StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Pablo Sanchez wrote:<Snip>

This might be a controversial statement, but I don't think anybody should be getting government compensation for this. At least not in the amount being shelled out. Essentially the government is giving people millions of dollars because their spouses were in the wrong place at the wrong time. It's just a politicized waste of money to salve the nation's conscience.

Durandal wrote: But most, if not all, the anti-homosexuality movements originate within Judeo-Christian groups. Muslims don't like it, but they're not as vocal.

It read: "Egypt is a Muslim country and according to our Islamic Sharia teachings and tenets, sex should be practiced between a male and a female strictly through conjugal relations—the "family" being the core and nucleus of the Islamic society. That is in full obedience and conformity with the natural disposition of Mankind as Created by God for the population of the Earth with righteous men and women, not wrong doers who commit vice by practicing their lusts on men in preference to women (or the latter with the same sex in preference to men)."

.......

The statement comes days after five men were sentenced to hard labour in prison on convictions related to homosexuality.

It follows comments made last December by the Speaker of the Egyptian parliament. Ahmed Fathi Surer said: "Homosexuality does not figure in Egyptian law."

In recent years the Egyptian government has mounted an increasingly aggressive campaign to arrest and prosecute homosexuals.

Although homosexuality is not explicitly referred to in the Egyptian penal code, a wide range of laws covering obscenity, prostitution and debauchery are applied to homosexuals

MKSheppard wrote:http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s ... ution_dc_1

Killer, Rapist to Be Thrown Off Cliff in Sack
Thu Jul 18,10:44 AM ET

TEHRAN (Reuters) - An Iranian man, convicted for raping and
his 16-year-old nephew, will be executed by being thrown off a cliff
in a sack, a newspaper reported on Thursday.

If the unnamed man survives the fall down a rocky precipice, he will
be hanged, legal experts said. He has 20 days to appeal the court
sentence.

The killer was arrested last year in the northwestern city of Mashhad
after "seducing" and his nephew, who worked as an assistant
at the man's carpenter's workshop, the Norouz daily newspaper said.

Under Iran's Islamic law, applied since the 1979 revolution,
pederasty, homosexuality and ery are among a long list of
crimes punishable by .

No physiological characteristic that can occure in nature is unnatural.

This includes homosexuality. However, such characteristics CAN be abnormal. Homosexuality falls into this catagory. Why? Because, all other things being equal, a homosexual individual will not reproduce.

And before you sound off, I know all about modern fertility techniques, and I know about greco-roman and other cultural homosexual practices. The fertility tech IS unnatural.

The cultural homosexual practices are cultural artifacts, and don't necessarily mean the participants enjoy it.

For example, in western culture for years gay men and women were required to hide their preferences and enter into hetero relationships. That doesn't mean the lesbian enjoyed her husband's attentions.

As for the chimps, I am unaware of that particular example. Just guessing, I would say that the 'bi-sexual' behavior is either a result of sexual frustration among the males, since the females are only sexually receptive when they are on heat; or it is a cultural artifact (and yes, chimps have culture); or it is real, biologically driven bi-sexuality (their brains are undifferntiated between male and female in the structures that control sexual orientation); or it is a figment of the observers' imaginations (they are anthropomorphizing, or interpreting the observed behavior according to too broad a standard).
Happy now?

Sex exists in nature solely as a means of reproduction. That sex is pleasurable is only nature's way of encouraging us to do it.

In bonobo chimp society every last one of them is bisexual for thier species it is "normal"

Durandal wrote:Shep: For fuck's sake, get a clue. I'm talking about homosexuality in America. Any idiot who can read context correctly could tell that. In America, the movement against homosexuality is entirely based in Judaism/Christianity/Islam. And, surprise! They all have the Old Testament as one of their Holy Books!


Homosexuality occurs in nature. It occurs with animals as well as man. Man is a part of nature. If it occurs with man, it is natural. Case closed. Whoops, you lose.

"And what part of that didn't you get? I said homosexuality was natural."

This includes homosexuality. However, such characteristics CAN be abnormal. Homosexuality falls into this catagory. Why? Because, all other things being equal, a homosexual individual will not reproduce.

