Something on Wife Swap that really wound me up

[Nate]

I flicked through and thought Thad said his own thread was gay, copying avatars is le gay!!!

[youtubevid]WyafqUoKak[/youtubevid]

 

[old.Tohtori]

Sounds like some guy was onto a winner with that one Toh, feed women mind bending drugs, tell them you are a god and shag them rotten. If they sleep with someone else have them killed

I think you misunderstood that. Well, except for your "feed drugs, play spirit, f*ck woman" part.

The women could, and said practicioners usually were single, f*ck anyone they wanted. Thing is, very rarely men dared even try getting into some "sorcerer" knickers because of fear(simple word).

Only men(and VERY rarely women) got killed for something. And even men getting killed for something was rare, if it was a case of, say, murder(not to be confused with killing ), you'd get deported(basically).

 

[Nate]

****ing youtube video code broke!!!!

[youtubevid]-WyafqUoKak[/youtubevid]

 

[Thorwyn]

so can paedophiles but does it make it right? If a woman wanted a kid with a child, they could feasibly do it for example

People who fuck animals are frowned upon, however you can also cross breed a human and an animal if you tweak the genetic enough, does that make it right?

Wait a minute! You´re now talking about the ethic aspect. But the original question was about the biological aspect. That´s different things and we should not mix them up. The problem with paedophiles and people who´re shagging sheep is that they´re performing sexual acts with people/creatures who don´t agree, do not share the fun and don´t have the choices to say "no". That´s generally not the case with gay people though.

Sorry but its a pretty weak premise saying that they can legitimately reproduce when tradiional methods still require a man and a woman, if there were no women and all men they could not reproduce. If there are no men, using current techniques (even combining 2 nucleases) is not possible for 2 humans of the same sex to reproduce (it is possible in mice as the Japanese proved, however we have no idea of the ill effects, after all we all know where inbreeding ends up).

What about old people having sex? Is this unnatural too because they can´t biologically reproduce?
Nothing.. NOTHING stops a lesbian woman from getting pregnant by using "traditional methods". She doesn´t have fun during the act, but that´s not the point. Also, it doesn´t take modern science a nuclear medicine to impregnate a woman without having sexual intercourse. The only thing that counts is the intention to do it, respectively the wish to have and raise a child. And both, lesbians and gays do have that wish. (Whether that´s a good start for the child is a different thing and not part of my argument.) Homosexual people have both, the intention and the possibilities to reproduce. Now that´s a VERY different thing than a heterosexual couple, who both hate children becuase they´re loud and annoying and decide to do anything to avoid having children. These people are psychologically unable to reproduce.

 

[Dukat]

Homosexuals dont get the choice as to whether they are gay or not. Its just the way they are. However the same can be said for homophobics. Its not thier fault that they are afraid of gays.

I wrote out my reasons for being homophobic a while ago in another thread and I wont do it again, however, I've changed alot in the last few years and I've found that the way my life has gone has made me feel alot less threatened by gay people. That said I still get that feeling of being uncomfortable when I'm in the presence of homosexuals, I'm civil and polite, but I still dont particularly enjoy spending time in thier company. I just cant help it.

The same could be said for a homosexual - they cannot help how they feel, they would probably find thier lives easier if they were not like that, but its just not that simple, they all have thier reasons, whether its biological, or because of thier upbringing, or whatever.

I think that people who talk about homosexuals being 'wrong' or 'unnatural' etc should be careful of judging too quickly - homosexuality occurs in most of the rest of the animal kingdom, so it is most definately not unnatural, as to whether it is wrong or not is perhaps a very large can of worms. If you class homosexuals as "wrong" because they do not procreate (even though they actually can), would you class someone who isnt gay but doesnt have children as "wrong" as well? I dont have any kids yet, does this make me 'wrong'?

Its a very large debate and not one that can be opened and closed as quickly as some here are saying. As I say I was once extremely homophobic, violently so at one point, so for me to actually defend homosexuals is a first. I do this not because I understand/like or agree with them, but because I realise that the issue is very complex, and not to be solved with foolish attitudes that are motivated mainly by fear.

