The Rest of The Story

 

Why does it always come to this?  A relationship between two consenting adults has nothing to do with screwing animals or children.  At least as far as I know.

NAMBLA has been around for years...and they've yet to gain support aside from the freaks that are in there already.

I have no problem with letting homosexuals get married...I honestly can't see the drawbacks.  It's their life, why not let'em have it?  Ah, but I'm always the easygoing one...curse me for my tolerance of people who's lives don't directly affect me or anything around me!

Have you seen the internet?  There are far worse things out there to be concerned about than homosexuals...FAR FAR FAR FAR FAR FAR worse.

~Zoo

Zoo, much of what you said used to pertain to this lifestyle as well.  When I was in school (not that long ago) homosexuality was considered a deviant lifestyle.  Even my uncle who was a homosexual thought he was a deviant.  He would be laughing now at the thought that gays are being allowed to marry. 

Isn't that what we would call beastiality and pedophilia now?   Who's to say that 20 years from now we are not allowing these other things to be considered "alternative?" 

You brought up Nambla.  They've been pushing to have the age of consent for sex lowered for years.  They have all their documentation that says having sex at a younger age is beneficial. 

By definition they are "alternative" but not acceptable.  Honestly, I think it's going to be a cold day in hell before screwing animals and children are accepted by the general populous. 

There's a big leap in there from being gay to molesting children and "saddling up" your horse.

~Zoo

This is the kind of argument I find most repugnant. It's the kind of thinking that goes, "This particular thing is acceptable, but maybe if we allow it then worse things will become acceptable."

What? Why? And why don't you make the same argument about, say, a new anti-cancer drug? Surely if you allow that then bestiality will follow. Or if you allow a new toy to be sold then street rape of infants is just a few days away.

I'd thought the religious right at least had moved away from this argument after failure with the civil rights movement. I guess though you consider that the enfranchisement of blacks and Asians and women was just the gateway evil to the true evil of an elected female or 'coloured' president.

Because that's the only evidence of gateway changes leading to other changes that I can think of.

Of course you're welcome to pick another if you like.

Better check the latest news out of Holland.

KFC,

Thanks for this article following up on the Rep. Sally Kern story. These are important questions. 

She told the truth about the disastrous effects of the homosexual agenda likening it worse than Islamic terrorism.  She believes that the sanctioning of destructive, degrading and unnatural homosexual  behavior (whether by legislation or societal acceptance of it as just  an equally alternative lifestyle) erodes society.  

I agree and am glad she had the courage to say it and even under intense pressure, tens of thousands of hate mail, and threats against her safety and life won't apologize or retract what she said.

Exactly. Holland has long given the practice of homosexuality official equal status to heterosexuality...equating it with the normal variant of human sexual behavior ....and what's happening? Every sexual practice and arrangement is equal....

 

KFC POSTS:

CACTOBLASTA POSTS:

You're on to something here, Cactoblasta. As KFC has pointed out, homosexuality wasn't acceptable and respectable or good to much of anyone 40 years ago. I would submit to you that we can see evidence of gateway changes in the culture that has lead to changes...

Yet, Homosexuality is "acceptable" now....it's been legitimized and is considered just another "alternative lifestyle"....in other words the practice of homosexuality has come to be presented as normal, natural, even good.



Homosexuality years ago wasn't enshrined on the same level as heterosexuality. Now it is...what's going on? What happened from then to now and why should we be concerned that this will lead to acceptance of such practices as polygamy, pedophilia and beastility?

In the 60's, the social, cultural and sexual revolution hit....and the man steeped in tradition that affirms the dignity of the human person and the lofty value of traditional marriage and the family gave way to a whole set of new "freedoms"----the birth control "pill" and anything goes--sex. As for homosexuality, what was live and let live and tolerance became full blown acceptance

Not long after, the homosexual "rights" movement got underway and their agenda was set. We learned early on that our "live and let live" attitude and tolerance of it was not enough. They wanted full blown acceptance and they let it be known...it began with moral re-education in the psychological, governmental and educational systems. What was once unmentionable for adults is now instructionable for kids as young a kindergarten.

Their 1972 "Gay" Rights platform had 12 goals and all but 3 have been met. The 12th one is "Repeal all legislative provisions that restrict the sex or number of persons entering into a marriage unit; and the extension of legal benefits to all persons who cohabit regardless of sex or numbers."

The legislation and education is part and parcel of a long-range plan for a total destruction of our sexual values and mores. Read The Homosexual Network: Private Lives and Public Policy if you want an eye-opening experience into their agenda.

Here's a quote from an article, Gay Money, Gay Votes, in 1983: "In the long run, the sort of changes that are needed to make genuine equality possible require a change in the underlying values and attitudes of society toward sexuality.....We are essentially a radical movement.....radical becasue we are defending the legitimacy of diversity in the most emotionally charged of all areas, that of sexuality and personal life..and in as far as we are successful we do indeed break down the hedgemony of certain traditional values of sex and relationships. Often this perception is argued in terms of the need to defend our own minorities, whether they be boy-lovers, transvestites, or sado-masochists, a point with which I would agree."

