Pope Puts Stress On 'gay Threat'

[jimbms]

Even if you were gay and held to this view I would still call it homophobic. Any view that holds to the idea that straights and heterosexuality (as a sexuality) are constants and have always existed are taking a heterosexist and thus homophobic perspective.

From what I remember about biology one of the points of most creatures to continue the survival of the species is to duplicate i.e. breed, in most mammals this cannot occur in a homosexual relationship, therefore a homosexual lifestyle is going against the natural order, it is not wrong top make this choice but it is against the normal order of things whereas hetrosexuality is the constant or normal to ensure species survival and must have always existed otherwise even you wouldn't be here. To call someone homophobic for holding such a normal viewpoint is incorrect.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

As its the only logical explanation, were coded to create living beings and not to be with the same sex.

So with all things, a mutation has occured creating a change in what should and shouldnt be done

 

We are coded to reproduce, in that to survive a man and a woman have sex. But this does not mean that we are not to be with members of the same sex. Why should it? Animals do not decide to have sex because they have made a decision to have babies. They do it for pleasure as a result of attraction. There is no should and shouldn't about it. The should and shouldn't is about YOU placing a value on these behaviours and deciding for yourself whether they are 'wrong' or 'right'. That is the heterosexist perspective.

 

You perspective only seems logical, if still flawed (because of your argument resting on procreation), if throughout history heterosexuality has always existed, that is people who only have sex with the other sex and then there being a complete opposite which is the gay (people who only have sex with the same sex) which came about later. But history does not support this. This idea of a dichotomy is only something that we now see in modern western society. You can look at other cultures across the globe and throughout history and find different pattersn of sexual behaviour. Even over 150 years ago there was no such thing as a gay or homosexual person but people recognised that homosexual behaviour takes place.

 

 

 

Straight = You like the opposite sex.

Gay = You like the same sex.

 

I was explaining earlier that they don't just mean this and is why you are making a mistaken claim in saying people can be born as one or the other sexuality.

 

therefore a homosexual lifestyle is going against the natural order, it is not wrong top make this choice but it is against the normal order of things whereas hetrosexuality is the constant or normal to ensure species survival and must have always existed otherwise even you wouldn't be here. To call someone homophobic for holding such a normal viewpoint is incorrect.

 

In a sense being gay is not following the biologically constant that is procreation. But homosexuality is no less natural than heterosexual behaviour. Forget normal, first think about what natural actually means. If procreation produces human beings and human beings engage in homosexual behaviour then what is not natural about that? To take the position that homosexuality is unnatural is to pretend that sex and sexuality need rest on procreation. But how many of you straights out there bonk solely for the sake of having kids? And to state that heterosexual behaviour is normal and natural in opposition to homosexuality is obviously homophobic. You have just said it yourself, you are arguing this from a normative perspective and norms are based on the discourse of the greater power in a power relationship. Straights like to think that their sexuality, their culture, lifestyle and identity is a constant running through history, it is the baseline and the correct way to be. But your identity and sexuality is a product of the recogntion of what it is to be gay. Much of this normalisation comes from the medicalisation of homosexual sexual behaviour.

[Knoxville]

I give up LDV, your right but when they prove you wrong I'll be the first bringing this thread back to life.

[jimbms]

In a sense being gay is not following the biologically constant that is procreation. But homosexuality is no less natural than heterosexual behaviour. Forget normal, first think about what natural actually means. If procreation produces human beings and human beings engage in homosexual behaviour then what is not natural about that? To take the position that homosexuality is unnatural is to pretend that sex and sexuality need rest on procreation. But how many of you straights out there bonk solely for the sake of having kids? And to state that heterosexual behaviour is normal and natural in opposition to homosexuality is obviously homophobic. You have just said it yourself, you are arguing this from a normative perspective and norms are based on the discourse of the greater power in a power relationship. Straights like to think that their sexuality, their culture, lifestyle and identity is a constant running through history, it is the baseline and the correct way to be. But your identity and sexuality is a product of the recogntion of what it is to be gay. Much of this normalisation comes from the medicalisation of homosexual sexual behaviour.

