Answers to prayers?

[Enki]

I'll throw this in as a follow up to my previous post: The reason I think I felt it was unjust for a woman I liked to prefer another woman is that she was committing an offence against the principle of a woman giving a man not only the necessary help he needs, and being given back the help she needs in life, but also the gift of procreation, which she withheld from not just me but the whole of society.

What a ludicrous position! You are stating here that any woman who decides to abstain from heterosexual marriage and, indeed, any procreative sexual relations within such a marriage, is withholding this 'gift' of procreation' from 'the whole of society', In other words, by not so doing, she is committing an offence according to you. How sad then for those women who decide to remain celibate, as they are also condemned in your eyes.

I would assume that to be consistent this also should apply to men. At least that is where your argument leads. This could be a problem, you realise, if you accept the traditional view of Jesus, as not marrying and remaining celibate throughout his life.

Why not be honest and say that it is simply the idea of two people of the same sex having intimate sexual relations that you find offensive, rather than attempting to produce convoluted and ill thought out arguments to back up your prejudices? 

[floo]

The Bible would say it is better for a couple to separate with a view to reconciliation, but that's another matter.

I don't care what the Bible has to say on the matter, some of its advice is far from sensible!

[Brownie]

enki:  Why not be honest and say that it is simply the idea of two people of the same sex having intimate sexual relations that you find offensive, rather than attempting to produce convoluted and ill thought out arguments to back up your prejudices?

Yes!

However, Spud, nobody is forcing you to dwell on the idea of a same sex couple being intimate.  It's unhealthy to dwell on the details of other peoples' sex lives anyway, most of us outgrow even being curious when we are still young.

You could, however, dwell on the fact that the vast majority of couples in the world are heterosexual and most of those will produce children, so a small minority not procreating will make little difference.

[Owlswing]

What a ludicrous position! You are stating here that any woman who decides to abstain from heterosexual marriage and, indeed, any procreative sexual relations within such a marriage, is withholding this 'gift' of procreation' from 'the whole of society', In other words, by not so doing, she is committing an offence according to you. How sad then for those women who decide to remain celibate, as they are also condemned in your eyes.

So are all the "Brides of Christ" are breaking God's rules?

[torridon]

enki:  Why not be honest and say that it is simply the idea of two people of the same sex having intimate sexual relations that you find offensive, rather than attempting to produce convoluted and ill thought out arguments to back up your prejudices?

Yes!

However, Spud, nobody is forcing you to dwell on the idea of a same sex couple being intimate.  It's unhealthy to dwell on the details of other peoples' sex lives anyway, most of us outgrow even being curious when we are still young.

You could, however, dwell on the fact that the vast majority of couples in the world are heterosexual and most of those will produce children, so a small minority not procreating will make little difference.

Given our population explosion it is probably a good idea that we have some non-procreating people. 

And also consider that gays outperform straights generally across a wide range of performance indicators, and maybe not raising kids frees up their generally superior intellect for the broader benefit of society as a whole. We do well to remember H Sapiens is a social species and in many other such species roles are demarcated to optimise the wellbeing of the species as a whole rather than the individuals and perhaps the consistency of the gay population percentage in humans across time and across cultures suggests that this might be a selected optimal level for humanity. In other words it is time to stop persecuting them and recognise the unique contribution they make to our world. 

[Spud]

What a ludicrous position! You are stating here that any woman who decides to abstain from heterosexual marriage and, indeed, any procreative sexual relations within such a marriage, is withholding this 'gift' of procreation' from 'the whole of society', In other words, by not so doing, she is committing an offence according to you. How sad then for those women who decide to remain celibate, as they are also condemned in your eyes.

I would assume that to be consistent this also should apply to men. At least that is where your argument leads. This could be a problem, you realise, if you accept the traditional view of Jesus, as not marrying and remaining celibate throughout his life.

Why not be honest and say that it is simply the idea of two people of the same sex having intimate sexual relations that you find offensive, rather than attempting to produce convoluted and ill thought out arguments to back up your prejudices?

Wanting to remain celibate is a legitimate reason for not being a partner to someone of the opposite sex. But wanting to use sex for someone of the same sex when its biological purpose is for the opposite sex, even if one is inclined that way, seems like an offense against that biological purpose and against the opposite sex.

[Spud]

However, Spud, nobody is forcing you to dwell on the idea of a same sex couple being intimate. 

Except when it happens on the six o'clock news...

[bluehillside Retd.]

Spud,

Wanting to remain celibate is a legitimate reason for not being a partner to someone of the opposite sex. But wanting to use sex for someone of the same sex when its biological purpose is for the opposite sex, even if one is inclined that way, seems like an offense against that biological purpose and against the opposite sex.

