Forum needs upgrade? (Topic moves into other areas)

quote:

Originally posted by Roy T:
Does this stricture also apply to Blogomites?

No - that IS a candidate for hormone treatment.

quote:

Originally posted by acad tsunami:

While engaging in "debate" please do not indulge in personal insult. This continues to be a strong requirement of membership of this forum.

I for one am delighted you have found this forum membership requirement.

JWM,

Your post has highlighted (one of) the dangers of moderation.

It gives the impression that acad has formulated the policy that personal insult should be avoided on this forum.

Even reading acad's post, from which you have abstracted the quotation in red, can give this impression.

It might not be imediately obvious to the casual reader that the text in red letters was posted by Adam and replaced a personal insult.

Having seen the original insult, and (at least) some of the subsequent responses, I am of the opinion that Adam was right to moderate this thread.

Cheers

Don

These two make a nice couple...


Now thats Magic!

And Adam might like it, but not a lot!

quote:

Originally posted by JWM:

quote:

Originally posted by acad tsunami:

While engaging in "debate" please do not indulge in personal insult. This continues to be a strong requirement of membership of this forum.

I for one am delighted you have found this forum membership requirement.

Of course we know that you are apt to personal insults when you have lost an argument you hypoctite.

quote:

Originally posted by Adam Meredith:

quote:

Originally posted by acad tsunami:
Right you are our Adam I will try to behave myself in future and not ridicule anyone by suggesting they may be homosexual if you think in doing so I would be insulting them. I wouldn't want to be banned from this ere forum.
Acad the scamp

I would be intrigued as to what you think your motivation was in when making the suggestion. Unless you are incredibly dense you would have predicted and sought ( I wish I had logged on earlier, It would have been amusing to see the reactions. ) to insult.

You are not a "scamp" but an adult (perhaps, given the anonymity of the internet).

Similarly - Bigotomites should be careful and keep their comments in the realms of mild personal prejudice.

Adam,

It appears you think that to suggest someone is a homosexual is to insult them? Personally I don't think the photo should have been moderated at all. You seem to be instituting a forum sense of humour lobotomy here Adam. Some people are bigots and deserved to be ridiculed within reason. My intent was to bring attention to the fact that many homophobes are simply masking their own repressed inclinations (backed up by scientific research)and to ridicule bigotry with a little joke. My desire to see the results of my little joke was a desire to see the results of my little joke (both positive and negative) and not to revel in the aftermath of a heinous insult (the heinous insults come from scipio's camp surely? - the words sodomites and hormone treatment come to mind). If anyone was insulted by the photo then I suggest they stop taking themselves quite so seriously. I am sure homophobia responds well to psychotherapy and possibly even hormone treatment! I will be more mindful of your rules in the future Adam.

Acad Tsunami

The best upgrade this forum could make would be to boot you out.

You are like some smelly little urchin walking into a nice hotel, dropping your muck everywhere and making the place smell.

Your postings are dull, totally lacking in wit and it would be better you if you buggered off.

Mick,

Well of course you are on record as saying your New Years Resolution was that you were going to avoid internet fora but I note you have broken your resolution. What happened to the self discipline you like to brag about?

Acad

Just to follow up my little picture...Gender.

Are we not all androgynous (having both Male and Female characteristics)?

Because my logic See's it like we are all born of a Woman, impregnated by the seed of a Man and therefore contain forever and ever, Male in Female, Female in Male, White in Black and Black in White.

We are all part of each other!

Beano

Beano,

I agree. In some societies they recognise more than 2 sexes e.g. in addition to the usual male and female they accept a man in a woman's body and a woman in a man's body and this is considered entirely normal. The problem is so complex that the IOC medical board goes around in circles trying to define what is or is not a male or female.

Acad

quote:

there is a large percentage of humanity that, based on their "orientation" you would like to be "outlawed" and you feel should not be able to adopt children.

I don't know what percentage of humanity are sodomites or lesbians. However, perhaps we should first separate sodomites from lesbians, and make sure that the terminology is understood.

Leviticus generates the usual, if rather vague, impression of sodomites to my mind. Sodomy, to my understanding, involves male-male buggery, male-female anal sex plus a host of other deviant sexual acts, many, if not all of which, I understand carry serious health risks to society well beyond the consenting/non-consenting individuals involved. Whilst the term "outlaw" might be too strong if used in the English legal sense of the 1700s, I would still make sodomy a crime, . (punishment can be debated separately).

