Quoted from JamminGirl But a man inserting his penis in another man's anus(which hosts a plethora of bacteria, entamoeba's and fecal matter) is more healthy? (Notice how I haven't even mentioned the spreading of HIV?)

What does this even matter? Don't hetro couples have anal sex? HIV is in a lot of countries primarily a hetro problem. (So it's prolly good that you didn't mention it cuz it's irrelevant)

Quoted from JamminGirl But a man inserting his penis in another man's anus(which hosts a plethora of bacteria, entamoeba's and fecal matter) is more healthy? (Notice how I haven't even mentioned the spreading of HIV?)

There are many steps that can be taken to help prevent this kind of thing. Anal hygiene is very important to a lot of gay people.

Now I think this thread is really off course.

Quoted from JamminGirl Interesting deflection there. We are speaking about sexuality. It is your contention that homosexuals were oppressed. This is as if homosexuals are a separate, propagating people instead of individuals with a specific sexual proclivity. Until very recently(in modern history), there was no large "group" of homosexual people calling themselves a community. Homosexuality is not unlike any other type of non-heterosexual propensity, in terms of being seen as undesireable and distasteful by most societies/cultures. My question within this thread is therefore valid. What makes homosexuality now more nobel than paedophilia, incest or beastiality? I know the "consentual adult" line is often used, but what about the man who has sex with his mother or adult daughter? How are such partnering viewed and what makes it less desireable than a man inserting his member in another man's fecal outlet? My own contention is marketing. Homosexuality is very very well marketed. When, not if, these other areas of sexuality gets marketed we will be having similar arguments and similar cries of "oppression".

The reason I am not discussing pedophilia is because that isn't what we are talking about here.  It's not a question of what's more noble, it's a question of what's acceptable and what's not by the current society.  Last time I looked pedophilia and homosexuality were two different things.  It's apples and oranges.  Which tastes better is completely up to you. Maybe you don't like either.  But if you have issues on how far you want to push your tolerance those are your issues and no one else's.

Perhaps the reason homosexuals have banded together into a community is because they are tired of being oppressed - even though you might not agree they are.   There is another community of homosexuals that I know of that has been around for quite a while, much longer than recent times,  they are called Hijra and they live in India.  They are also quite oppressed, even though you might think they aren't.

There were times in history when homosexuality was accepted by society.   The ancient Greeks, the Spartans and the Romans all practiced homosexuality as part of normal everyday life.  Cults of homosexuals existed then.  Saphho comes to mind as one of the more prominent.

The Thai have long been accepting of homosexuality.  They have no qualms about two men holding hands in public - even if the guys are straight.  Then again the Thai have no qualms about picking their nose in front of you so we probably shouldn't use them as character witnesses.

The Tahitian's have long since had a third sex, which is a male that lives his life as a female.  This is and always has been part of their culture.   The same was true of the Native American cultures who had Two Spirit, which is essentially the same thing.

Yet, since the Dark Ages homosexuals have been persecuted in the west.   I ask, is it really unusual that they have banded together for protection?

Quoted from mcornetto The reason I am not discussing pedophilia is because that isn't what we are talking about here.  It's not a question of what's more noble, it's a question of what's acceptable and what's not by the current society.  Last time I looked pedophilia and homosexuality were two different things.  It's apples and oranges.  Which tastes better is completely up to you. Maybe you don't like either.  But if you have issues on how far you want to push your tolerance those are your issues and no one else's. Perhaps the reason homosexuals have banded together into a community is because they are tired of being oppressed - even though you might not agree they are.   There is another community of homosexuals that I know of that has been around for quite a while, much longer than recent times,  they are called Hijra and they live in India.  They are also quite oppressed, even though you might think they aren't. There were times in history when homosexuality was accepted by society.   The ancient Greeks, the Spartans and the Romans all practiced homosexuality as part of normal everyday life.  Cults of homosexuals existed then.  Saphho comes to mind as one of the more prominent. The Thai have long been accepting of homosexuality.  They have no qualms about two men holding hands in public - even if the guys are straight.  Then again the Thai have no qualms about picking their nose in front of you so we probably shouldn't use them as character witnesses. The Tahitian's have long since had a third sex, which is a male that lives his life as a female.  This is and always has been part of their culture.   The same was true of the Native American cultures who had Two Spirit, which is essentially the same thing. Yet, since the Dark Ages homosexuals have been persecuted in the west.   I ask, is it really unusual that they have banded together for protection?