I also think that homophobia should be tolerated a little more than it is, we do not persecute people who hate snakes do we? so what is wrong with someone who hates gays? as long as they do not go out and actively cause distress to homosexuals, and are civil enough when they have to be, what is wrong with them? When I was homophobic I was treated quite badly by my peers because it was perceived that I was discriminating against gays in some way, I wasnt - I just found it impossible to be in the same room as a gay person, I didnt particularly want to be like it, I just was. Does this make me a fascist? no, yet I was often treated like one. I think homophobia is something that is misunderstood quite often because media attention usually focuses on the more extreme cases, as is thier want.

 

[Chronictank]

Wait a minute! You´re now talking about the ethic aspect. But the original question was about the biological aspect. That´s different things and we should not mix them up. The problem with paedophiles and people who´re shagging sheep is that they´re performing sexual acts with people/creatures who don´t agree, do not share the fun and don´t have the choices to say "no". That´s generally not the case with gay people though.

No i am talking about the same argument you are using,
Biologically a gay couple cannot reproduce, i have shown you why so the only argument you are holding is an ethical one.
From your post you are saying it is ok for a paedo so long as the child agrees right?
Likewise if the animal is game then its ok
You cant say it is un-concencual in all cases as there are various incidents where it was yet the person has been procecuted

What about old people having sex? Is this unnatural too because they can´t biologically reproduce?

Yes it is, when a woman can no longer reproduce she looses her sex drive. This is biological fact, the only exceptions are where there is something "wrong" with her

Nothing.. NOTHING stops a lesbian woman from getting pregnant by using "traditional methods". She doesn´t have fun during the act, but that´s not the point. Also, it doesn´t take modern science a nuclear medicine to impregnate a woman without having sexual intercourse. The only thing that counts is the intention to do it, respectively the wish to have and raise a child. And both, lesbians and gays do have that wish. (Whether that´s a good start for the child is a different thing and not part of my argument.) Homosexual people have both, the intention and the possibilities to reproduce. Now that´s a VERY different thing than a heterosexual couple, who both hate children becuase they´re loud and annoying and decide to do anything to avoid having children. These people are psychologically unable to reproduce.

Proove to me it is possible for two people of the same sex to reproduce, with no intervention from the other sex...
With artificial insemenation you need a sperm donor or someone to incubate the egg it is not done using the same sex..

 

[old.Tohtori]

I think people are mixing unnatural and unbiological too much here

 

[noblok]

Gays can reproduce. A homosexual man can inseminate a lesbian woman. They might not enjoy it, but it's completely natural. I don't see why the extra condition of "without intervention from the opposite sex" must be met for the argument "gay people cannot reproduce naturally" to be proven false.

 

[Thorwyn]

No i am talking about the same argument you are using,
Biologically a gay couple cannot reproduce, i have shown you why so the only argument you are holding is an ethical one.

That´s the point.. you´re talking about a gay couple. I´m talking about a gay person! Different thing.
Of course, a gay couple can´t reproduce. But that´s irrelevant because the original argument was about gay people not being able to reproduce. As I said, if they WANT a child, they have everything they need to produce one. Not with their partner.. but honestly... I think there are many cases where partner != biological parent.

From your post you are saying it is ok for a paedo so long as the child agrees right?
Likewise if the animal is game then its ok

Now.. please don´t put anything of that calibre into my (virtual) mouth. No, it´s not ok because even if the child agrees, it doesn´t have the mental maturation for that kind of decisions. That´s why paedos and gays are definitely NOT in the same league. Gay relations are relations between tho mature and thinking persons.

Yes it is, when a woman can no longer reproduce she looses her sex drive. This is biological fact, the only exceptions are where there is something "wrong" with her

Yeah, that´s why tons of 55 year old ladies are going nuts on a Chippendale show.
You´re kidding me, right?
I mean.. that can´t be your opinion. If it is, please show me one serious link to support that statement.

Proove to me it is possible for two people of the same sex to reproduce, with no intervention from the other sex...
With artificial insemenation you need a sperm donor or someone to incubate the egg it is not done using the same sex..