That's called the genetic fallacy - a basic error of irrelevance. There are lots of "biological purposes" for sex, of which procreation is only one. Would you condemn sex between infertile heterosexual couples too for the same reason, or do you confine your prejudice just to one type of non-procreative sexual activity? Same gender sex occurs in lots of other species too by the way - though presumably you wouldn't think those species to be immoral.

It might "seem like an offense" to you, but you have no logical argument to support you. You should consider too that gay people are gay people - same sex marriage won't increase the incidence of homosexuality in a population, and same sex partners in marriages can only serves to strengthen society by reinforcing the practice of equality over discrimination. 

[Nearly Sane]

Except when it happens on the six o'clock news...

I think you are Farmer's best sock puppet, maybe to the extent of being somewhat jizz stained

[bluehillside Retd.]

Spud,

Except when it happens on the six o'clock news...

There is nether heterosexual nor homosexual sex on the six o'clock news. At least there isn't on any channels to which I have access.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

I think you are Farmer's best sock puppet, maybe to the extent of being somewhat jizz stained

Delightful image.

[Brownie]

I had to google "Jizz".   

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

Wanting to remain celibate is a legitimate reason for not being a partner to someone of the opposite sex. But wanting to use sex for someone of the same sex when its biological purpose is for the opposite sex, even if one is inclined that way, seems like an offense against that biological purpose and against the opposite sex.

1) I don't agree that sex has a biological purpose for the opposite sex. Most intercourse that occurs does not have procreation in mind. Most procreation that occurs in nature is done asexually anyway.

2)Why is it an offense to the opposite sex. I have a male relation who is gay.What offence to women has he caused?  Why are you so upset about it? You seem to be upset because a girlfriend ran of with another woman. Well I wouldn't beat myself up about that, you are a bloke, you can't help that. If she had ran of with an other man I could understand it because it could be taken (probably wrongly) about your male qualities. However, she wanted someone with female qualities (and parts presumably). You don't have the anatomy of a female so I would give myself a break if I were you. Seriously, would buy you a pint and give you a slap on the back if I could. Don't take it out on gay people as a whole though.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

I had to google "Jizz".   

I hope you didn't do it at work!

[bluehillside Retd.]

Brownie,

I had to google "Jizz".

Any regrets?

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

Interesting as all this is, it is a bit off topic. I notice Hope is online so will we get and answer to my replies #40 and # 50 and to the recent ones of BHS?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Stephen,

Interesting as all this is, it is a bit off topic. I notice Hope is online so will we get and answer to my replies #40 and # 50 and to the recent ones of BHS?

He never will - addressing his mistakes and correcting them would entail learning something, and that would never do. Shame really - for all I know he may actually have something to say that's worth listening to, but for now it's so buried in fallacy atop fallacy that we'll never find out. 

[Spud]

I think you are Farmer's best sock puppet, maybe to the extent of being somewhat jizz stained

Still Nowhere Near Sane, I see? 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Brownie,

I had to google "Jizz".

Maybe you should have tried the Bible instead:

"Yet she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prostitute in Egypt. There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses."

Ezekiel 23:19-20 New International Version

[Spud]

Spud,

There is nether heterosexual nor homosexual sex on the six o'clock news. At least there isn't on any channels to which I have access.

There is snogging though...

[bluehillside Retd.]

Spud,

There is snogging though...

On the six o'clock news? Unlikely, but even if there is - so what? Why does it bother you so much?

[Nearly Sane]

Still Nowhere Near Sane, I see?

Given your comments on gays being disordered, I 'll take that as a compliment

[Enki]

Wanting to remain celibate is a legitimate reason for not being a partner to someone of the opposite sex. But wanting to use sex for someone of the same sex when its biological purpose is for the opposite sex, even if one is inclined that way, seems like an offense against that biological purpose and against the opposite sex.

Ah, so now you are deciding to impose conditions on your original all encompassing statement that abstinence from procreative sex an offence, on the grounds that it's only if if it takes place contrary to its biological purpose that it becomes some sort of offence in your eyes. Why didn't you say that in the first place?

The problems associated with this particular clarification of your statement have been ably demonstrated by Blue and Stephen, making your argument seem yet more convoluted and forced.

Of course you're entitled to your feeling that  it  'seems like an offense' but this feeling of yours doesn't necessarily apply to others, does it? And if it causes no harm, and indeed gives pleasure, then get over it and accept that others may quite legitimately hold the contrary view, and, if they are so inclined that they are drawn lovingly towards a member of the sames sex,  indulge in that pleasure.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

and whose emission was like that of horses."

A bit like your output on this forum.

[Owlswing]

A bit like your output on this forum.

Just as your output on this forum comes from the horses other rear-end orifice!