Pages: 1 2 3

 

2009-05-02 18:06:26
mikkel
Member
+383|6903

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

mikkel wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

what Macbeth said wrote:

Fine the porn industry isn't common cultural. But still without arguing cultural what exactly is wrong with sex between two men or two women?
What is so weird about Catholic priests fondling little boys?

What is so weird about people blowing themselves up for their ideology?

What is so weird about going on a killing spree at your local school?

Remember, answer without arguing culture.

Note that I beat Spittle to the parody.
There are laws against all of the examples you cited. That's what's wrong about them, and not for reasons of strictly sexual convention. They're fundamentally incomparable, unless you're taking an obtuse stance in the argument. It's a question about what makes sex between consenting members of the same sex "wrong". You made him clarify with your terse reply, and you're taking it off-topic with your obtuse comparisons, when you know full well what he means.
But we're not talking about societal culture remember? You can't tell me it's wrong just because it's against the law.
I'm not telling you that it's wrong just because it's against the law. I'm telling you that your cited examples are against the law for reasons other than the ones you argue. Your comparisons are asinine because you're comparing actions that are not at all similar. The "societal culture" argument is an abstract that you created to avoid having to answer a specific question. Why are you posting in the thread if you don't want to be productive?

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

And no I don't fucking know what he means, you can't make a moral argument against anything if you don't accept extremely basic social concepts. Really basic stuff, like, you put a penis in a vagina.

And Sodomy has been illegal/is illegal in many places.
He's not fishing for a justification of an unreasoned predisposition. No such thing exists. He's doing an anatomical comparison in search of reason for any physical motivation for disagreeing with homosexuality. It might be a silly thing to do, but to think that he was trying to motivate a discussion on moral prejudice by being as anatomically specific as he was is pretty inane.
2009-05-02 18:06:55
Lotta_Drool
Spit
+350|6485|Ireland
LOL, I pick NO on this one.
2009-05-02 19:05:26
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|7009|67.222.138.85
post #2 mikkel
2009-05-02 19:23:32
rdx-fx
...
+955|6893
okay, Macbeth has the Mechanics of Orifices & Small Holes 201 down solid.

However, he's missing the prerequisite, Psychology & Biology of Sexual Attraction 101

In other words, perhaps, a hole is a hole, for the most part. 
However, without attraction and arousal, the holes are not going to be used.

Personally, I like the curves of fit women, boobs, toned women's legs, a sexy woman's voice, etc.
To my eyes, every curve of an attractive woman is sexy.  Every line, every jiggle, every bounce.
Men, on the other hand, are completely utilitarian in appearance - not a damn thing sexy about another male to my eyes.

If you don't understand the distinction between the two, you might be bisexual.
2009-05-02 19:32:56
BVC
Member
+325|6997

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

What is so weird about Catholic priests fondling little boys?

What is so weird about people blowing themselves up for their ideology?

What is so weird about going on a killing spree at your local school?

Remember, answer without arguing culture.

Note that I beat Spittle to the parody.
None of the situations which you described involve the consent of all parties directly involved in the act.

Last edited by Pubic (2009-05-02 19:33:23)

2009-05-02 19:37:04
specialistx2324
hahahahahhaa
+244|6990|arica harbour
people who look at porn = epically fail since they cant get a real girl to satisfy themselves..
2009-05-02 19:43:36
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|7009|67.222.138.85

Pubic wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

What is so weird about Catholic priests fondling little boys?

What is so weird about people blowing themselves up for their ideology?

What is so weird about going on a killing spree at your local school?

Remember, answer without arguing culture.

Note that I beat Spittle to the parody.
None of the situations which you described involve the consent of all parties directly involved in the act.
1 does, but that is besides the point

Social customs develop around accepted human instincts. The point is not that these acts are illegal, the point is they differ only in magnitude of how accepted they are in comparison to sticking it in the pooper.
2009-05-02 20:08:13
BVC
Member
+325|6997

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

1 does, but that is besides the point

Social customs develop around accepted human instincts. The point is not that these acts are illegal, the point is they differ only in magnitude of how accepted they are in comparison to sticking it in the pooper.
I did not refer to the legality of these acts, do not try to imply that I did.

1.Little boys have not reached the age of consent and thus are not considered to have given it
2.Victims of bombers do not give their consent
3.Victims of shootings do not give their consent

Which one involves consent again?  If you are referring to the "little boys" point, are you suggesting that every kid who has been fiddled by a priest has given consent?  Or even that the ratio of consenting kids is high enough to make a generalisation?  I'm just guessing here.

Using gay sex as a moral reference point with which you can compare the other three acts proves nothing, you may as well be stating distances between points on a map.  The only purpose of that type of argument is to evoke emotion (using examples of unacceptable acts) and associate the subject or argument with those acts.  Theres no logic or reasoning in it at all.

Last edited by Pubic (2009-05-02 20:11:21)

2009-05-02 20:23:12
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|7009|67.222.138.85
I was not trying to imply that, mikkel was making a similar case but seems to have fixated on the legal issue, as you seem to have fixated on the (irrelevant) consent issue. That is not the point.