Like I said above, I was talking about the single person, not the couples.

From your arguments, correct me if I`m wrong, I can see that in your opinion, the sole purpose of sex is reproduction. i.e. as soon as we reach a state, where the sexual activity doesn´t have a chance to reproduce, it´s against the biology. I think that´s a pretty conservative point of view. I guess it´s safe to assume, that 99,999% of all sexual activities in the world have not performed for reproductional purposes.
Reproduction is one aspect of human sexuality. But nothing more.

 

[old.Tohtori]

By the way, as jurassic park said very nicely, "nature will find a way".

It's been said, that if all the men in the world disappeared, evolution would AS probably advance humans to a single sex race, as it would destroy them completely. Egg laying humans is not out of the question.

Not to mention that interracial breeding would ofcourse be the next logical step if women or men would be wiped off. Especially with modern science.

thorwyn, like i said, there's a slight "unnatural"(term) vs "unbiological"(unnatural as direct meaning) debate here.

You're talking about what humans do and what they can do, while Chronic is talking more of the "extreme case" or what nature would have us do.

 

[Thorwyn]

Yes, I know what we´re talking about. However, the strict and dogmatic approach doesn´t work because it would render all kinds of sexual activities that´s not between man/woman at the age of 18-45 as unnatural.

 

[Olgaline]

When I was homophobic I was treated quite badly by my peers because it was perceived that I was discriminating against gays in some way, I wasnt - I just found it impossible to be in the same room as a gay person, I didnt particularly want to be like it, I just was. Does this make me a fascist? no, yet I was often treated like one. I think homophobia is something that is misunderstood quite often because media attention usually focuses on the more extreme cases, as is thier want.

this a very honest comment, and respect for that,
I agree with you to the extent that homosexuals and other people should respect that a person may be uncomfortable with them being gay or being in the same room as someone who's homosexual, even tho you may not understand the persons reason for it, it might be a phobia like any other, "hights, open spaces, closed rooms, darkness ect" and after all most phobia's are illogical.

but Usually, this isnt the case tho' it's more often a question of a different form of homofobia, and a more well.. attemp to socially isolate or percicute someone simply for being gay. In my experience the vast majority of people I've met who hold some form of dislike towards homosexuals. it's based in thier souroundings telling them though thier upbringing that it's "a sin/un-macho/degrading ect" meaing that it's a case of social conditioning rather than a phobia, also we as humans tend to "suspec" that wich we do not understand.

I for one cannot see or understand how you could be attracted to another guy, being biologically strait i guess you could say " I Just dont get it" but instead of distancing my self from it, I've always taken the time to get to know the person, be they gay or strait.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Yes, I know what we´re talking about. However, the strict and dogmatic approach doesn´t work because it would render all kinds of sexual activities that´s not between man/woman at the age of 18-45 as unnatural.

But you're arguing about different things

Or am i missing something here...

 

[Thorwyn]

I do?

My posts here were aimed against the argument that gay is biologically wrong because they can´t reproduce. That´s the statement I wanted to counter.
Then Chronic came up with the unnatural (in contrast to unbiological) approach and I made a couple of points against his arguments. So it´s not me who pushed the "will it blend" button.

 

[old.Tohtori]

I do?

My posts here were aimed against the argument that gay is biologically wrong because they can´t reproduce. That´s the statement I wanted to counter.
Then Chronic came up with the unnatural (in contrast to unbiological) approach and I made a couple of points against his arguments. So it´s not me who pushed the "will it blend" button.

Argh...i hate this "you vs you" thing in english!

I'm just gonna start using "yous" for plurals to stop people thinking i mean them in a personal way

I meant both of you.

Homosexuality is, in a reproducing manner, un-natural(biological sense), but in no way, as the animal kingdom has shown, un-natural for pleasure purposes(or in the animal kingdom, to lighten the load as they do).

Homosexuality, to some, may be "un-natural" in a moral sense.
Women over the age of yahamamhah are "un-natural" to have sex(in a biological sense).

I think you're both right, in a sense.

