lives if you accept it is hereditary. My guess is that homosexuality exists because it works to the extent that they reproduce and nothing more.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
22 Mar 09
Originally posted by Thequ1ckFor example the title of this thread seems very offensive but may very well
The thread is a continuation from gay indoctrination thread.
It is an attempt to show how perceived information can be very different
from the actual content of information.
For example the title of this thread seems very offensive but may very well
be a perfectly valid question.
be a perfectly valid question
It is certainly a loaded question. How do you define perversion, without somewhat tautologically using 'abnormal'?
22 Mar 09
Originally posted by Thequ1ckIt is more complicated than that. There is evidence that nurture influences nature. Look into the info on the link below.
Why haven't we found any genes for homosexuality then?
Yet we've got a whole host of genes for susceptibility...
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/genes/
22 Mar 09
5 edits
Originally posted by Metal BrainCan't get the link working;
It is more complicated than that. There is evidence that nurture influences nature. Look into the info on the link below.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/genes/
How can it be more complicated than influence?
I'm serious, if homosexuality is show to have genetic influenece,
as a drug user I want equal rights. Until then I want more rights.
Why should I be turned down for a lung transplant after a lifetime of smoking
when the guy in the bed next to me is getting unlimited HIV drugs for a disease
he got whilst being promiscuous?