Subject:
|
Re: Terms and Conditions Question
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 16 May 1999 23:16:49 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
946 times
|
| |
|
|
James Brown wrote:
> "The whole natural point of having sex is reproduction or the possibility of
> it (contraception isn't 100% safe) - with homosexuals this is impossible."
> --> Copied from your post. Please stop removing relevant portions of the
> --> quoted text, it makes it very difficult to follow a discussion logically.
Sorry my mistake - however we don't lose posts like on USENET - I must
be getting lapse.
<Stuff snipped about ill and walking>
> Why are sex and walking different? Conceptually, at least. I am aware that
> there are one or two technical differences. ;)
Walking can be done on your own, coitus cannot. Sex is an intimate
thing between 2 people originally for reproduction, nowadays for
pleasure also. Homosexuals take away the original purpose of sex thats
what it was made for. And you are aware of a few differences already :)
> But a person who walks (regardless of A, B, or C) solely because they enjoy
> walking is not accomplishing the intended purpose of walking. Again: Does
> that make them ill?
No, the purpose of walking is to move - when people walk for enjoyment
they are still moving - are they not?
> > > ill people want to get well they just don't know it"
> No, you did. That statement was your original quote, which I called non-
> sensical.
Sorry must have been asleep, that was a very general phrase expressed
for all ill people, it was also expressed on a Star Trek episode where a
planet was full of people with no sex and deviants kept appearing who
said they were male/female - they were determined to outwit the people
who tried to help them but afterwardsa were glad they were cured, the
same is the case here
> I will agree that (typically) anyone who knows they are ill wants, in general,
> to get better. However, the orginal quote strongly implies an illness that
> the "ill people" are unaware of.(1) Was that your intent? That is how I read
> the sentence, so that is the premise I was operating under.
Well they are aware of the illness but do not consider it an illness
because society now accepts them, when will it stop? Soon they will
accept padeophiles then murderers and armed gunman walking into TRU - we
may laugh now and say it won't happen but that's what homosexuals
thought 60 years ago but now people accept them.
> <blink> That's a joke, right? Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary? Been
> around since Noah Webster in the 1820's?
Well I only heard of it when I started using RTL - we use the Oxford
dictionary here (and to a lesser extent Collins dictionaries)
> I was refering to the quote referenced above "ill people want to get well,
> they just don't know it."
OK.
> I did not say that, I was quoting you. Besides, how is my sexual preference,
> or lack thereof, even remotely relevant?
Well I'm just trying to find out why you think your opinion, that's the
whole point of discussion - find information, find out why the person
feels that way, then assess your own opinion based on the new input. I
apologise if I offended you.
> 1: Please do not infer from this quote that I feel homosexualilty is an
> illness. It isn't.
What do you consider it to be then?
--
Carbon 60
ICQ # 5643170
BTW, this is a opinion expressed here not necessarily my own.
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Terms and Conditions Question
|
| (...) No problem - it's just easier to follow if I don't have to hunt back down the thread to figure out if I'm remembering something correctly. (...) Granted. I was, however, thinking at a level even more esoteric than this: both walking and sex (...) (25 years ago, 17-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Terms and Conditions Question
|
| (...) But I think what we need to know is which of these things make intercourse different from walking such that the use of the activity toward some goal other than the 'original' one is deemed an illness rather than perfectly reasonable? (...) If (...) (25 years ago, 17-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Terms and Conditions Question
|
| In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Simon Denscombe writes: "The whole natural point of having sex is reproduction or the possibility of it (contraception isn't 100% safe) - with homosexuals this is impossible." --> Copied from your post. Please stop (...) (25 years ago, 12-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
150 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
