Good News On Hiv?

[thebees]

I checked under perversion, more drivel you spout. Go away, you are everything that is wrong with society, sometimes I think I should like to run away to a cave and shut myself away from stupid ignorant people, you are so 'a wrong un'.

[grant]

Hello Mrs Bees, have you finished sputting yet. That post made me laugh so much it hurt. (I have a damaged rib) It should be up for post of the year. Spit, spat, sput. Pure genius.

[spook]

 

But you're antagonistic, very rude and now you seem to suggest you're some sort of knight in shining armour, quoting from your book of fairy tales. Do you ride a white horse when you carry your sword? You're just as arrogant as you are deluded.

 

 

It may be worth your reading Matthew 5, pay particular attention to verse 15, and verse 37 might explain why I may appear to you to be arrogant.

[Terse]

I have in the past clearly shown that homosexuality is deviant. If you care to consult a dictionary you will find that it is also perverted, and in that Spook is perfectly correct.

In the interests of accuracy, I've so far consulted six dictionaries - including a medical one - and nowhere is it defined as 'perverted.'

Try using the dictionaries properly and look for the meaning of perversion instead of desperately trying to find some way of justifying your predispositions.

perversion  noun

1. the act of perverting.

2. the state of being perverted.

3. a perverted form of something.

4. any of various means of obtaining sexual gratification that are generally regarded as being abnormal.

5. Pathology . a change to what is unnatural or abnormal: a perversion of function or structure.

 

I'm assuming that, in your own twisted little way, you're referring to the definition numbered as '4.'

You will note, however, that it states 'generally regarded' and, as homosexuality is not 'generally regarded' as perverted (other than by a tiny, and steadily decreasing number of insecure people who 'pervert' the meaning of their religious tracts to conceal their own inadequacies and - justifiable - feelings of inferiority)

My 'predispositions' by the way, happen to be a warm and loving relationship with my wife - and a belief that what people do, consensually, behind closed doors is no business of mine. I would suggest that, if the being you worship is as obsessed with sexuality as you appear to think, then the only conclusion to be drawn is that God is a dirty old pervert.

[Evil Goblin]

From the OED - "to pevert - to turn (a person or thing) aside from its proper use or nature". Seems pretty clear that this properly refers to homosexuality. You should stop loading the proper meanings of words with your own emotional baggage (a fault LDV regularly exhibits).

 

homosexuality is not 'generally regarded' as perverted (other than by a tiny, and steadily decreasing number of insecure people

 

This is merely your subjective opinion with no basis in proof of any sort and hence worthless in establishing the veracity of your position as correct. As a matter of fact, I am not at all insecure, nor do I have any feelings of inferiority, and my views are based on rational contemplation of the facts, not on any religious tract or view or misbegotten emotional illusions. You make (another) error in assuming that because I happen to agree with Spook on some matters I reach those views on the same basis as he does - I don't.

 

My 'predispositions' by the way, happen to be a warm and loving relationship with my wife

 

You know (or should know) that my reference to your predispositions had no reference to your personal sexuality but was directed at your emotional attachment to your politically correct view on homosexuality. Incidentally, why did you feel the need to state your "warm and loving relationship with my wife"? Is it that you are insecure and fear that she does not actually feel the same way?

 

I would suggest that, if the being you worship is as obsessed with sexuality as you appear to think

 

I do not happen to worship any being - yet another misplaced assumption.

 

You really should ditch all the emotiomal illusions which seem to dictate your views and start being objective. If you do not like reality, tough.

[Evil Goblin]

I checked under perversion, more drivel you spout. Go away, you are everything that is wrong with society, sometimes I think I should like to run away to a cave and shut myself away from stupid ignorant people, you are so 'a wrong un'.

And precisely what is the drivel I spout? From the rest of your little diatribe I could make the deduction that you are either in (or should be in) a psychiatric facility.

 

On the other hand, you might like, in a lucid period, to justify your attack with some rational evidence.

[jimbms]

There is fuck all wrong with being perverted, in fact it's good fun, much better then giving chunks of your earnings to a bunch of kiddie fiddlers preaching a false diety

[Evil Goblin]

There is fuck all wrong with being perverted, in fact it's good fun, much better then giving chunks of your earnings to a bunch of kiddie fiddlers preaching a false diety

So, our resident intellectual and his great linguistic skills appears!

[Terse]

From the OED - "to pevert - to turn (a person or thing) aside from its proper use or nature". Seems pretty clear that this properly refers to homosexuality.

 

Since the definition does not refer to any kind of sexuality, one can only assume that its your own obsession with homosexuality that brings you to such a conclusion.

 

I do not happen to worship any being - yet another misplaced assumption.

 

In that case, my apologies. I didn't realise that your opinions were based purely on bigotry.

[Chinahand]

Yawn.

 

This natural/un-natural; normal/unnormal; perverted, deviant debate is so so pointless.

 

There is not a purpose within biology. Life just does what it does - if it tries to do something it cannot do it dies - if it can do it then it continues trying to do it and either succeeds or also dies.

 

Normative arguments cannot be based on what is natural.