I therefor don't consider that sodomites are appropriate individuals to bring up children because of health and psychological risk to the children involved.



To me, there is a significant difference between sodomites and gays (same-sex couples) - I assume that not all same-sex couples are practising sodomites.

I consider that society is better and stronger when off-spring are reared by their natural parents, with help when required. I understand that most nations (societies?) support this view and have flourished because of it. I do not believe that society should permit, or worse still force, a man and a woman to have a child, to be donated to a same-sex couple to satisfy a biologically impossible desire of the same-sex couple.

This leaves us with children who are orphaned through tragedy, either death of the biological parents or inability of the parents to cope. Homes for these children should be found with suitable opposite-sex couples. I understand there are enough in most European countries.

Cheers

Don

acad,

What you posted was an insult.

I don't know whether anybody asked Adam to moderate it, but he was right to do so.

Don

Don,

Are you in favour of the civil rights of all human beings in society to an equal share of the fundamental pursuits of life, prosperity, and opportunity?

Beano

Beano,

I don't think you have finished your question. Also, it is far too vague.

Normally I wouldn't try to second-guess what was in someone else's mind, but on this occasion let me try....

Just before the question mark? perhaps you intended to add "..including murderes, rapists and terrorists etc"

So to answer the question that I think you intended to ask, the answer is "no"


Your inclusion of the "equal share of....prosperity... also left me perplexed. Do you mean proseperity should be shared out equally around the globe, regardless of contribution? When, tomorrow?, and do you think it should be shared out again next year, if any imbalance has developed? Perhaps you could clarify this, and other aspects of your question?

Now, before you rephrase your question or ask any more questions, perhaps you could set out your thoughts on the subject of the civil rights of human beings in society (I presume you mean people?).

Cheers

Don

Don,

What are you views on the scientific evidence that homophobes are suppressed homosexuals?

Cheers,

Acad

acad,

The article to which you provided a link showed the research team had great difficulty in defining homophobes. The sample size appeared to be very small. I doubt that even the researchers felt they could justifiably claim that all homophobes are suppressed homosexuals.

You, seem to be content to classify someone as a homophobe on the basis of a single statement (not even your link made that sort of claim) and then use the slender evidence of your link - to maliciously suggest that certain people on this forum must be suppressed homosexuals, eager to get married.

My views, as posted further back in this thread about sodomites still stand. I don't think you have yet made your views clear.

Same goes for Diccus.

Cheers

Don

What Makes A Perfect Parent?

Since there is no established evidence that I've read, of positive or negative connection between sexual orientation and their suitability as adoptive parents. To deny gays and lesbians the opportunity to care, love, and raise a child is just outright discrimination on sexual orientation. Why should we allow an individual’s sexual orientation to be the determining factor of whether they are fit for parenting? Of course, we shouldn’t. What one does in the bedroom, or who one chooses to share a life with, has no bearing on what’s in the best interests of the child.

And isn’t that what’s at stake? I would hope so. And if we look at what’s in the best interests of the child, I’m still in favour of allowing gays and lesbians to adopt children. Being straight doesn’t automatically make you good parent. There are many straight parents out there who abuse their children, who can’t manage the books properly, can’t feed their kids, or quite frankly, just don’t love their kids. Of course, such people would never be allowed to adopt, and rightly so; they just are not fit for parenting.

But if a gay couple are both successful, are more than able to provide for the child financially, are not abusive, and have all the love in the world to care for a child, they must be allowed to adopt. Children who are up for adoption deserve nothing but the best home, and if these conditions are provided by a gay couple, who cares?

Well, maybe those who are worried about the traditional family structure. But how common is such a structure these days anyway? We don’t live in the 1900s anymore. Families are ever changing. Couples can get divorced, re-married, or change lifestyles, and these can all have potentially negative effects on a child’s upbringing. Dysfunctional families are a fact of today’s life, and while I’m not saying this is a good thing, I am saying that we can’t attack one group for this reality. Straight couple have done far more damage to the family structure than have gay and lesbian’s ones.


Gender orientation is defined in Genetics so we're led to believe, and if so, it would have no bearing on the future sexual orientation of the child?

Beano

quote:

Adam,
It appears you think that to suggest someone is a homosexual is to insult them?

I had thought to cover this - in anticipation of more sophistry from you - but I had/have no intention of wasting effort on this latest manifestation of your contentious nature.

You posted the image with the direct intention to insult and ridicule. The link to the research is fair (comment) - doctored photographs are not.

quote:

I don't know what percentage of humanity are sodomites or lesbians. However, perhaps we should first separate sodomites from lesbians, and make sure that the terminology is understood.

