Nice to see a 10 pager back, even if it is full of bigoted ill informed rubbish

 

imo the highlighted part really does matter.

 

Ethically and lawfully yes it does matter but in a debate about sexual orientation it doesn't matter as its not allegedly an ethical choice but a natural/biological trait.

separate the act from the desire and think about it.

 

but ethics and morals must be included in such a debate imo

no point giving a half representitive input.

the desire to endulge in such acts is wrong also imo, you get people who dont actually offend, but still support the industry through veiwing associated material.

as far as i can see the two sexual stances are non-comparible.

looking back through time peadophilia has been commonly present, as has homosexual activity and many others, the current social stance is representative of peoples desire to protect innocent victims - and where there are no perceivable victims ie consensual homo sexual activity then the social stance is to generally accept it.

im not gay nor do i understand how gays feel, but as there are no "victims" of the activity i cant see why people have a problem with it. i wouldnt promote it, and personally i dont want to see it, but people indulging in it are doing no harm - by and large.

 

You make some good and very valid points Jef but I'll have to wait til tomorrow to argue why you're actually wrong.

 

haha ok, im quite willing to listen

i think i understand your points, but just cant apply them to my way of thinking.

it could well be im not picking up entirley what your saying

 

What I think Jamz3k is trying to say is that if we leave the actual act aside and accept the desire to be with another person of the same sex as natural then the desire to have sex with a child or your own family must also be considered that way hence it is hypocrisy to accept homosexuality and not peadophilia or incest.

The trouble with that argument is it doesn't stand up to scrutiny when you consider that sex with a child is not consensual whereas with another adult of you own sex it is. One is socially acceptable to many (excepting most of SN obviosuly) and the other isn't and quite rightly so.

The thing is no one gets hurt in an adult homosexuial relationship, the same cannot be said of paedophilia. If no one gets hurt then why does anyone have a probelm with it?

Given that there are those heterosexuals who don't approve or feel it is 'not natural' I wonder if any homosexuals feel the same way about heterosexuals or are gay people generally not bigots

 

Your correct F1 but the question that sparked fury earlier in this thread wasn't if homosexuality was a problem, it was a question of whether it is natural.

 

Yes it is.

OK you can lock this one now

 

That's fine, so all other orientations of sexuality are natural too?

Personally that I cannot agree with

 

I didn't think this thread could get any worse, I was wrong.
Christ, have we gone back to the stone age????
Homosexuality is not a problem, it's a fact. Men loving other Men, so what. What's the big deal. Wimmins loving other Wimmins, so what, what's the big deal. You cannot possibly class homosexuality the same as peodophillia (sp). The big difference is men are men and wimmins a wimmins, no children involved. It's bad form to class the two the same. Some SN members have really disappointed me with their bigoted views. Somehow, I doubt that will bother them and they will continue to pi$$ people off with their antiquated attitudes. I wonder if they would be shouting so loud in a pub full of people who might just turn on them for their outdated opinions

 

So do you think someone learns to be gay or are they born that way? The answer to that question is really all that is needed here and I know what I think the answer is. So what about you?

On the subject of paedophilia expert opionion is divided as to whether it is a learned condition or paedophiles are just born that way. The answer to that one is the answer to your question above!

 

calm down dear lol - god hope its not me your reffering to, lol

jamz it totally depend on the persons understanding of natural - and then applying it to the given situation.

the answer can never be a given as its subjective to interpretation.

its not natural as in it doesnt result in a child bearing situation - buts its natural in that it happens and has done since before civilised society came into being, it exists in other animal speices also.

as do many other unacceptable activities - but the actual phrase "natural" has no specific definition relevant to this application.

id stand by its morally an ethically acceptable behaviour in the current social circumstance as it doesnt harm others.

it may not be to there taste, but it doesnt impact on there lives (generally)

 

You need to define what a child is. As far as the law is concerned, it makes offences at different ages of the child. For example an offence with a child under 13 is treated differently to an offence with a child under 16.

There is also the grey area of two 'children' one above the age of consent and one below. Technically a 16 year and one day old boy who has consensual sex with his girlfriend aged 15 years and 364 days, is committing an offence, but would the public brand him a sexual offender?

If an adult is using age and experience to exert pressure on a child, to take advantage, then this clearly can be seen as non-consensual and a child should be protected from it, but in the example of the two similarly aged teenagers, is anyone actually being hurt even though an offence is committed?

Sorry for taking it off topic. I just wanted to high-light the grey area where even when something is illegal, it isn't in the public interest to pursue.

 

scoobywont, ive raised this point before

and my understanding is each case is considered on its own set of circumstances

the debate of statutory rape where one person is one day over legal status and one is a day under is considered when applying the relevance of punishment.

i may be wrong but im sure a copper or person in the know, said something along those lines

 

OK actual scenario I unfortunately witnessed in London.

Walking into a tube station, and two homo's were waiting to meet one another.
When they met, they then began to snog.

I found that disgusting, and judging by the comments and reactions of other folk, they also found it disgusting.

Would you find that acceptable?

 

Tbh I don't think I'd be bothered. If my son asked why two men or women were kissing I'd just explain to the best of my ability that some men like men and vice versa.

If you're talking hands all over and making a scene then I'd be annoyed no more than a man/woman doing the same.

It really doesn't bother me seeing men kiss in public or women, unless it was 'heavy petting', but that goes for all couples

 

Wow just read all this - OMG!!!


I can only conclude that some people would be far happier if gay people lived unfulfilled lives of solitude, with no partner and no love

Truly unbelievable


Add gay people to the very long list of groups some SNetters are so easily outraged by

 

OK, this was 'heavy petting' as you put it.

Lets just say that tube officials made them leave.

 

I wonder how the guys from London underground phrased it.

Inspector: "Time to get off boys"
Gay guys: "Indeed!"



Jokes aside: being sexually indiscrete in public is just not cool, irrespetive of the sexuality of those involved.

This thread has been very enlightening for me as a member of the webteam (and I'm sure the rest of the BBS generally) I have to say!

 

It wasn't on the tube though, one homo was waiting to 'greet' the other homo who was getting off the tube.

 

Sadly though not for the likes of urban whio is still talking like a 10 year old in the school playground

 

Train Driver: "we are about to enter a tunnel"
Gay guys: "Indeed!"

 

Saunter on - there's a good chap

 

I don't know whether to laugh at you or pity you. I cannot imagine what it is like being quite as numb as to think like you do so I guess it should be the latter.... nah **** it....

 

I thought I told you to run along numb nuts

 

The irony of you calling me numb just makes me laugh all the more.

 

f1, instead of behaving like a tool,run along an ruin a different thread with your predictable I'm right and everybody else is wrong attitude

 

Judging by my PM inbox it would seem that for once I am in the majority and you are not so being deadly serious for once why not take a long hard look at yourself and your narrow minded nasty little prejudices and realise that it is your views that are out of date and frankly borderline unacceptable in modern society.

 

What are you on about now and your PM inbox
Are you trying to say people are patting you on the back with congratulations or something

I have my opinion and I am entitled to it, you have your opinion and you're entitled to that.

I don't approve of it as I believe it to be 100% wrong, you gracefully accept it - we'll done you, what a hero.