ZOO POSTS:



CACTOBLASTA POSTS:

Just wondering....in terms of sexual behavior, are you two saying that you think homosexuality is equivalent to heterosexuality?

Depends what you mean by equivalent, but if you mean that they're acceptable ways of expressing yourself sexually then yes, I think they are equivalent.

Sure, one doesn't result in children, but hardly any heterosexual contact these days results in children, so I don't consider that a relevant objection.

The key point is that both are sexual relationships freely entered into by consenting adults in order to fulfil the human craving for sexual contentment. I don't consider that evil, and certainly not evil in the same way that enslaving a child or an animal for a single person's sexual gratification is evil.

PS. I was a little harsh with my last comment. Apologies for the rudeness.

Okay. If homosexuality is equivalent to heterosexuality, then what stops pedophiles from claiming pedophilia is equivalent with homosexuality and heterosexuality?

Fundamentally it's the idea of consent. A child isn't old enough to consent (and if you want to bring up bestiality, an animal is never old enough to consent because that's a human decision). They have no legal capacity to do so in most jurisdictions until their 16th or 18th birthday. Prior to that sexual activity is legally statutory rape or an instant paedophilia charge.

If, for some reason, the age of consent was lowered significantly then the child would be legally considered capable of consent, and so therefore it wouldn't be paedophilia.

I'd love to know why you think legalising homosexuality would lead to a lowering of the age of consent though. So far as I'm aware the limited figures we have suggest homosexual sex tends to occur much later on average than straight sex, presumably because of the limited availability of partners, so that's out as a cause of age of consent change. Gays don't seem to mature more quickly than straights either, so that also wouldn't justify a reduction in the age of consent.

What do you think would be the link?

lula posts:

Cacto posts:

So, just to be clear your saying that same gender-sexual conduct is equivalent to opposite gender sexual conduct, right?

If you say yes, then I would ask how can that be?

Here's something to think about.

All human beings (with the rare exception of people with genetic deformities) are born with a reproductive system that is heterosexual by nature. We are either male or female. We have sexual feelings only becasue of chemical and other processes that are rooted in our procreative heterosexual design. Thus, a male sexual orientation toward a female or vice versa is self evidently normal and natural. By contrast, male to male or female to female sexual conduct is self evidently abnormal and unnatural.

On the basis of our nature, heterosexuality and homosexuality can't possibly be equivalent.

By indoctrinating and espousing the false premise and presumptions of equivalency, the homosexual movement over the years has made gains in pushing its social, cultural, political and educational agenda forward. Homosexual activists have framed the debate about equality. Once these presuppositions have become accepted, especially when they become law in anti-discrimination poliices, same-sex "marriage", and hate crimes laws, resistance to the rest of the agenda, or what KFC calls the rest of the story, becomes much more difficult.

That's the stage we're at now....rejecting and refuting these false assumptions of equivalency and reframing the issues on a truthful foundation.

If not, it will be as Rep. Kerns suggests, it will be at the expense of the whole of society.

Abnormal, sure. Unnatural, not at all. There are a number of animal species that have homosexual relationships - a few kinds of birds, some mammals, etc. Not only that, but homosexual attraction exists without need for unnatural aid, such as the famed 'gay bomb' of the US army. Ergo it must be natural.

It may well be that homosexuality is intelligently designed into human nature in an attempt to keep the population down. This would explain why it's less prevalent in small villages and towns and more common in big cities (there's some newthink for you!).

In any case I'm sure we've discussed the problems of thinking naturally before. Unless you want to return to the trees with the rest of the apes, God entrusted us with unnaturality right at the very beginning. Humans are fundamentally creatures of artifice. We warp and despoil the natural environment to suit our wills. There's barely a thing the average human does which is wholly natural any more. In fact I can't think of a single one. Most cook their food, or go to the toilet, or have sex in a bed (or at least a house). If our lives are so unnatural on such a basic level, the idea of rejecting anything because it's unnatural doesn't seem to make much sense.



Okay, but you're redefining the debate here. On the basis of our nature, the two can't possibly be equivalent because they don't appear in equal numbers. But they can be equivalent because both are consensual relationships between adults.

It's like flavours of icecream. Chocolate isn't equivalent to vanilla on the basis of its nature; it can't ever be, the two don't attract nearly as many fans. But both are valid flavours. Some people can't live with vanilla alone. Why should they suffer because vanilla is more popular and arbitrarily more natural?

OK, good! we agree on the abnormal.

As to the unnatural-----

Certainly, the shorter lifespan of both males and females practicing same-gender sex calls the naturalness of homosexuality into question.

