Subject:
|
Re: Terms and Conditions Question
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 17 May 1999 04:57:45 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
994 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Simon Denscombe writes:
> 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.
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.
> <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
Granted. I was, however, thinking at a level even more esoteric than this:
both walking and sex are activities that can be undertaken for their original
purpose, or for other purposes, or some combination thereof. Arbitrarily
declaring that people who choose to do one activity for a secondary purpose are
ill, and people who do so with a different activity are not, strikes me as
mildly hypocritical.
> 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?
No it isn't. That's simply restating it. That is the equivalent of saying
that the purpose of (sexual) intercourse is copulation. Walking is a specific
type of movement, that is fairly efficient for most needs.
In general, movement (in an evolutionary sense) is to go somewhere - to acheive
an objective (go to shelter, get food, get away from the predator, etc). The
treadmill from the other post is an excellent example: movement without going
anywhere. It does not acheive the >original< purpose of walking, just as sex
for pleasure (heterosexual or homosexual) does not acheive the >original<
purpose of walking.
> > > > 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
Hmm. I will again grant that this is valid - in that there are some (not many)
illnesses where the subject is unaware that they are ill, and actively resists
attempts to convince them otherwise, however, the quote you used to express
that is logically unsound, and didn't (to me) accurately convey your concept.
> > 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.
I think you're taking a huge leap here, and it doesn't follow, not that I can
see. How does societal acceptance of an activity that occurs between two
consenting adults, in privacy, lead to societal acceptance of various
destructive activities that are all either blatant abuses of power or violation
of basic freedoms? (or both)
The main question I have for you, is this: On what basis do you refer to
homosexuality as an illness?
> > 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.
Ok. It was perhaps phrased poorly. As to what formed my beliefs about
homosexuality, they are based on a combination of a number of factors,
primarily discussion (rarely heated), reading, logical cosideration, and
societal and religious influences/pressures. My personal sexual preference
does not have a bearing on my beliefs about homosexuality, excepting that it(my
sexual preference) is a part of my basic psychological makeup.
> > 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?
I consider it to be (and forgive the p.c. speak) a lifestyle choice. It is no
more to be condemned or remarked upon than, say, the city someone chooses to
live in.
> BTW, this is a opinion expressed here not necessarily my own.
Ok, but, since you asked first, what is your opinion?
James
http://www.shades-of-night.com/lego/
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Terms and Conditions Question
|
| (...) What other purposes of walking can u think of? One foot in front of the other causes a displacement away from where you was standing, enjoyment of it is irrelevant - you are still walking therefore moving. (...) Well it is isn't it - the (...) (25 years ago, 17-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Terms and Conditions Question
|
| (...) Sorry my mistake - however we don't lose posts like on USENET - I must be getting lapse. <Stuff snipped about ill and walking> (...) Walking can be done on your own, coitus cannot. Sex is an intimate thing between 2 people originally for (...) (25 years ago, 16-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
|
|
|
|
