'Gay' romance appropriate for children?

[Jeff]

Originally posted by Big D
Is their really anyone here who wants to say that for a man to insert his penis into another man anus is a good thing to do?

Big D I have seen a few post from certain ppl that I am sure think this is fine...lol..Lets see if they come forward
Jeff

 

[Isaac Brock]

Originally posted by Big D
Is their really anyone here who wants to say that for a man to insert his penis into another man anus is a good thing to do?

Nope I think it's sick, but I'm straight and it's none of my business what they do. Who am I to judge as long as its between two consenting adults and their actions don't affect me in the least.

 

[nbdysfu]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Big D
Is their really anyone here who wants to say that for a man to insert his penis into another man anus is a good thing to do?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's a sick act, agreed. I don't know what gays do in private. I do know of many straight people and rappers who brag about doing this to their girlfriends though. Is that not a sick act? Is that part of heterosexual culture not condoning such an immorality?

 

[LoudBeagle]

Homosexuality is not a perversion, it just is.

Having sex with sheep or other animals is not a perversion, it just is.

Having sex with children is not a perversion, it just is.

Having sex with a watermelon is not a perversion, it just is.

Having a limb cut off because it sexually excites you is not a perversion, it just is.

Having sex with someone while you slowly torture and kill them is not a perversion, it just is.

GIVE ME A BREAK!

 

[Jeff]

Watermelon well that might be perversion im not sure...lol... better check with bully
Jeff

 

[Johnney]

Originally posted by Jeff & Laura
Watermelon well that might be perversion im not sure...lol... better check with bully
Jeff

could be interesting though

 

[Big D]

Originally posted by Isaac Brock
Nope I think it's sick, but I'm straight and it's none of my business what they do. Who am I to judge as long as its between two consenting adults and their actions don't affect me in the least.

Thats what we are talking about here Isaac, the fact that these homosexuals are wanting and trying to teach children about "what they do".

Do those actions affect you in the least?

 

[eric]

The answer is very simple, NO IT IS NOT !!!

Children need to find their own sexuality without outside influence, not to say parents should not teach their children about sex, but certainly not influence their orientation !

 

[Isaac Brock]

Originally posted by Big D
Thats what we are talking about here Isaac, the fact that these homosexuals are wanting and trying to teach children about "what they do".

Do those actions affect you in the least?

Well of course they are, but we're not talking at all about the sexual part of the relationship here. Let's not carried away.

And no... these actions do not affect me in the least.

 

[Isaac Brock]

Oh and moi. I'm still collecting my thoughts to reply to your point, which are very, very good. I have not forgotten you.

 

[Isaac Brock]

Originally posted by Moi

I would doubt that a show such as you describe would be commented on by me. The show is not on a teen channel and it's not teaching tolerance- for tolerance extends to EVERYONE with varying viewpoints on an issue. Not just gays wanting to be thought okay by society. Funny how tolerance is only seen as one way about this. If the show really wanted to educate people and teach tolerance, gays would have been shown as acceptable to some and unacceptable to others. There would be no value judgments about either side. And both sides of the argument would be portrayed as people with varying viewpoints not as one barbarian against the lovable gay guys. But that's not the way it goes. Only gays deserve tolerance it seems.

***By the way I hardly think gays have been using aggressive tactics, but that's my opinion, not a fact.***

I think it's extremely aggressive for one's views toward sexual orientation to be the harbinger of whether one deserves tolerance or not. As I said before, there are many acts which are not acceptable...some to one group some to another. It's laughable that the same groups bitching about tolerance for gays have so little tolerance for those whose morals are inconsistent with theirs. Can't mention the word god anywhere but it's okay to discuss homosexual intercourse? That's in your face (which are the words I used) and I am a bit sick of the hypocritical nature of it all.

Ok Moi, I've thought it about it for awhile and I think I have some ideas for that point. Sorry it took so long, I have to admit I had never thought about that position before. I'd rather collect myself and speak than shout jibberish. Good of you to bring that point up!

The problem with the whole problem of tolerance for gays and tolerance for peope who are against gays (in terms of their sexual orientation) is that I believe that having tolerance for both positions is mutually exclusive . In a sense, I don't think you can really have a tolerance for both ideas. However, of course, you can always have tolerance for both people supporting those positions. Let me explain, if you will.