You made my point in the last paragraph. There neither logic or reasoning in any of my points, nor in "gay sex, problem or not". The moral/social reference point is the common culture, throwing that away makes any conclusions drawn pointless.

I am not comparing murder/rape/etc. to gay sex, I am comparing the ridiculous nature of asking whether any of those acts are "appropriate" without any reasonable frame of reference. That frame of reference being the sexual status quo. Penis -> vagina in case anyone has forgotten in all this side hubub.
2009-05-02 20:57:31
Bull3t
stephen brule
+83|6603
Just the thought.
2009-05-02 21:22:25
ATG
Banned
+5,233|6831|Global Command

Lotta_Drool wrote:

What's so weird about barnyard sex?

A animal friend of mine has me wonder this after a conversation.
Ok consider human sex. Man puts penis in one of three female holes. Mouth, Vagina, Ass.
Now the messy parts of each.

Mouth- Out goes vomit, in goes food.
Ass- Out goes shit.
Vagina- Occasionally blood will come out.
Now considering you are a man and you stick your dick into anyone of these because it feels good what is wrong with sticking it into another creature? The animals have 2 usable holes; Ass and Mouth which are just like that of a human's. Now a as long as the penis stimulated enough ejaculation will occur the only problem with man to animal sex is the actual arousal part but with modern medicine that can be artificially induced.

Now female to animal sex would involve a lot of licking and fingering for arousal. Now considering women know their own anatomy better than a animal stimulation and orgasm would not be difficult to achieve and since the tongue and holves take no amount of time to produce arousal for use, other than personal views there would not be a problem with starting sex.

So beside the whole problem of not being able to produce offspring, which for some isn't a problem at all, what exactly is the problem of two alive animals having consenting sex if they are mammals?
I haven't had sex with another animal and have no plans to, but a friend has me wonder about this question.  /MacBeth
ffs spit, use the quote button and don't look like such a tool.
2009-05-02 21:26:11
Catbox
forgiveness
+505|7018
nothing is wrong with gay sex... as long as the girls are hot... lol
Love is the answer
2009-05-02 21:57:31
jsnipy
...
+3,277|6824|...

one word: pheromones
2009-05-02 23:38:51
ATG
Banned
+5,233|6831|Global Command
One thought; Somebodies peepee in your mouth.
2009-05-03 01:40:22
Lai
Member
+186|6453

Macbeth wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

You make the false assumption that sticking it in any feminine hole isn't sexually deviant.
By common cultural it isn't. But lets make that assumption and answer the question at hand.
Actually there was a study a few years ago here in Holland, which concluded young straight people preferred secondary and tertiary holes so to say. This is probably because they don't bother to strap up, and find this an efficient alternative method of anticonception.

It must be noted though,.. this is Holland.

Macbeth wrote:

LividBovine wrote:

Quite simple actually, sticking it into a woman in whatever manner=Straight.  Sticking it into a man in whatever manner=gay
Ok but what exactly beside terms and labels is wrong with sex between two consenting alive humans for pleasure who happen to be of the same gender?
The ability to concieve is the whole point. For straight people 1+1=1 for gays 1+1=0. It goes against human nature, or God if you want, be it as a metaphor or a guy on a cloud. Not because it is written in some ancient book or anything, but because it evidently was not intended to be that. Whether it was intended 'by' something or someone, depends on whether your atheist or religious.

Being gay, for that matter, is still a 'disease' like schizofrenia, autism or whatever. It is a genetical mutation that makes one's psychology deviates from the biological norm, essential for the survival of the species. That does not mean they should be treated differently or that being gay is 'wrong', but I would still call it a disease.

Last edited by Lai (2009-05-03 01:48:26)

2009-05-03 01:53:09
DonFck
Hibernator
+3,227|6933|Finland

Straight people have sex. Gay people have sex. The problem in the world is, people aren't having enough sex. And yes, straight men in general like to stick it in the bum bum.

Nothing weird about it.

Pubic wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

What is so weird about Catholic priests fondling little boys?

What is so weird about people blowing themselves up for their ideology?

What is so weird about going on a killing spree at your local school?

Remember, answer without arguing culture.

Note that I beat Spittle to the parody.
None of the situations which you described involve the consent of all parties directly involved in the act.
I agree. FM, that's really one of the worst comparisons I've ever read.

Lol, gay sex vs. 9/11? There's a connection?

Lai wrote:

Being gay, for that matter, is still a 'disease' like schizofrenia, autism or whatever. It is a genetical mutation that makes one's psychology deviates from the biological norm, essential for the survival of the species. That does not mean they should be treated differently or that being gay is 'wrong', but I would still call it a disease.
Dude, wtf.
I need around tree fiddy.
2009-05-03 03:37:48
Lai
Member
+186|6453

DonFck wrote:

Lai wrote:

Being gay, for that matter, is still a 'disease' like schizofrenia, autism or whatever. It is a genetical mutation that makes one's psychology deviates from the biological norm, essential for the survival of the species. That does not mean they should be treated differently or that being gay is 'wrong', but I would still call it a disease.
Dude, wtf.
Yep, that's exactly the kind of reaction I expected.

