The Gay Megathread (see mod note on post #2212)

Actor wrote: »

Should the Blood Transfusion Service take the risk just to appease pro-homosexual activists? I'd rather they didn't.

And just to add onto Links ^^^

It's not like transfusion services "take the risk" - they don't just give you someone's blood willy-nilly, still warm and wholly untested.

Would you reject a transfusion if you knew it came from a gay person?

King Mob wrote: »

Of course not, he might catch the gay. The blood transfusion people don't test for that.

There you go now

Does having another mans blood inside you gay?

Espcaily if the donor was gay lol

Sarky wrote: »

Doesn't gay blood sparkle?

Thats just gay vampires


Now back on topic

Bannasidhe wrote: »

He could already have gotten some of my highly sought after O neg Lesbian blood.

Im sure there is a good joke in there somewhere

Jimi, am able to reply now (computers, yay)...

JimiTime wrote: »

So there was some sense used that did not require a scientific study? Well waddaya know.

Not sure what you mean by that? That it wasn't a scientific study that informed my position of an "equality" default and that gay people are no better or worse than straight people at parenting? What scientific study would attest to the veracity of that starting position in the debate?

JimiTime wrote: »

NEVER have I talked about a dystopic future.

All this talk of social experimenting paints a very dystopic picture.

JimiTime wrote: »

Ok, What study convinced you? Which particular details made you think, 'I'm convinced now that mothers and fathers are inconsequential'?

To reiterate my brief reply earlier, I didn't need convincing that gay people were equally good at parenting as straight people. I didn't need convincing that a single parent could do as well as a couple. These were (are) my starting positions. As such, I don't need studies to demonstrate this, you need studies to show why it isn't true. I don't believe that my position holds the burden of proof, despite society demanding it and despite it being amply provided.

JimiTime wrote: »

I really don't think we can. Does every man or woman that divorces their spouse believe their children come first?

Plausibly, in many cases, yes. Is it not better for a child to have happy-yet-separate parents, rather than abusive-but-together parents? I think most parents will have the happiness of their child at the forefronts of their minds when considering separating. Call me naive but I'll call you cynical to suggest otherwise

JimiTime wrote: »

Do people who decide to abort their unborn children believe that the child comes first?

This is not the place for this debate.

JimiTime wrote: »

Do women who get donors for themselves so that they can have a child, believe the child comes first?

Eh? Does a woman (or man) behave selfishly when s/he wants to have a child? Because whether it happens the standard way or via a more convoluted method, the desire to have a child is surely a good starting point, no?

JimiTime wrote: »

It seems that its a political ideology that is calling upon studies that allegedly back you up, rather than the studies informing your political ideology. I thought proof was something science could not deliver? If you mean, you have linked to studies, then detail them in your own words and we can take it from there.

As I've said before, I don't have a political ideology to assert, other than I think everyone should be considered equally until such a point at which they are deemed "unworthy" (for lack of a better word, this is isn't really what I mean) of such consideration.

Actor wrote: »

I understand that many normal couples engage in sodomy. Such sexual behaviours are the norm in modern society (indeed glorified) and lead to all kinds of psychological disorders. I blame the culture of contraception - sex has been demoted to an act of pleasure rather than an act of reproduction. Pleasure is a by-product of procreative acts . Nowadays babies are a by-product of sex and are to be aborted at will. Gay "sex", by its very nature, is self-gratuitous (use of the sexual organs contrary to their design) and designed solely for the sexual gratification of the participants. It is not only disgusting, but more importantly; sinful (a word which has been conveniently air-brushed out of liberal society's lexicon). Adoption agencies should not encourage such behaviour in society by affirming unions such as gay couples/triples/etc.

So sexual pleasure is a by-product of procreation, ok so does that mean you would never have sex unless it was with the intent of conceiving?

Actor wrote: »

Sodomy is sodomy. I wouldn't degrade my wife by engaging in oral "sex".

Say you that the good Lord, in his infinite wisdom, didst err in his invention of the clitoris?

I honestly can't think of anything less degrading to a woman than to be brought to orgasm by someone who loves them. It's an intimate act of an attentive lover, something just short of reverent.

Generally speaking, oral sex is an infinitely better experience for a woman than going through the plain old missionary motions because of how her body is geared. So no, I don't believe for one second anybody who objects to it really thinks it's degrading for her.

Wait, wait, wait. Just realised we might not be looking at the same permutations of oral sex. Oh, lol.

doctoremma wrote: »

I suspect when people - OK, men - talk about oral sex being degrading, they are thinking of themselves being on the receiving end.

Indeed. Which, appalling deviant that I am, didn't dawn on me until Sarky's post.

PDN wrote: »

Anyone want to discuss homosexuality and its relationship with Christianity?

If you want to participate in a thread where you discuss giving head then After Hours is open.

Actor's entire objection to homosexuality is based on his weirdly enthusiastic personal distaste for particular sex acts. That plenty of straight couples engage in precisely the same sex acts is relevant.

The opposition by Christian groups generally to homosexuality seems to stem from exactly the same root - personal distaste - rather than anything to do with the Bible itself, and this notion that sexual pleasure is somehow morally or physically corrosive in itself is a fantastically perverse one. I realise that concept is more pronounced in some denominations that others, but we can't talk about Christianity vs. Homosexuality without covering it.

PDN, apologies for AH type content - the reason I brought this up was Actor's assertion that

self-gratuitous [sex] (use of the sexual organs contrary to their design) and designed solely for the sexual gratification of the participants. It is not only disgusting, but more importantly; sinful

this reveals that he* believes there is something inherently sinful about sex, regardless of orientation.

Now I confess that I did pantomime that for comic effect, but to be honest, it underlines that Actor's argument is utterly flawed. It is not homosexuality solely that he has a problem with, it is sex.

And 99% of Christians would agree that sex is a gift and wonderful pleasure to be enjoyed by humans.

Actors attitude to sex, in particular his assertion that sodomy leads to psychological problems and that sexual gratification is disgusting, is frankly seriously disturbed. I would urge him to go speak to someone, a priest or counselor, about such negative feelings about normal human sexuality.



*I assume unless he is a UBER master troll

He won't answer that.

Actor wrote: »

The Truth and morals are universal.

You are a scary man. Can you see this makes you no better than the Taliban?