21st Century Fox Posted 6 February 2013 Posted 6 February 2013 They're too busy shoving their cocks up each others arses. í ½í¸³ Is there a subtle piece of satire I'm missing here?
BoneDog Posted 6 February 2013 Posted 6 February 2013 Either way, the majority of countries have either separated church and state, or are trying to do so. Of course, it's not really nation-states that are the threat any more - it's radical fundamentalist groups, but without the backing and legitimacy represented by a major state they will never get enough power to truly change the world in their favour. Interesting subject. Look at Syria and Libya, both places had the fundamentalists in complete check. They were secular countries, but the West has given the fundamentalists the power to cause carnage and gain military strength. Ridiculous palaver.
flowwolf Posted 6 February 2013 Posted 6 February 2013 Is there a subtle piece of satire I'm missing here? Christ I've just spillt my beer. lol lol
flowwolf Posted 6 February 2013 Posted 6 February 2013 I've always found the area of 'morality' to be very tenuous anyway. Everyone's view of what is morally right/wrong is different, and there is never a truly black and white issue (bar Peter Taylor being an incompetent manager). I'm a fierce believer in free will, and as long as people act in a way that doesn't directly and quantitatively inconvenience the lives of others,they should be allowed to. Of course you have to have rules and laws for effective government and for when there is a direct and quantitative provable inconvenience. I think the general population growth has resulted in a rise of people who would deem themselves Islamic, rather than an increase as a proportion of general population. Either way, the majority of countries have either separated church and state, or are trying to do so. The few remaining theocracies are becoming more marginalised. Of course, it's not really nation-states that are the threat any more - it's radical fundamentalist groups, but without the backing and legitimacy represented by a major state they will never get enough power to truly change the world in their favour. Case in point here Mac given that we as a society have just had a big expose of paedophilia within our celebrity community. Now quite rightly on this very site we have had absolute condemnation of those involved and yet tonight someone saw fit to post a picture of a man having anal sex with a boy on a ancient goblet. What is your view on the morals of posting that ?
Zingari Posted 6 February 2013 Posted 6 February 2013 If God hadn't wanted gay men to marry why did he make them so good at designing wedding dresses ?
Kitchandro Posted 6 February 2013 Posted 6 February 2013 Case in point here Mac given that we as a society have just had a big expose of paedophilia within our celebrity community. Now quite rightly on this very site we have had absolute condemnation of those involved and yet tonight someone saw fit to post a picture of a man having anal sex with a boy on a ancient goblet. What is your view on the morals of posting that ? I might be missing something here but what makes you say it's a boy? I can barely tell what's going on on that goblet let alone what age they are supposed to be. In any case I'm not sure what what that has to do with this overall debate, we're not talking about paedophilia. Are you trying to confuse everyone into submission?
BoneDog Posted 6 February 2013 Posted 6 February 2013 This about sums it all up: 'Picture' I certainly wouldn't rule out the lime green option the way things are going. In fact, I'd say it's flipping inevitable.
leicsmac Posted 6 February 2013 Posted 6 February 2013 Case in point here Mac given that we as a society have just had a big expose of paedophilia within our celebrity community. Now quite rightly on this very site we have had absolute condemnation of those involved and yet tonight someone saw fit to post a picture of a man having anal sex with a boy on a ancient goblet. What is your view on the morals of posting that ? I think it was a daft attempt to make a point that homosexuality is a long-standing and long-documented phenomenon. Poor choice of picture, if you believe that it it's a boy on the goblet. If you believe it's a man, then the point is made. It's either morally sound or not depending on that interpretation.
flowwolf Posted 6 February 2013 Posted 6 February 2013 This about sums it all up: You missed out the option of -There will be some terrible divorce courts scenes in a few weeks with both sides breaking down in tears and claiming custody of the Poodle.
flowwolf Posted 6 February 2013 Posted 6 February 2013 I might be missing something here but what makes you say it's a boy? I can barely tell what's going on on that goblet let alone what age they are supposed to be. In any case I'm not sure what what that has to do with this overall debate, we're not talking about paedophilia. Are you trying to confuse everyone into submission? Yes you keep missing something here.
flowwolf Posted 6 February 2013 Posted 6 February 2013 I think it was a daft attempt to make a point that homosexuality is a long-standing and long-documented phenomenon. Poor choice of picture, if you believe that it it's a boy on the goblet. If you believe it's a man, then the point is made. It's either morally sound or not depending on that interpretation. Thank you for your honest answer.
