Conquer Club

Anarkistsdream wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:

heavycola wrote:

sam_levi_11 wrote:comparing incest and peadophiliia to homos*xuality is a bit extreme considering they are nothing like each other

Nappy does it all the time.

Explain, then, how homosexual and paedophilic impulsesare inherently and fundamentally different?

Saying homosexuality is an impulse is your first mistake.

Do you consider heterosexuality an impulse?

Does it matter? You're still left with the task of explaining how the three differ at the psycho-sexual level.

It does matter. Because you condemn homosexuality and call it an 'impulse.' If you consider heterosexuality an impulse as well, then what makes one worse than the other?

Nap, are you seriously comparing homosexuality and paedophilia?
A simple look at the dictionary will disarm you.

Juan_Bottom wrote:Who cares if it's genetic or freewill? You should have the right to both, if your not hurting anyone.

I completely agree with you.

The only people who make a lot of noise about this particular issue (Genetic Vs Not Genetic) are the staunch conservatives who oppose gay-marriage (and such), they have a recurring red-herring of an argument that tends to run something like "you shouldn't be allowed to marry if you freely chose to be gay, because you knew about the unfairness that you were getting yourself into. You fag." which inevitably rises from its coffin from time to time and seeks to devour the brains of the logical... sorry, I mean living.
So basically, if it could be proven that homosexuality is genetic, then we could finally put a stake through the heart of that particular annoying sideshow debate (which I have repeatedly argued is an irrelevance anyway), and then we wouldn't have to go over the same barren ground every time somebody says something pleasant about homosexuals.

Homosexuality can only be viewed as a deviation of the heterosexual norm. Homosexuality is a cause of sexual impulses different to the normal and useful (in a Darwininan context) impulses of heterosexuality. Now, I never defined homosexuality as an impulse, but essentially, as any sexual tendancy, it is simply the general label we attach to the manifestations of impulses.

The question then, for the gay-is-fine lobby, is how can you condemn incest but not homosexuality, if both are essentially deviations from the sexual norm? How can you castigate paedophilia as "unnatural", whilst supporting that homosexuality is? Do you even condemn incest and paedophilia?

for starters, homosexuality is by its very nature not all about the poontang aspect.

Napoleon Ier wrote:Homosexuality can only be viewed as a deviation of the heterosexual norm. Homosexuality is a cause of sexual impulses different to the normal and useful (in a Darwininan context) impulses of heterosexuality. Now, I never defined homosexuality as an impulse, but essentially, as any sexual tendancy, it is simply the general label we attach to the manifestations of impulses.

The question then, for the gay-is-fine lobby, is how can you condemn incest but not homosexuality, if both are essentially deviations from the sexual norm?

How can you castigate paedophilia as "unnatural", whilst supporting that homosexuality is? Do you even condemn incest and paedophilia?

Incest is wrong because it TYPICALLY happens between an adult and a minor. A minor is not able to give their consent, because they do not have the attitude, experience, and knowledge to make such a decision. This is also the problem with pedophilia...

Frankly, I could care less if a brother and sister start fucking, assuming they are both mature adults who have made that decision with knowledge and understanding. Why would you care if they f*ck or not?

You are truly a neo-nazi, and I mean that in the kindest possible way.

Can we not just bang a nail through the head of Nappy's attempt to de-rail this thread (with yet another red-herring from the staunch conservative fish-barrel) by asking him to go look up the words 'harm' and 'health' in the dictionary? Perhaps followed by looking up 'common sense' and 'stop asking ridiculous questions'?

Seriously, it's not like we haven't dragged over this exact same question before (in some other thread), and it's about a million miles from the actual thread topic. If we were here to talk about paedophilia being genetic, then this would be a fun and relevant thing to talk about; but we aren't, so it's just annoying and irrelevant.

Regardless of whether or not homosexuality is predetermined or not there will always be spite toward gays...they will always be in the minority...and as history shows the minority is the ones who have the most criticism and nasty stereotypes cast toward them...

bspride wrote:Regardless of whether or not homosexuality is predetermined or not there will always be spite toward gays...they will always be in the minority...and as history shows the minority is the ones who have the most criticism and nasty stereotypes cast toward them...