Leviticus generates the usual, if rather vague, impression of sodomites to my mind. Sodomy, to my understanding, involves male-male buggery, male-female anal sex plus a host of other deviant sexual acts, many, if not all of which, I understand carry serious health risks to society well beyond the consenting/non-consenting individuals involved. Whilst the term "outlaw" might be too strong if used in the English legal sense of the 1700s, I would still make sodomy a crime, . (punishment can be debated separately).

You seem most particular in you disapproval. The main thrust of your antipathy seems to centre on anal (penile, penetrative?) sex. Since you castigate sodomy this includes male-female anal sex.
You also (as a consequence of their not be suitably equipped) cannot so strongly disapprove of female homosexuals. So – your disapproval is of male homosexuals who (have ever?) “indulged” in anal sex and heterosexuals (both partners) who have “indulged” in anal sex.

quote:

plus a host of other deviant sexual acts

then spreads your disapproval a GREAT deal further. I have no particular desire to display an encyclopaedic know of “preversion” but I think you’re in great danger of running out of orphanages if you spread your edicts to those who indulge in oral sex, bondage, tickling, role play and ……

Ultimately – you partly define your ‘self’ in that you do not approve of this act (and some others, so far not listed).

Biblical arguments to back up your tastes have, thankfully, little weight and the medical arguments might just as well apply to other behaviours (alcoholism, Jehovah’s Witness, ….) which don’t involve anal penetration and yet would carry a risk to the adopted child’s health and/or wellbeing.

I feel it is better during a life to achieve some knowledge and liking of who we are – rather than bolster our position by being “not them” and waste disapproval on those who do little or no harm in the pursuit of their lives. But then, I’m rather lovely.

quote:

spread your edicts to those who indulge in oral sex, bondage, tickling, role play and ……

.................and frotteurism

quote:

Originally posted by Diccus62:

quote:

spread your edicts to those who indulge in oral sex, bondage, tickling, role play and ……

.................and frotteurism

Absolutely - each to his own - although I may maintain a certain distance should we meet.

"The practice of touching or rubbing against the (clothed) body of another person (usu. in a crowd), as a means of obtaining sexual gratification. M20. "

I can't improve on Adam's post so I'll just quote someone who can!

quote:

President Josiah Bartlet: Good. I like your show. I like how you call homosexuality an abomination.
Dr. Jenna Jacobs: I don't say homosexuality is an abomination, Mr. President. The Bible does.
President Josiah Bartlet: Yes it does. Leviticus.
Dr. Jenna Jacobs: 18:22.
President Josiah Bartlet: Chapter and verse. I wanted to ask you a couple of questions while I have you here. I'm interested in selling my youngest daughter into slavery as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. She's a Georgetown sophomore, speaks fluent Italian, always cleared the table when it was her turn. What would a good price for her be? While thinking about that, can I ask another? My Chief of Staff Leo McGarry insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly says he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself or is it okay to call the police? Here's one that's really important because we've got a lot of sports fans in this town: touching the skin of a dead pig makes one unclean. Leviticus 11:7. If they promise to wear gloves, can the Washington Redskins still play football? Can Notre Dame? Can West Point? Does the whole town really have to be together to stone my brother John for planting different crops side by side? Can I burn my mother in a small family gathering for wearing garments made from two different threads? Think about those questions, would you? One last thing: while you may be mistaking this for your monthly meeting of the Ignorant Tight-Ass Club, in this building, when the President stands, nobody sits.

Aaron Sorkin

quote:

Originally posted by Basil:
the Ignorant Tight-Ass Club

Are some of the contributors to this thread already members? I think we should be told. All I can say is I would hate to have as horrible, tiny, hateful, little brain as some of the contributers (one an obvious troll whose best ignored). As I said before, makes you wonder when some people last got laid.

Definition of the word Homophobe and interestingly

the identification of a group or person as homophobic is nearly always contested.

Define homophobia



Has God agreed to this statement?...........and anyway you can get patches to help you stop smoking these days, one really doesn't need to protest about it. Alan Carr's books are also supposed to be rather helpful in the treatment. I think this sum's it up better



Diccus

No need for god in this agument. Nature would seem to have made a mistake. It has spent millions of years under the pretext of procreation. If it don't procreate it dies. Seems like a dead end to me one hopefully to be consigned to the list including dinasaurs and Dodos.

Are you then saying, Big H, that sex should be purely for procreation?