Kitchandro Posted 6 February 2013 Posted 6 February 2013 Yes you keep missing something here. Then please enlighten me.
BoneDog Posted 6 February 2013 Posted 6 February 2013 You missed the option of - There will be some terrible divorce courts scenes in a few weeks with both sides breaking down in tears and claiming custody of the Poodle.
flowwolf Posted 6 February 2013 Posted 6 February 2013 Then please enlighten me. I haven't the time nor you the intelligence.
Kitchandro Posted 6 February 2013 Posted 6 February 2013 I haven't the time nor you the intelligence. Is that code for you're a homophobe and are clutching at straws? I'll have to assume it is unless you can offer a decent explanation and display some manners
flowwolf Posted 6 February 2013 Posted 6 February 2013 Is that code for you're a homophobe and are clutching at straws? I'll have to assume it is unless you can offer a decent explanation and display some manners No it's simply a statement of the truth. ( cue the sound of feathers being ruffled off stage right ) Come on Kitch I meant no disrepect just a leg pull. By the way I really am not afraid of Homosexuals unless they want to clutch at my straw.
Kitchandro Posted 6 February 2013 Posted 6 February 2013 No it's simply a statement of the truth. No, you won't explain yourself, it is clear to me and everyone else reading this thread that you haven't got an acceptable explanation Your hostility to my first comment speaks volumes. Sorry for making you look an idiot, I didn't mean to wind you up
leicsmac Posted 6 February 2013 Posted 6 February 2013 Thank you for your honest answer. Not a problem. I believe most strongly in freedom of will and choice. People should always have a choice where available. But coupled with that must always be freedom to take the consequences of that choice, whatever they may be. Indeed, that's the freedom on which all other freedoms are based. Oh, and as a scientist/engineer I also believe in calculated rationality and logic, which is why I don't tend to like reactionary views as most often I believe them irrational.
flowwolf Posted 6 February 2013 Posted 6 February 2013 No, you won't explain yourself, it is clear to me and everyone else reading this thread that you haven't got an acceptable explanation Your hostility to my first comment speaks volumes. Sorry for making you look an idiot, I didn't mean to wind you up Sorry Kitch I was busy amending that post as I realised it was a hostile and idiotic post as it stood . please accept my apology.
flowwolf Posted 6 February 2013 Posted 6 February 2013 Not a problem. I believe most strongly in freedom of will and choice. People should always have a choice where available. But coupled with that must always be freedom to take the consequences of that choice, whatever they may be. Indeed, that's the freedom on which all other freedoms are based. Yes indeed you do believe in your convictions and lets hope we have much more of your honesty on this site. well thought out and too the point .