Another incisive and helpful comment from Captain Obvious...


Thanks for that one, please return to broadcast again when you complete that research paper on 'Bear defecation habits' that you were telling me about earlier.

The Pope is a Gay Lutheran.

suggs wrote:The Pope is a Gay Lutheran.

pics plz.

suggs wrote:The Pope is a Gay Lutheran.

Does he bash their bishops?

jonesthecurl wrote:

suggs wrote:The Pope is a Gay Lutheran.

Does he bash their bishops?

No, but I'm sure he bashes his own...

But can we not get off-topic, or at the very least keep showing Nappy-head why he is a supremacist of the worst kind?

Anarkistsdream wrote:

jonesthecurl wrote:

suggs wrote:The Pope is a Gay Lutheran.

Does he bash their bishops?

No, but I'm sure he bashes his own...

But can we not get off-topic, or at the very least keep showing Nappy-head why he is a supremacist of the worst kind?

He's long been on my "ignore" list, so I only see what he says when others are so outraged they quote him.

Dancing Mustard wrote:Can we not just bang a nail through the head of Nappy's attempt to de-rail this thread (with yet another red-herring from the staunch conservative fish-barrel) by asking him to go look up the words 'harm' and 'health' in the dictionary? Perhaps followed by looking up 'common sense' and 'stop asking ridiculous questions'?

Seriously, it's not like we haven't dragged over this exact same question before (in some other thread), and it's about a million miles from the actual thread topic. If we were here to talk about paedophilia being genetic, then this would be a fun and relevant thing to talk about; but we aren't, so it's just annoying and irrelevant.

Well done on missing the point. Again. Quite a track record you're building up there...we're talking about the impulses themselves, not their consequences. You'll also notice I mentionned other paraphilias which would circumvent the issue of harm, health and consent. Read, think, then post, Mustard: the order's all important.

Now, if you're too scared to answer on the actual substance....fair enough, but don't accuse me of bringing in red-herrings or de-railing the thread: if you don't have the level, sit down and shut up.

Napoleon Ier wrote:The question then, for the gay-is-fine lobby, is how can you condemn incest but not homosexuality, if both are essentially deviations from the sexual norm? How can you castigate paedophilia as "unnatural", whilst supporting that homosexuality is? Do you even condemn incest and paedophilia?

I'm not in the "gay-is-fine" lobby, but I think that gaul is divided into three parts here.

Homosexual acts are a clear violation against chastity.
(So are a huge number of hetrosexual acts I should point out.)

Incest is a general taboo becuse of the problems of inbreeding. The classic example of incest (OMG I've been married to my own Mom and I've been having sex with her) was no real reason to poke your own eyes out. (But did it give rise to the old saying, "if you keep doing that you will go blind?") Note that most incest involves child molestation and is wrong for the reasons below.

Paedophilia, involves some sort of child molestation and as a result is a direct assault on a child's physical and emotional state of being. No matter how well intentioned this is a physical and emotional assault.

And tzor is obviously in agreement with me to a large degree...

Anarkistsdream wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:Homosexuality can only be viewed as a deviation of the heterosexual norm. Homosexuality is a cause of sexual impulses different to the normal and useful (in a Darwininan context) impulses of heterosexuality. Now, I never defined homosexuality as an impulse, but essentially, as any sexual tendancy, it is simply the general label we attach to the manifestations of impulses.

The question then, for the gay-is-fine lobby, is how can you condemn incest but not homosexuality, if both are essentially deviations from the sexual norm?

How can you castigate paedophilia as "unnatural", whilst supporting that homosexuality is? Do you even condemn incest and paedophilia?

Incest is wrong because it TYPICALLY happens between an adult and a minor. A minor is not able to give their consent, because they do not have the attitude, experience, and knowledge to make such a decision. This is also the problem with pedophilia...

Frankly, I could care less if a brother and sister start fucking, assuming they are both mature adults who have made that decision with knowledge and understanding. Why would you care if they f*ck or not?

You are truly a neo-nazi, and I mean that in the kindest possible way.

mandyb wrote:Just look at some of the studies done on twins, even identical ones. They are born into the same enviroment, have the same upbringing and similar experiences, yet their characters can be like 'chalk and cheese'.