The way society evolves is that new ideas take pedestal in our social fabric while others are rejected and left as history. Whereas slavery was once accepted and deemed appropriate, abolishinest arguments prevailed to the point where people who agreed with slavery were cast as "wrong".

Another example that is current going around (and has not completed its apex) is the idea of democracy. Democracy I believe is slowly rooting out depotism to the point that one day absolutism will be rejected by humanity as a whole.

Racial equality is another example. Whereas segregationist arguments prevailed in America and Africa (and by that I mean NA and SA as well) now they are cast aside as relics of an age that has past. To view segregation as an acceptable social fabric, is again, to be "wrong".

Why do I bring these all up? The point is, is that whether we like to accept it or not. Morals change with society. Even absolute ones such as theological arguments rarely stand the tests the time, but evolve. In each case, the people who were against the notion of the given moral change were not necessarily "bad" or "intollerant" by any means, in fact most of them probably had very good reasons in mind at the time, but they accepted a moral base that was not in sync with the overall moral direction of society.

Well, I believe that this is the direction the tolerance of sexual orientation is going. Right now the arguing is being done as to whether it is right or not, but usually over time, tolerance will prevail as our society as whole , I think, embraces liberalism, albeit at a place much slower than conventional big L "Liberals" would like. Essentially I believe that this is a moral position that is in the processs of evolution. Am I wrong? Maybe, but looking at history, I'd say there's a very good chance this is just another ideological evolution.

So what does that have to do with the tolerances being mutually exculsive? Well I think that goes with the fact that we are in the in the midst of that socital change (though nothing too dramtic I'd expect) one idea must prevail since society cannot accept both. As always, this will cause friction

So the idea is that morals are evolving with society. What seems like an outrage now, will be common-place in society tomorrow. It's not for good, it not for bad, in fact in has no value judgment at all, it's just change.

There!

 

[Moi]

Originally posted by Isaac Brock

Well, I believe that this is the direction the tolerance of sexual orientation is going. Right now the arguing is being done as to whether it is right or not, but usually over time, tolerance will prevail as our society as whole , I think, embraces liberalism, albeit at a place much slower than conventional big L "Liberals" would like. Essentially I believe that this is a moral position that is in the processs of evolution.

Well I think that goes with the fact that we are in the in the midst of that socital change (though nothing too dramtic I'd expect) one idea must prevail since society cannot accept both. As always, this will cause friction

So the idea is that morals are evolving with society. What seems like an outrage now, will be common-place in society tomorrow. It's not for good, it not for bad, in fact in has no value judgment at all, it's just change.

There!

I can't debate what you've written because it seems to be absolute opinion. You're vision of the future is obviously what you see hppening. Indeed, it may.

However, I truly hope I am dead long before such "evolution" takes place. I would not wish to participate in a country/world where morals have no place and anything goes. I am glad I wasn't born an animal without self control and I expect my child to have it as well.

 

[Johnney]

However, I truly hope I am dead long before such "evolution" takes place. I would not wish to participate in a country/world where morals have no place and anything goes. I am glad I wasn't born an animal without self control and I expect my child to have it as well.

Moi its getting that way no as we speak. every where you look there is a lawsuit because someone doesnt want to take responsibility for their actions. there are lawsuits because some one got their feelings hurt. its things like this that are taking us to hell in a hand basket.

 

[Isaac Brock]

Originally posted by Moi
I can't debate what you've written because it seems to be absolute opinion. You're vision of the future is obviously what you see hppening. Indeed, it may.

However, I truly hope I am dead long before such "evolution" takes place. I would not wish to participate in a country/world where morals have no place and anything goes. I am glad I wasn't born an animal without self control and I expect my child to have it as well.

It'll hardly be a country without morals. All I am saying that morals change, for better or for worse. Same game, different rules so to speak. In many ways that's hard for all us to accept because in many ways we believe morals to be absolute, static, when history shows us that they are not.

I hope you understand the perspective I take is not based on what I believe personally on that subject. A lot of things I believe to be inevitable, but I do not agree with. For instance, I think commericialism is replacing community, promiscuity is replacing chasitity.