So DonFck, you would say it's not some form of genetical abnormality?
2009-05-03 03:42:11
DonFck
Hibernator
+3,227|6933|Finland

Lai wrote:

DonFck wrote:

Lai wrote:

Being gay, for that matter, is still a 'disease' like schizofrenia, autism or whatever. It is a genetical mutation that makes one's psychology deviates from the biological norm, essential for the survival of the species. That does not mean they should be treated differently or that being gay is 'wrong', but I would still call it a disease.
Dude, wtf.
Yep, that's exactly the kind of reaction I expected.

So DonFck, you would say it's not some form of genetical abnormality?
I would say so yes. If it even would be genetic, it'd be another form of genetic normality.

To be quite honest, I don't think of it much. I don't spend my time wondering what makes gay people have a sexual preference towards the same gender. That's just the way it is.

P.S: All you who think gay people are abnormal, do you think so also when you're watching porn with two women eating each others' muffs?
I need around tree fiddy.
2009-05-03 03:57:55
jsnipy
...
+3,277|6824|...

DonFck wrote:

Lai wrote:

DonFck wrote:

Dude, wtf.
Yep, that's exactly the kind of reaction I expected.

So DonFck, you would say it's not some form of genetical abnormality?
I would say so yes. If it even would be genetic, it'd be another form of genetic normality.

To be quite honest, I don't think of it much. I don't spend my time wondering what makes gay people have a sexual preference towards the same gender. That's just the way it is.

P.S: All you who think gay people are abnormal, do you think so also when you're watching porn with two women eating each others' muffs?
I agree with the term abnormal in a scientific context, after all something is different. But I would not confuse someone saying that as also implying intolerant or judgmental.
2009-05-03 04:47:49
Lai
Member
+186|6453

DonFck wrote:

P.S: All you who think gay people are abnormal, do you think so also when you're watching porn with two women eating each others' muffs?
1. Yes, if it is genuine.
2. No, regarding the women, because they are actresses and simply perform for an audience for money.
3. No, regarding the audience, as the audience generally uses the image of to members of the opposite sex to stimulate heterosexual feelings of lust. This can also apply to heterosexual women acting gay, but nor performing for an audience and/or for money.
4. No in general, both actor and beholder remain heterosexual in being.

That said, I never quite got the girl with girl fetish of some guys. I suppose it is a quantity over quality thing, which I'm not a great fan of in any case.

jsnipy wrote:

I agree with the term abnormal in a scientific context, after all something is different. But I would not confuse someone saying that as also implying intolerant or judgmental.
Of course that's the whole point. Acknowledging someone is in a way abnormal or even ill from a biomedical point of view, does not mean that person can or should be treated differently or regarded as unequal.

In high school I had a gay teacher. He was in fact one of the better teachers I know, and fun to hang out with too. I had no problem with that and I did not behave differently towards him, than I would to any other teacher I could get along with or any other teacher in general. However if you'd ask me if I thought it was normal he was gay, I would say no, regarding that aspect of his person he is not. Though if you'd ask me in general if he was normal, I'd probably say yes and not even mention he was gay. It must be said though he was quite an easy gay, making jokes about it etc. Sometimes he would himself forget he was gay, which lead to some pretty hilarious moments.
2009-05-03 05:21:24
mikkel
Member
+383|6903

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

post #2 mikkel
Yes, Flaming_Maniac. There's your abstraction.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

I was not trying to imply that, mikkel was making a similar case but seems to have fixated on the legal issue
I'm amazed at how frequently you seem to misunderstand arguments that are pretty straight-forward. It's almost as if you were intentionally doing so.

Last edited by mikkel (2009-05-03 08:17:20)

2009-05-03 06:08:45
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,817|6408|eXtreme to the maX
Do what the hell you want, but stay away from my pets.
Fuck Israel
2009-05-03 08:02:35
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6713|'Murka

@OP:

The weirdness is based on social and cultural mores. You can't discount them simply because you (or your friend) attempt to rationalize the behavior by taking a micro-level view of the situation, as the whole issue is based on the macro-level view.

You can rationalize anything if you eschew all aspects except the one that supports your rationalization. You could use the same flawed approach to rationalize pedophilia. Or adult rape. Or bestiality. Or any other form of deviant sexual activity.

Not saying gay sex is necessarily deviant...just providing context.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2009-05-03 10:30:15
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|7009|67.222.138.85

mikkel wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

post #2 mikkel
Yes, Flaming_Maniac. There's your abstraction.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

I was not trying to imply that, mikkel was making a similar case but seems to have fixated on the legal issue
I'm amazed at how frequently you seem to misunderstand arguments that are pretty straight-forward. It's almost as if you were intentionally doing so.
The basic assumptions are flawed and refuse to be corrected. See also #13, #29, #48.
2009-05-03 11:36:45
xBlackPantherx
Grow up, or die
+142|6645|California
So, basic conclusion I see: It all depends on the cultural society you happen to live in.

amiright?

 

Pages: 1 2 3

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard