Yeah, a bit like calling gays school playground style names

Time to catch up with this thread after a weeks holiday

I didn't expect your reply to contain anything but the same old regurgitated prejudice and un-reason, from someone as unable to alter their beliefs based on evidence as a religious fundamentalist. And true to form Leslie, you didn't disappoint

Gary.

My pleasure GCollier, and the same argument can be directed to your perorations. Is "un-reason" a foreign expression, its not english anyway.

One thing I am not and that is a religious fundamentalist, show me where I mentioned religion in this context, you must be really scraping the barrel to attempt to keep up now. If I was you I should stick to facts rather than making silly assumptions.

Les

I was travelling past a farm last week and saw a female cow trying to mount a young bull.

Begs the question was;

A) The Bull a poofta
B) The Cow a Lezza
C) The Cow a slapper

Or all three

D) mad?

(BTW, a female cow - the other sort being what?)

Leslie, I didn't say you were a religious fundamentalist, just that you share their traits of being unable to modify your beliefs based on new evidence. This is evident when you continue to describe the matter in question as an "undeniably and disgusting and unnatural action".

I'm not sure whether it features in the Oxford English Dictionary, but in other online resource unreason is defined as "absence or lack of reason; irrationality"...which seems to sum up your position quite succinctly. My apologies if the hyphen caused offence.

Gary.

Just avoiding any doubt for people who struggle to remember simple things - like - now what could I use as an example

BURN THEM!! nuff said!

Maybe the cow was trying to encourage the bullock Reality

Thank you for the definition GCollier, I really think it is unfair to call me irrational. I am entitled to think what I like about **** sex even if it does not agree with your way of life. It certainly does not mean I am unable to form my own opinions in general through realising facts and working it out for myself.

Les

Leslie, it has nothing at all to do with not agreeing with my "way of life" - I'm heterosexual, married with kids, and have no vested interest in either promoting or deriding homosexual practises or **** sex. My argument is simply based on reason and rational thinking.

You say you're entitled to think what you like about **** sex. Well that is true, but only up to a point. You are of course fully entitled to say that you find the act distasteful and is not one in wish you wish to partake. What you are, however, not entitled to think is that the act is unnatural, or that acquiring aids through such an act is a punishment, since there is absolutely no scientific or rational basis for either of the latter claims. As I said in previous replies to another poster - to claim an entitlement to such a belief is no better to claiming entitled to believe the moon is made of cheese - and basically ends any hope of rational discussion.

Gary.

Les can think WTF he wants to think.

Just as you can think he's talking out of his **** .

Yes of course he can think what he wants. But without evidence to back up his beliefs, he has no entitlement to do so.

Gary.

Why must you have evidence to entitle you to think something

Thoughts are not something that are to be defended in a court of law. Evidence and experiences help you to arrive at your thinking - Evidence usually proves us all wrong.

I mean - look at all those people who thought that the Labour party would help clean up politics .

In the epistemic (knowledge theory) context, that is exactly what entitlement to an opinion actually means - you have a right to that opinion because your opinion is based on evidence and knowledge.

However even in the legal sense (and most people, when talking about knowledge and opinion, confuse the two) you don't have entitlements to opinions. An enititlement in this sense implies others have some sort of duty or obligation towards it. This clearly isn't true. There is no implied duty even to let other people keep their opinion - e.g. I'm sure most people who believed their car to be in A1 condition would be grateful if someone pointed out the brakes were on the point of failure.

However all this is still unnecessary theory for most people. When someone says "I am entitled to my opinion" in the context of a discussion or argument, what they invariably mean is "I have no interest in further discussion or discovering the truth of this matter".

Gary.

I'm entitled to my opinion

Well Reality, if I was partaking in **** sex I would not be able to talk out of my ****

GCollier

I am fully entitled to think that **** sex is disgusting and unnatural, there is no law against that.
If you read my posts again you will see that I personally did not say that Aids was a punishiment, merely that some people may think that.

I think I have discussed this for long enough not to be guilty of your inferred criticism of maintaining my honest beliefs.

Les

I must first point out that shrek has a no entry sign on his rear passage for anyone who likes the gary glitter

one point: why did god put our g-spot up our back pipe?

if god did not want homosexuality he has a funny way of showing it

Lord Shrek....the liberal minded crusader: saying a big NO to the male anus but a big YES to the female 3rd passage

I was so hoping that Reality's post 405 would be the - fitting - end to this thead

Les, I'm sorry, but you are simply not entitled to think that **** sex is unnatural. In the epistemological sense - which is relevant here - you have no entitlement to this opinion. And even in your claimed legal sense there is no duty on other parties to let you keep this opinion. Sorry

But yes you are free to believe what you want. I suggest filing this particular belief away in the part of your mind which believes the sun is a giant snowball, cars only have one wheel, 1+1=3 and anyone with blue eyes is an alien threat to humanity who should be eradicated

And backtrack as much as you like, but your statement "It seems that unnatural practices bring their own punishments." remains.

Gary.

GCollier,

I am perfectly entitled to think that **** sex is unnatural of course. The prime reason for sex is to make babies. This is not done by **** sex of course. We are free to get pleasure out of having sex, but it is undeniable that **** sex is not a natural thing to do. if you want to support the benders, that is your affair and does not bother me in the slightest. I do object however to you telling me what I am entitled to believe, especially when I have not said the same to you.

Attempting to insult me however weakens your non existent argument before one even reads it.

Your third paragraph is an example of just how wrong you are about me personally and is a particularly childish attempt to denigrate my character. You need some true facts before you attempt a non slanderous statement in an attempt to take a rise out of anyone.

Yes, unnatural practices do tend to bring their own rewards to those who take part in them.

Les

Les, what is your definition of "natural"?

I repeat the g-spot is located down that dark alley so perhaps a courgette or carrot would be more agreeable to the anti-**** brigade

Lord Shrek....taking on bender bashers and trying to find a middle ground

Or Lord Sherk the Liberal Fence Sitter................ you decide?

i was once like my step dad 'its a phase they go through' until something amazing happened

at my half sisters wedding my 2 stud pierced camp speaking cousins came out to the world as a pair of ****

both stripped off on the dance floor and wiggled their jelly bellies to 'in the navy you can sail the seven seas'

dilemma..go over to them and bang the queenies out or turn the other cheek

i chose the latter but watched my derriere for safety

once your family is infected with this virus then you have to accept it....there is no cure

Lord Shrek....a man of principle and stricly pro-lesbian

as in the OED GCollier.

Les

The primary OED definition of natural is "Existing in or caused by nature".

Since animals engaging in **** sex have been observed at length in nature, please explain how - given your stated belief in the OED definition - **** sex is unnatural.

Gary.

gay lord gay lord you dropped your gay card

The Thought Police strike again.

GCollier.

I doubt very much that animals actually take part in **** sex as a normal way of life for them, do you have evidence of that for us all to peruse. Even if they do it would not justify its use by humans. You are scraping the barrel for PC style excuses.

Since animals are recorded as committing cannibalism and even eating their own babies, do you consider then as that is what you would call a natural activity, that humans should be entitled in a civilised society to do the same thing?

Les

Not at all. I'm simply using the correct definitions of what "entitlement" means in this context. Something a halfwit such as yourself isn't interested in and probably doesn't comprehend anyway.

Leslie, no one is saying that it is an act practised by the majority all of the time. But the OED definition which you purport to subscribe to, simply says that natural means "existing in or caused by nature".

As for evidence, a quick google brings up the following article, though there is undoubtedly much more available if you care to look.

http://www.seedmagazine.com/news/200...al_kingdom.php

This article states that homosexuality has been documented in over 450 different species of vertebrates. Let me just quote a small passage from that:

Giraffes have all-male orgies. So do bottlenose dolphins, killer whales, gray whales, and West Indian manatees. Japanese macaques, on the other hand, are ardent lesbians; the females enthusiastically mount each other. Bonobos, one of our closest primate relatives, are similar, except that their lesbian sexual encounters occur every two hours. Male bonobos engage in "***** fencing," which leads, surprisingly enough, to ejaculation. They also give each other genital massages.

I think you will have to agree, all this certainly fits the OED description of natural?

I do consider this a natural activity, since it is fully covered by the OED definition. Do you somehow not consider it natural?

As to whether human beings should be entitled to do so, the answer is of course No - because such an act inflicts harm and suffering on a third-party. This isn't the case for homosexuals who engage in mutually consenting sex.

Gary.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GCollier

Japanese macaques, on the other hand, are ardent lesbians; the females enthusiastically mount each other. Bonobos, one of our closest primate relatives, are similar, except that their lesbian sexual encounters occur every two hours.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GCollier

Male bonobos engage in "***** fencing," which leads, surprisingly enough, to ejaculation. They also give each other genital massages.

***** Fencing!!!!!

Oh dear lord, and they call it 'The Natural World'