 

The natural world coopts, exaptates processes and behaviours. Believe me sexual reproduction didn't develop as a way to pair bond - sponges don't pair bond! Sexual reproduction probably initially evolved to provide more diversity to the genome of decendents. Later this became coopted to involve pair bonding - that later development doesn't negate its prior purpose, but also it isn't superior to it, or a perversion of it, it is simply an exaptation of a prior process to a different process.

 

Homosexuality uses the pair bonding drive for a non-reproductive process - that isn't unnatural, or a perversion, it is a perfectly normal result that you find everywhere in biology. If homosexuals pair bonding via coitus is a perversion of a natural process then so is normal pair bonding which has so coopted the processes of sexual reproduction that the majority of mammals mate many hundreds of times more than they reproduce - they are not mating for the purpsoe of sex, but to bond! Biology is full of processes which started doing one thing and then became involved in another; that is not a perversion.

 

Homosexuality exists as a phenomenon within nature - dolphins, sperm whales, penguins, albatrosses, giraffes, mountain goats, bonobo chimpanzees, humans, lizards etc etc exhibit it. It is long established and a part of the diversity of behaviour animals exhibit. This exaptation of the pair-bonding behaviour which in itself evolved as an exaptation from sexual reproduction is no more a perversion than any other evolutionary process - its just nature doing exactly what nautre does.

 

These long standing behaviours may be advantageous - and this advantage doesn't have to be immediate, but can be at a third hand; think about ant clones which give up all opportunity to mate, but support their sister queens (Evil Goblin are they perverted? I am asking a serious question directly to you here). But also it can simply be a "spandrel" and persist because other behaviours are advantageous, and these behaviours produce homosexuality as a bi-product.

 

The behaviours can also be entirely neutral (or even slightly decrease evolutionary fitness) and pursist just by the random fluke that is genetic drift, entirely separate from selective evolution - though this is very doubtful with homosexuality because it so so common in such diverse orders of nature.

 

I am sure LDV will then add in cultural issues - modern life is profoundly "perverted" with society so altering "natural" behaviours as to make the distinction between nature and nurture almost irrelevent - is modern medicine, clothing, housing, food, contraception etc etc a perversion of normality or not?

 

When people want to throw around words like deviant and perverted they show a profound ignorance of nature. I can understand Spook doing that - he denies science and puts his theology before reality, but for people who accept the reality of nature to use these words ... well it just makes them sound crass, ignorant and rude.

 

If you are not using them for normative purposes use words like rare, coopted, or whatever. That would show an understanding of biology where quite simply either everything is perverted or nothing is. You cannot pick and choose.

[spook]

I find myself slightly in support of homosexual people in that what they do in terms of the physical aspects of their relationships to them isn’t perverted, and again if I’m honest much of the physical aspects of their relationship are engaged in by many married couples.

 

In my opinion to concentrate on the physical aspects misses the point, it is the predisposition to engage in a homosexual relationship that is wrong.

 

I know this puts me at odds with the RC assertion that the sin is in the actual act of sex, not the same sex attraction in itself, but to find myself in opposition to the RC if anything confirms to me that I am in the right.

 

My hope is that even if they chose a modified form of the famous prayer of Augustine of Hippo they at least achieve the end result!

[Evil Goblin]

Since the definition does not refer to any kind of sexuality, one can only assume that its your own obsession with homosexuality that brings you to such a conclusion.

You really are a plonker! Are you really this stupid?

 

In that case, my apologies. I didn't realise that your opinions were based purely on bigotry.

 

Since when has rational following of facts been bigotry? Or is the term one you use to abuse people when yur own view is shown to be totally wrong and you won't admit it?

[Evil Goblin]

At least this is a more sophisticated form of abuse! Nothing you say changes the fact that sexual activity is designed for reproduction and waffling on in a supposedly erudite fashion to confuse the issue and so appear "cool" and clever changes nothing.

It is such a pity that someone who obviously has some intelligence resorts to accusing me of being "crass, ignorant and rude" - in this you deamean yourself to the same low level of some others on this thread.

[Evil Goblin]

I find myself slightly in support of homosexual people in that what they do in terms of the physical aspects of their relationships to them isn’t perverted, and again if I’m honest much of the physical aspects of their relationship are engaged in by many married couples.

 

In my opinion to concentrate on the physical aspects misses the point, it is the predisposition to engage in a homosexual relationship that is wrong.

 

I know this puts me at odds with the RC assertion that the sin is in the actual act of sex, not the same sex attraction in itself, but to find myself in opposition to the RC if anything confirms to me that I am in the right.

 

My hope is that even if they chose a modified form of the famous prayer of Augustine of Hippo they at least achieve the end result!

Spook - the RC Church view recognises that whether or not you are homosexual is outside of your control but indulging in homosexual sex is within your control and must be resisted. As for "but to find myself in opposition to the RC if anything confirms to me that I am in the right." - that is truly arrogant. Even the RC Church has its good points!

[Terse]

 

In that case, my apologies. I didn't realise that your opinions were based purely on bigotry.

 

Since when has rational following of facts been bigotry? Or is the term one you use to abuse people when yur own view is shown to be totally wrong and you won't admit it?

Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. [Mark Twain]