Stop it

 

[Thorwyn]

That´s exactly what I was saying when I was talking about ethical aspect.

But please let´s not stop until the "old women are losing their sex drive" thing is cleared up. I need some arguments against our secretary.

 

[Golena]

Drug addicts don't fuck up others than themselves? What a load of BS mate!

You are of course right, appologies. I could apply everything you've said to an alcoholic tho. Would you put a pub landlord in the same category as a drug dealer? There's probably much less difference between those 2 people other than the fact that society has accepted one of them. The original point was that it's ok to dislike certain types of people but not ok to dislike other types with normally no reason other than society has deemed it wrong. Once you strip away the argument, "that's just how it is", there's often not that much there.

Gays can reproduce. A homosexual man can inseminate a lesbian woman. They might not enjoy it, but it's completely natural.

Actually the enjoyment of it is a genetic trait that encourages us to actually do it. Genetics tells us that this action is pleasurable to ensure that we actually do it, and therefore reproduce. Look at everything in nature and it reproduces by doing something that it wants to do not something that it's doing purely to create an offspring.
Men that don't find women attractive are from a genetic point of view "mistakes". From natures point of view it's a trait that's not going to survive another generation. It doesn't make them any worse as people or give them any less right to actually live out their life as they want however. In some ironic way the gay movement could actually help remove gays from the world if it actually is something they have no choice over and isn't simply something that's been instilled in them by todays society. If it's genetic it's probably survived because people have felt the need to hide it and therefore dated women instead, therefore producing children and passing it on. If that stops then Darwin takes over and the gene pool that produces it will die off.

 

[Raven]

I do?

My posts here were aimed against the argument that gay is biologically wrong because they can´t reproduce. That´s the statement I wanted to counter.
Then Chronic came up with the unnatural (in contrast to unbiological) approach and I made a couple of points against his arguments. So it´s not me who pushed the "will it blend" button.

Well, strictly speaking they can't, you still need the "produce" of the opposite sex.

 

[Huntingtons]

thats my point in it gay being natural - if it happens in nature its natural and biologily correct.

For the simple reason that if everyone was gay we would not reproduce and humanity would die out, therefore from a biological standpoint we would have failed, the sole purpose of every living organism on the planet is to reproduce. Kiddie fiddling is very different from homosexuality, would you leave a peodo to look after your kids? I imagine you would be quite happy to leave a disabled (for instance) relative with a homosexual of the same gender though? Child molestation is about dominance, inadequacies and abuse, not love, whereas Shirt lifting is.

Anyway, its not just humans that can be homosexual.

so to "prove" my point ill ask - if a race of creatures dies out for whatever reason, its unnatural?
and as thorwyn said - you're taking the ethic standpoint. my point is that both is a diversion of sexuality. people claim that being gay is genetically and not some mental fluke. if gay can be physical then surely kiddie fidling can as well?
and was it chronic that said that not all phadophilia is without consent but they still got judged - thats because of society deemed it wrong. the law is there to make sure kids wont be abused and because the mind of a child is so easily influenced. what im trying to say is that if the law wasnt there and it would be legal with consent then alot of kids would get influenced to say yes.
same with murder, murder "with consent" is illigal to make sure that no one will abuse the law.

@ dukat

what if i dont like being around black people? wouldnt that qualify me as a racist?

raven - would you fuck a man to save the world?



are you then bisexual?

 

[Raven]

well there is a line, legally speaking anything under 16 is kiddy fiddling (in the UK) however i will agree, the age of consent can change person to person but can a 10 year old, a 5 year old really give consent? No tbh.

If a race of creatures die out then yes, ultimately they have failed, whether they haven't been able to evolve to their surroundings or whatever.

And no i wouldn't go botty bashing to save the human race, sorry but unlucky humanity.

 

[Huntingtons]

dont worry i feel you (nice ass btw!)
if i could i'd kill the human race

 

[liloe]

I think gay couples having children is the worst thing that can happen tbh. Such a child will face living hell everywhere it goes.
Now we all know that the OT crew is a bunch of saints that always respected everything...but realistically everyone will /point /laugh and putting aside all other things, that's one of the main reasons that such a thing should be forbidden. Respect this and that, but risking that a child (who technically has no influence on where it's born) is exposed to such a shit, is unacceptable.
Bad enough that chavs can have children xD

 

[Huntingtons]

how exactly is that bad?