Wrong. Ever hear of a sperm bank or cloning? "Abnormal" and "unnatural" are two entirely different things.[/i]

And before you sound off, I know all about modern fertility techniques, and I know about greco-roman and other cultural homosexual practices. The fertility tech IS unnatural.

"Are you even reading what I write?"

Who cares if something is "natural" or not? Are you one of those people who only takes "natural" painkillers or herbal supplements or something? Why does it matter?
"Gee, I know several thousand anti-nuke activists who will be severely distressed to know that the fact that plutonium is 'unnatural' doesn't matter."

The cultural homosexual practices are cultural artifacts, and don't necessarily mean the participants enjoy it.

Some heterosexuals don't enjoy sex. What's your point?

For example, in western culture for years gay men and women were required to hide their preferences and enter into hetero relationships. That doesn't mean the lesbian enjoyed her husband's attentions.

Well, duh.

As for the chimps, I am unaware of that particular example. Just guessing, I would say that the 'bi-sexual' behavior is either a result of sexual frustration among the males, since the females are only sexually receptive when they are on heat; or it is a cultural artifact (and yes, chimps have culture); or it is real, biologically driven bi-sexuality (their brains are undifferntiated between male and female in the structures that control sexual orientation); or it is a figment of the observers' imaginations (they are anthropomorphizing, or interpreting the observed behavior according to too broad a standard).
Happy now?

What the Hell is your point? Whether or not homosexuality is "natural" is completely immaterial. Even if it was relevant, you're wrong anyway, because it occurs in nature, so it must be natural. But, again, who cares? Survival of the fittest occurs in nature. It's natural. That doesn't mean that it's a particularly compassionate or moral way of doing things. What are you trying to prove? That you're better than gay people because you're "all natural"?{/i}

"Hey Durandal! Ever hear of the Song of Roland? You're still a dip-shit who doesn't understand what he's reading."

Your reasoning would lead us to conclude that, since 90% of people in the world believe in God, it must be "unnatural" to be an atheist. Or, since 90% of people in the world aren't Eskimos, that it must be unnatural to be an Eskimo. Or that it's unnatural to be from Portugal or live in Vatican City (that one's pretty funny).
"If 90 percent of the worlds people live in Vatican City, then yes, it would be unnatural to live outside VC."

Here's the basic problem with the naturalistic stance. If you assume that technology is unnatural, you're basically assuming that all the laws of physics cease to apply when humans intervene. That's simply preposterous. The laws of physics obviously allow for a refrigerator to work, so it must be something natural, i.e. found in nature. Same with gay people. Same with cloning. Same with genetic engineering/tai[i}loring.

David wrote:On a lighter note, being Canadian is not abnormal, it's just strange.

John wrote:Sex exists in nature solely as a means of reproduction. That sex is pleasurable is only nature's way of encouraging us to do it.

John wrote:I'm not interested in sexual morality. I'm talking from a strictly evolutionary point of view. Sex exists for reproductive purposes only. Sexual pleasure, and human female sexual availablity on a constant basis exists to facilitate the survival of the species.

That is my entire point.

John wrote:I said homosexuality was abnormal. I never said it was unnatural. The two terms don't mean the same thing.

I don't give a damn who you boink (provided they are of legal age) and don't see how you could conclude otherwise unless you weren't actually READING what I posted. As for your accusation, yes, I do think male homosexuality is immoral and disgusting.

I also think female homosexuality is kind of a turn on! (Hypocrasy, I know) But I never said it should be illegal, or that gays should be discriminated against. If you had read my posts OBJECTIVELY you would have realized that.

Darth Wong wrote:

John wrote:I said homosexuality was abnormal. I never said it was unnatural. The two terms don't mean the same thing.

<Fine, split hairs if you like. You said that "No physiological characteristic that can occure in nature is unnatural. This includes homosexuality. However, such characteristics CAN be abnormal. Homosexuality falls into this catagory. Why? Because, all other things being equal, a homosexual individual will not reproduce." (note: failure to reproduce, ie- employ sex for its natural purpose, used as proof of abnormality). You also said that "Sex exists in nature solely as a means of reproduction" and "Sex exists for reproductive purposes only. Sexual pleasure, and human female sexual availablity on a constant basis exists to facilitate the survival of the species."