And when one twin is homosexual and the other one is not the pro-homosexual movement ignores this genetic "they're hard-wired that way" argument.

Anarkistsdream wrote:While you homophobes are at it, why don't you just start burning crosses again like your grandfathers did and lock the Japanese back up in 'interments'?

Umm that was an open minded liberal Democrat, FDR, who did that

tzor wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:The question then, for the gay-is-fine lobby, is how can you condemn incest but not homosexuality, if both are essentially deviations from the sexual norm? How can you castigate paedophilia as "unnatural", whilst supporting that homosexuality is? Do you even condemn incest and paedophilia?

I'm not in the "gay-is-fine" lobby, but I think that gaul is divided into three parts here.

Homosexual acts are a clear violation against chastity.
(So are a huge number of hetrosexual acts I should point out.)

Incest is a general taboo becuse of the problems of inbreeding. The classic example of incest (OMG I've been married to my own Mom and I've been having sex with her) was no real reason to poke your own eyes out. (But did it give rise to the old saying, "if you keep doing that you will go blind?") Note that most incest involves child molestation and is wrong for the reasons below.

Paedophilia, involves some sort of child molestation and as a result is a direct assault on a child's physical and emotional state of being. No matter how well intentioned this is a physical and emotional assault.

Nah mate, not good enough, we're talking about the actual abstracted concept of homosexual tendency, not the effects of it.

How it actually different to incest, if say, the brother and sister are infertile? Or let's throw in other examples: autosexuality, mechanohilia. Normal tendencies? Clearly, no. Same for homosexuality, unless you can prove to me how it differs from any other sexual deviancy in a respect other than degree of socio-cultural paradigm shift of taboo.

Anarkistsdream wrote:And tzor is obviously in agreement with me to a large degree...

Anarkistsdream wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:Homosexuality can only be viewed as a deviation of the heterosexual norm. Homosexuality is a cause of sexual impulses different to the normal and useful (in a Darwininan context) impulses of heterosexuality. Now, I never defined homosexuality as an impulse, but essentially, as any sexual tendancy, it is simply the general label we attach to the manifestations of impulses.

The question then, for the gay-is-fine lobby, is how can you condemn incest but not homosexuality, if both are essentially deviations from the sexual norm?

How can you castigate paedophilia as "unnatural", whilst supporting that homosexuality is? Do you even condemn incest and paedophilia?

Incest is wrong because it TYPICALLY happens between an adult and a minor. A minor is not able to give their consent, because they do not have the attitude, experience, and knowledge to make such a decision. This is also the problem with pedophilia...

Frankly, I could care less if a brother and sister start fucking, assuming they are both mature adults who have made that decision with knowledge and understanding. Why would you care if they f*ck or not?

You are truly a neo-nazi, and I mean that in the kindest possible way.

Oh, I see...Incest is fine and anyone who dissaproves of homosexuality is a Nazi? So nice to see a Left that's at last decomplexed...

Kudos on the neo-Nazi insult, as well...original, to say the least, not to mention relevant, cutting and unhysterically collected. I've honestly never had desperate leftists struggling to put together a coherent argument stall and squeal that I'm actually a Nazi before...

Nap, what is your problem with homosexuality? I'm baffled. I can understand the neanderthals of this world still having trouble understanding that different people have different sexual preferences (copyright: Capatin Obvious, ibid.), but your a man of intelligence and education.
Perhaps just education.

and ps, its time for you to bin Freud -everything he said is balls.

And to forestall your embarrassing paedophilia argument, it has something to do with choice.
We don't disapprove of homosexuality, because consenting adults have freedom of choice whether to accept someone's advances or not.
A child does not have the same choice when abused by someone much older and bigger than them.
Its realy quite straightforward.

And to forestall your embarrassing paedohilias argument, it has something to do with choice.
We don't disapprove of homosexuality, because consenting adults have freedom of choice whether to accept someone's advances or not.
A child does not have the same choice when abused by someone much older and bigger than them.
Its realy quite straightforward.

sorry about the double post, my connection is very slow.