What I'm try to show is that the historical "liberalization" or our society and how I think this issue will simply be another chapter.

I sincerely hope that you understand that I make no judgment or ill will upon yourself.

 

[Moi]

Originally posted by Isaac Brock
It'll hardly be a country without morals. All I am saying that morals change, for better or for worse. Same game, different rules so to speak. In many ways that's hard for all us to accept because in many ways we believe morals to be absolute, static, when history shows us that they are not.

I hope you understand the perspective I take is not based on what I believe personally on that subject. A lot of things I believe to be inevitable, but I do not agree with. For instance, I think commericialism is replacing community, promiscuity is replacing chasitity.

What I'm try to show is that the historical "liberalization" or our society and how I think this issue will simply be another chapter.

I sincerely hope that you understand that I make no judgment or ill will upon yourself.

Morals change because people allow them to do so. Perhaps those who are still tailoring their behavior to morality should not sit by and be silent. Perhaps those who actually know right from wrong should continue to push back when others "push the boundaries of decency". Perhaps the government should stop penalizing people for expecting and advocating a moral society.

I have no animosity towards you, Isaac. Never will. I have no wish to hurt those who are different than I; however, I will never be silent when the acts of humanity continually debase the human race. In believing certain things to be inappropriate for children in either media or behavior, I'm not calling for the death of those so acting. That's the problem with a lot of "tolerance" these days. And that was my point all along.

Tolerance towards people- meaning behaving respectfully and talking about issues and/or lobbying the government - can still be had towards those with which we don't agree. There's a complete fallacy out there that just because you are respectful to someone you are automatically condoning their behavior. That's not the truth. You don't have to hate, hurt or kill those with whom you disagree. Therefore, I do believe that tolerance can be ours as a human race even as members continue to strive for a just and moral society.

 

[Isaac Brock]

Originally posted by Moi

I have no animosity towards you, Isaac. Never will. I have no wish to hurt those who are different than I; however, I will never be silent when the acts of humanity continually debase the human race. In believing certain things to be inappropriate for children in either media or behavior, I'm not calling for the death of those so acting. That's the problem with a lot of "tolerance" these days. And that was my point all along.

Tolerance towards people- meaning behaving respectfully and talking about issues and/or lobbying the government - can still be had towards those with which we don't agree. There's a complete fallacy out there that just because you are respectful to someone you are automatically condoning their behavior. That's not the truth. You don't have to hate, hurt or kill those with whom you disagree. Therefore, I do believe that tolerance can be ours as a human race even as members continue to strive for a just and moral society.

Absolutely. I think half of our (maybe my) problem witht this debate is the meaning of toleance. Tolerance in the way I used it means "to accept", in referring to an ideology. I think now that I was wrong in my terminology, but not in my sentiment. In retrospect, I think your definition of tolerance is better and what you say about it holds very true.

 

[Moi]

Originally posted by Isaac Brock
Absolutely. I think half of our (maybe my) problem witht this debate is the meaning of toleance. Tolerance in the way I used it means "to accept", in referring to an ideology. I think now that I was wrong in my terminology, but not in my sentiment. In retrospect, I think your definition of tolerance is better and what you say about it holds very true.

I would venture that your definition of tolerance is closer to Webster's version (which is why I defined it rather than debate the semantics).

Our debate is what this message board is about...rational people, respecting differing viewpoints and finding common ground. We may not ultimately agree all the time, but we have tolerance for other's opinions!

 

[Isaac Brock]

Originally posted by Moi
I would venture that your definition of tolerance is closer to Webster's version (which is why I defined it rather than debate the semantics).

Our debate is what this message board is about...rational people, respecting differing viewpoints and finding common ground. We may not ultimately agree all the time, but we have tolerance for other's opinions!

Amen to that!

 

[AtlantaWalter]

I also do not care if you are gay or not but I do NOT approve of the media's attempt at being "PC" by shoving it down the throats of the American TV viewer. This is just another chip off the block of what used to be a great country with some morals; they continue to drag us lower and lower, telling us that we need to accept those with "alternate lifestyles" because that is the politically correct thing to do. Those people have rights too you know!!! Bullshit!!!! It is merely a further degradation of the morals of America.

 

[Johnney]