So by your definition Beastiality, Necrophilia and Peadophilia are acceptable as natural acts as they are deviations from what is classed as normal hetrosexual behavior, after all they are as you say homosexuality is, just an individuals choice of sexual preference.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

So by your definition Beastiality, Necrophilia and Peadophilia are acceptable as natural acts as they are deviations from what is classed as normal hetrosexual behavior, after all they are as you say homosexuality is, just an individuals choice of sexual preference.

 

Acceptability? I never mentioned anything about acceptability, and it was you who brought up what is natural and what is normal. And I have made no reference to choice.

 

You look at sexuality from a very heterosexual perspective too as here again you refer to normal heterosexual behaviour, as if by calling it normal it somehow gives heterosexuality centre stage as the proper, correct, and natural sexuality, and that is what normal is all about (and why for heterosexuals normal has such importance in relation to homosexuality). Normal is only used by the majority to exclude, and in doing so it dominates the discourse and oppresses the Other. Normal is used by heterosexuals to simply reproduce and bolster the discourse of sexuality which is dominated by heterosexuality and which is used to oppress those who are homosexual. So I entirely reject your view of sexuality where normal is given significance.

 

What I was referring to before was your mention of natural. What does it mean? Does it mean simply what is regularly produced biologically or as part of human existence? Is it a valueless term, i.e. does it mean whether something is right or wrong?

[P.K.]

As its the only logical explanation, were coded to create living beings and not to be with the same sex.

So with all things, a mutation has occured creating a change in what should and shouldnt be done.

 

Straight = You like the opposite sex.

Gay = You like the same sex.

Oh dear. Democracy was saved by an extreme Spartan society that had homosexuality as a core value. Nothing to do with mutations, genes or any of your other bs. So you can put that one in your pocket...

[Knoxville]

As its the only logical explanation, were coded to create living beings and not to be with the same sex.

So with all things, a mutation has occured creating a change in what should and shouldnt be done.

 

Straight = You like the opposite sex.

Gay = You like the same sex.

Oh dear. Democracy was saved by an extreme Spartan society that had homosexuality as a core value. Nothing to do with mutations, genes or any of your other bs. So you can put that one in your pocket...

 

You for got peadophilia also if were hearing your wank.

 

JIMBMS post at 6:58pm has flawed your theroy LDV so much.

[Pat Ayres]

He didn't forget paedophilia, he just ignored the puerility of you raising it in this context.

[Knoxville]

He didn't forget paedophilia, he just ignored the puerility of you raising it in this context.

 

He forgot it.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

He didn't forget paedophilia, he just ignored the puerility of you raising it in this context.

 

He forgot it.

 

I think it more obvious that you don't understand Jimbms's response.

Do you not recognise how I never referred to acceptability nor offered any definitions that involve claims of what is natural or not?

 

Though although paedophilia is a completely different topic and never gave mention to acceptability at all, one fundamental difference between the two is that paedophilia rests on power. The paedophilia 'gets off' by having power over the child. It isn't a consensual thing, nor can it be with the child being sexually undeveloped. Homosexuality is clearly different.

[Snaipyr]

So are bisexuals just plain greedy? (PLEASE please don't answer this post LDV - life's too short).

[jimbms]

So are bisexuals just plain greedy? (PLEASE please don't answer this post LDV - life's too short).

hehehe I can imagine him sat there itching to answer

[Knoxville]

So are bisexuals just plain greedy? (PLEASE please don't answer this post LDV - life's too short).

hehehe I can imagine him sat there itching to answer

 

I thought LDV was a girl

[Pat Ayres]

Sexist.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Maybe I just come across as being a bit of an annoying bitch at times.