In addition to that, the natural anatomy of the human body including organ function and reproduction rejects the naturalness of homosexual acts. Homosexuality is contrary to the facts of life. The natural design of the body affirms the sexual union of a man and a woman. Their parts fit perfectly whereas I told Locamama the body parts don't fit in the case of same-gender sex.

The natural design of the body rejects homo-sex, especially male homo-sex. The rectum wall easily ruptures during the sex act which is why disease is so easily transmitted. Be honest...do you really believe this is a natural act when it destroys the biological function of the rectum? Using the rectum for sex is harmful. Empirical evidence shows that females engaging in unnatural sexual practices are nearly as damaging and their lifespan is shortened as well.

Now, besides homosexuality being unnatural, let's add some good ol' common sense.

Common sense tells us that people who engage in harmful sexual practices won't survive very long if they continue to use their body against its natural design.

Ya, I heard about the "gay" penguins! According to the NY Times, we are supposed to learn about human sexuality from the animals...ya, right....like animals have alot to teach about sex.

And evidently, some in the APA, American Psychiatric Assoc., are going along with it.

But relying upon animals to teach humans anything and transform those into generalities aobut the naturalness and normalcy of homosexuality is preposterous. It betrays common sense as well. Animals have nothing to teach us about how to run our sexual lives. Animals regularly do all sorts of things that we humans would never consider normal or natural for us to do. The parallels between them and us are tenuous at best.

And again as opposed to animals, where homosexuality appears to be irrelevant, we know that homosexuality in humans is harmful.

Just so we have a clear understanding, I'm not talking about homosexual attraction or tendency...just homosexuality...the sexual practice or behavior which I consider is an objective disorder.



Homosexuality is more prevelant in big cities becaseu there are more people and thus more opportunity.

As to your idea that homosexuality is intelligently designed.....nah, sorry about that Cacto, no sale.

God doesn't want to keep the population down...He loves making babies...all the more to be happy with Him in His eternal kingdom. He created us as heterosexual beings and commanded us to increase and multiply. We are commanded by Him to shun all other sexual relationships under pain of His Divine Judgment...so this would be contradictory to your idea as put forth here. God wouldn't have created a genetic condition which would have sabotaged His design and He certainly wouldn't have created people with no choice but to engage in a sexual behavior He condemns.

Besides, the science of genetics has shown that there aren't any homosexual genes. And beyond that, if there were any genes associated with homosexuality, they would tend to disappear from the gene pool in a relatively few generations. Homosexuality would make the person less likely to reproduce tending ultimately to the extinction of the gene. Besides that, you've got the shorter lifespan of practicing homosexuals making them less able to contribute his genes to the next generation in comparison to those who live longer and reproductive active life.

Lula posts:



No, I'm not. I asked your definition and you said:



I accepted your definition of homosexuality and heterosexuality....they are both ways of expressing yourself sexually....and then I went on to clarify




Cacto posts:

Homosexuality isn't equivalent to heterosexuality becasue the latter is natural and the former isn't. Heterosexuality, male/female sexual conduct has an undeniable, exclusive place in nature and homosexuality is unnatural and will never be equivalent to that. Equivalency has nothing to do with the numbers or lack numbers of people who engage in the sex act.

Looking at things with a sour dispositin tonight...The world would be a far better place if people just learned to shut up and deal with their own life. Religious, science minded, or otherwise.

 

Natural according to what? Your god? Bottle nose dolphins, some Manatee's, Blue whales (i believe), and some other animals actually are known to mate/have attraction towards the same sex.

So, how does nature deem homosexuality unnatural?

I suggest we leave it here. I've tried to demonstrate that heterosexuality isn't exclusively natural and that there's no point in knocking being unnatural, but you're obviously not interested. Thanks for your time.

My advice to you would be to try and live a thoroughly natural life for one week, and then say that unnatural necessarily equals bad. Bad for you, maybe, but it may be good for another.

Well, there wouldn't be much of a discussion board here on JU if we all just learned to shut up....that's silly SilentPoet.

Lula posts:

Lula posts:

Fair enough...I've enjoyed the discussion.

Hopefully, it's helped show that homosexuality once equated with heterosexuality will inevitably lead to equivalency of such practices as polygamy, pedophilia and beastility. This will happen unless and until academia stops indoctrinating it, the media stops promoting it, the churches stop tolerating and protecting it by remaining silent, and politicos stop sanctioning into laws.



Again, sticking strictly to the topic of human sexuality, this is opening up a whole other can of worms....as it gets into the moral issue.

SilentPoet posts:

Did you read my post #15? Here's the part of it that most answers your question.

You haven't shown that at all. While you've made it clear you think homosexuality is bad, unnatural and unhealthy, you haven't shown the steps taken from it to legalising polygamy, paedophilia and bestiality. If you can't show those steps, you have no case. You need to make an argument before you can claim it's made. But don't worry about it here - I'm sure it will come up some other time.