 

[old.Tohtori]

I think gay couples having children is the worst thing that can happen tbh. Such a child will face living hell everywhere it goes.
Now we all know that the OT crew is a bunch of saints that always respected everything...but realistically everyone will /point /laugh and putting aside all other things, that's one of the main reasons that such a thing should be forbidden. Respect this and that, but risking that a child (who technically has no influence on where it's born) is exposed to such a shit, is unacceptable.
Bad enough that chavs can have children xD

Not EVERYONE, like said, the OT crew would most least liekly be the ones pointing or laughing.

And even so, just because some people act as pimply a-holes and moronic bullies, doesn't mean people should stop doing what they can.

Hell, i could even go as far as say that without weeding prejudice towards others, we'd be quoting mein kampf and advocating purity on these forums.

 

[liloe]

how exactly is that bad?

What exactly? ^^

 

[Thorwyn]

I think gay couples having children is the worst thing that can happen tbh. Such a child will face living hell everywhere it goes.
Now we all know that the OT crew is a bunch of saints that always respected everything...but realistically everyone will /point /laugh and putting aside all other things, that's one of the main reasons that such a thing should be forbidden.

errr... Wait a minute...

So basically what you´re saying is: the thing might be ok but we should forbid (!) it because of the expected response of our society???? What the hell!?

If the majority of people believes in god.. should we forbid children to not believe in god because everyone will /point at them?

Well, strictly speaking they can't, you still need the "produce" of the opposite sex.

Strictly speaking, they can. I still don´t see an argument why they can´t.

 

[Olgaline]

heh, reminds me..

they've actually suceeded in producing "artificial sperm cells" from stem cells

so, well strictly speaking, two homosexual women could have a baby

Scientists say they have managed for the first time to create artificial sperm cells, a development that the popular press has seized upon as a sign that sterile men -- and even women -- may be able to fertilize eggs in the future.

Scientists create artificial sperm cells; Papers hype all-female conception - On Deadline - USATODAY.com
Bone stem cells turned into primitive sperm cells - sex - 13 April 2007 - New Scientist

 

[Imgormiel]

heh, reminds me..

they've actually suceeded in producing "artificial sperm cells" from stem cells

so, well strictly speaking, two homosexual women could have a baby





Scientists create artificial sperm cells; Papers hype all-female conception - On Deadline - USATODAY.com
Bone stem cells turned into primitive sperm cells - sex - 13 April 2007 - New Scientist

the word is lesbian baby

 

[Manisch Depressiv]

Ok, this season of wife swap, they seem to try integrating muslim and white familes. What the probolem is, the white family is happy to go into the other family and get on with it, even trying to integrate better and getting the children to.

However, like this show, the muslim woman is whining because the daughter is gay. Whats the problem with being gay? The muslim family(3 kids and the father) are fine with the fact the girl is gay. Its just the woman. Its modern Britain, not Pakistan or India. Being gay is acceptable in this country, if you dont like it, piss off, sorta thing.

And this isnt about being racist, it showed you how hard the Muslim family worked to put 3 kids through uni.

Whats the problem with whining about own kids being gay?

And modern Britain my ass, you watch stupid TV shows and complain about people who are prolly fools (or they wouldn't be in the show) and that really shows how modern you are. You say modern like it would be a positive attribute but you mean that Pakistan and India are backward. Guess what, GDP isn't everything.

 

[Manisch Depressiv]

Take your time to aim, swing....and BANG.

No seriously What Golena said is kinda true, if everybody was gay, humanity would die in a few years. Now even if I'm not sure wether this would be good or bad, it's at least not the normal way.

Erm, no. I could still sell all my sperm to the lesbians and enjoy being buttfucked and sucking coks.

Sounds drastic, but if being gay would be an in stone written requirement humanity would survive, still, life would be different.