If you want to think like a lawyer, you did not use the word "unnatural". You carefully defined "unnatural" using the most anal-retentive definition possible, in which nothing because it all occurs in the natural universe. However, this is not a court of law, and semantic bullshit will get you nowhere here.>

At long last, I'm up against Mike himself. Hoo-ahh!
All right. Objectively. Is anything that can occure in nature un-natural? I think not. Homosexuality occures in nature. Therefore, it is not un-natural. However, if 99% of the population is hetero, and 1% is homo, then hetero is normal, and homo is...ABNORMAL. That is what I have been saying from the beginning.<

<What you did do was repeatedly point out that homosexual sex does not lead to reproduction, and you concluded that it is therefore abnormal. Bzzzt! That's where you fucked up the charade, John. Homosexuality is abnormal because it is rare. Period. That is the only reason it is abnormal, and only if you use the definition of "abnormal" which deals strictly in terms of population counts.>

I think you're starting to get a clue Mike,

<By using evolutionary and natural factors in order to show that homosexuality is "abnormal", you have inadvertently welded "abnormal" and "unnatural" together>

When, since I have insisted that homosexuality is abnormal, but not un-natural?

<(using the natural "purpose" of sex to show that homosexual sex is abnormal). Therefore, whether you admit it or not, you have claimed that homosexuality is both abnormal and unnatural (using the normal definition of the word, not your carefully chosen, overly strict definition). In fact, you have claimed that homosexuality is abnormal because it is unnatural, which is not only evasive but completely wrong. Homosexuality is abnormal simply because it is not practiced by the majority. It is a matter of simple numbers, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with reproductive usefulness.>

So stone age gays could reproduce?

<Of course, inter-racial sex is also abnormal by that same token;>

Assuming you're one of those half-wits who thinks skin color is any more releavnt than eye color.

<oddly enough, you don't feel compelled to point that out (after all, you wouldn't want to admit that "abnormal" doesn't mean squat, would you?).

I don't give a damn who you boink (provided they are of legal age) and don't see how you could conclude otherwise unless you weren't actually READING what I posted. As for your accusation, yes, I do think male homosexuality is immoral and disgusting.

You don't even realize that your second sentence directly contradicts your first sentence, do you? You're trying hard to walk the line without admitting bigotry, but you do give a damn: you think it's immoral! Do you know what "immoral" means? You may not take action on this belief, but that's like a white supremacist saying that he doesn't advocate hurting blacks; he just feels that they are inferior.

I don't want to see two guys having sex because I think the male body is grossly unattractive compared to the female body, and I'm not even sure why women like to look at us. But I don't think it is immoral. Unlike you, I have actually put some thought into the definition of morality,>

So have I. Morality is completely arbitrary.

<and I can find no justification whatsoever for accusing homosexuals of being immoral solely because of their orientation. Most anti-gay prejudice comes from Judeo-Christianity-Islam, along with a large dose of general fear and loathing of that which is different.>

An entirely natural instictive response.

<None of that can be justified in any meaningful way. In your case, you say it's "immoral" but your justification ("it's abnormal") is worthless.

I also think female homosexuality is kind of a turn on! (Hypocrasy, I know) But I never said it should be illegal, or that gays should be discriminated against. If you had read my posts OBJECTIVELY you would have realized that.

Strawman. I am not claiming that you're out to criminalize homosexuality (but please, go ahead and attack your convenient strawman; you've use the exact same strawman on everyone else already; I am starting to feel a sense of community, and I wouldn't want to be excluded). One can be a bigot without criminalizing everything he bears hatred for. Suppose somebody walked up to you and said that "white people are all inherently evil. Not that I advocate criminalizing white genes or discriminating against them; just pointing out a fact". How would you feel?

>

First I'd say, "You say that like it's bad." Then I'd say "Fine."

Darth Wong wrote:

David wrote:On a lighter note, being Canadian is not abnormal, it's just strange.

What's wrong with being abnormal? I'm proud to be abnormal. The normal person has an IQ of only 100, watches "Friends" and "Survivor", and is willing to eat food from McDonald's.