acooling08 Posted 6 February 2013 Posted 6 February 2013 Sorry if this post isn't relating to what's being discussed now, I've just been reading pages 3,4,5. But I think that fundamentally, a child should be raised by a man and a woman. We do not know really if being raised by 2 gay men or 2 gay women is harmful to children's development, but is it worth taking the risk? In my opinion, no. In society now where straight parents may have a homosexual child, the child when reaching adolescence may be confused and worried about being different and not understanding why. Maybe a straight child may think that when noticing the opposite sex for the first time, if they have 2 same sex 'parents' at home. I'm noy saying that having 2 gay parents will make the child gay, but I do not think they are a positive influence in this regard. Would having 2 dads affect a boys ability to socialise with girls and vice versa? In my family, I always went to my dad when I was going through puberty to ask the questions every youth asks. I would be too embarrassed to ask my mum. What would a boy do if he felt this way but had 2 lesbian mothers? What about a girl having her first period? Her mother should be there to help her through it, not 2 men. Then there's the playground bullying thing. It will always happen. It's an open goal to getting mocked and ridiculed. Even between mates, the banter would be a right pain in the arse (like your dad felt last night, wahey!) Anybody on here tell me honestly that you wouldn't be even the slightest bit embarrassed to tell a new friend or girlfriend that you have '2 mums' or '2 dads'. If you can, you're either very open minded, or lying. Homsexuality is natural and homosexuals wanting children is natural, but actually having them isn't. Giving them children is tampering with nature in a no less controversial way than genetically engineering a designer baby, imo.
BoneDog Posted 6 February 2013 Posted 6 February 2013 That LGBT thing I mentioned earlier. Seriously, what have the "bi's" got to do with anything?! Flipping heck, why not chuck in the beastiality guys aswell. They're a minority and are not allowed to marry animals. They could be called the LG Double BT'ers which is a superior name to what they have already. Everyone's a winner. Or if the LGT's chucked out the bi's then their name would look more like 'LeGiT'. Far more advertising potential, so think on. I really can't get my head around why the bi's need a rights group or whatever LGBT is. Are they just drama queens who like to be involved or what? Surely they do their bi business in the privacy of their own home, or at the special 'clubs' with their friends, so why the need to hark on about it to the general population?
flowwolf Posted 6 February 2013 Posted 6 February 2013 Sorry if this post isn't relating to what's being discussed now, I've just been reading pages 3,4,5. But I think that fundamentally, a child should be raised by a man and a woman. We do not know really if being raised by 2 gay men or 2 gay women is harmful to children's development, but is it worth taking the risk? In my opinion, no. In society now where straight parents may have a homosexual child, the child when reaching adolescence may be confused and worried about being different and not understanding why. Maybe a straight child may think that when noticing the opposite sex for the first time, if they have 2 same sex 'parents' at home. I'm noy saying that having 2 gay parents will make the child gay, but I do not think they are a positive influence in this regard. Would having 2 dads affect a boys ability to socialise with girls and vice versa? In my family, I always went to my dad when I was going through puberty to ask the questions every youth asks. I would be too embarrassed to ask my mum. What would a boy do if he felt this way but had 2 lesbian mothers? What about a girl having her first period? Her mother should be there to help her through it, not 2 men. Then there's the playground bullying thing. It will always happen. It's an open goal to getting mocked and ridiculed. Even between mates, the banter would be a right pain in the arse (like your dad felt last night, wahey!) Anybody on here tell me honestly that you wouldn't be even the slightest bit embarrassed to tell a new friend or girlfriend that you have '2 mums' or '2 dads'. If you can, you're either very open minded, or lying. Homsexuality is natural and homosexuals wanting children is natural, but actually having them isn't. Giving them children is tampering with nature in a no less controversial way than genetically engineering a designer baby, imo. Christ Cooling you do realise you have just dipped your toe into a cauldron of boiling unreason ?
flowwolf Posted 6 February 2013 Posted 6 February 2013 That LGBT thing I mentioned earlier. Seriously, what have the "bi's" got to do with anything?! Flipping heck, why not chuck in the beastiality guys aswell. They're a minority and are not allowed to marry animals. They could be called the LG Double BT'ers which is a superior name to what they have already. Everyone's a winner. Or if the LGT's chucked out the bi's then their name would look more like 'LeGiT'. Far more advertising potential, so think on. I really can't get my head around why the bi's need a rights group or whatever LGBT is. Are they just drama queens who like to be involved or what? Surely they do their bi business in the privacy of their own home, or at the special 'clubs' with their friends, so why the need to hark on about it to the general population? Won't the " Bi's" need at least two groups ?
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.