One can cite similar histories and cultures where there wasn't an age or blood relation delineation with regards to sexuality. Infact, King David's first son, Amnon, raped his sister who asked him why he simply didn't seek their father's consent to marry instead of raping her. Tamar was also very young and newly developing.
Why is one sexual proclivity apples and another oranges when they are both deviating from societal norms and could argue "oppression" with the same "merit"?


Unusual, not anymore unusual than (paedophilia groups like) NAMBLA has banded together, no.

Quoted from Astrid What does this even matter? Don't hetro couples have anal sex? HIV is in a lot of countries primarily a hetro problem. (So it's prolly good that you didn't mention it cuz it's irrelevant)

That's another topic in and of itself, but you could stand to learn a thing or two in regards to your answer...

Quoted from JamminGirl Why is one sexual proclivity apples and another oranges when they are both deviating from societal norms and could argue "oppression" with the same "merit"?

Apples and oranges deviate from a banana but they are all fruit.  Therefore if you love one you love them all and if you hate one you hate them all.  Black and white logic doesn't work for what you are trying to say Jammin' , it's a different discussion.  Keep on topic.  

Quoted from JamminGirl That's another topic in and of itself, but you could stand to learn a thing or two in regards to your answer...

I'm going to be honest, and maybe that means this post will be removed. But I don't think you have anything to teach me and this will be my last post to this thread.

Quoted from Takeshi Are you trying to say that gay people are as low and morally bankrupt as paedophiles?

Still waiting for an answer to that question, Jammin.

Quoted from mcornetto Apples and oranges deviate from a banana but they are all fruit.  Therefore if you love one you love them all and if you hate one you hate them all.  Black and white logic doesn't work for what you are trying to say Jammin' , it's a different discussion.  Keep on topic.

you deem them apples, oranges and bananas instead of aspects of sexuality and sexual proclivity, in order to elevate one above another. I am on topic. I've already said sexuality is fluid and no one was born "gay", "a paedophile" etc.
The subtext you are ignoring is that there are reasons certain societies have been largely strictly heterosxual. Matt referred to the chaotic outcome as annihilation of human species...

Quoted from JamminGirl you deem them apples, oranges and bananas instead of aspects of sexuality and sexual proclivity, in order to elevate one above another. I am on topic. I've already said sexuality is fluid and no one was born "gay", "a paedophile" etc. The subtext you are ignoring is that there are reasons certain societies have been largely strictly heterosxual. Matt referred to the chaotic outcome as annihilation of human species...

I do no such thing.  I do that to differentiate them from one another.  An apple is different from a banana but whether it's better or not depends upon your personal taste.  You prefer to lump them all together as if they are all one thing - which they aren't.  It's like saying an aspirin and heroin are drugs - if you can freely take one you should be able to freely take the other. Things don't work like that Jammin' the world is full of colours and they're all different - you can't lump them into black or white.

Sorry folks, but I have to bid you goodnight. I have someone on the phone...

In other words "I'm out of bullets, so stop shooting at me"

Chris's question only requires a Yes or No answer and you've purposely avoided it out of fear of ruining your credibility and being seen as, shall we say, "morally-bankrupt"?

Quoted from Takeshi Are you trying to say that gay people are as low and morally bankrupt as paedophiles?

It seems like a fairly straight forward question to me.

I don't know why Jammin doesn't want to answer it.

Quoted from Grandma Bear Bert, where are your keys?

The moderators consulted about this thread last night, and agreed to let it ride, as there seems to be interest in this discussion -- though I must say, it moved outside the purview of my own interests some time ago.

We are watching the conversation, though.  And tossing slightly miffed looks at Heretic -- who ought to know better -- for starting the whole mess in the first place.

And we are deleting nothing -- even amongst those who might not be acquitting themselves as well as others in terms of the most basic fundamentals of logic.

Personally, I think this thread has run its course -- and is simply spinning its wheels -- as no minds will be changed here -- and clearly nobody is going to convince anybody of anything.

It's like watching an episode of THE VIEW. Talk about beating out a dead subject.

Shawn.....><