Fr.Andrew

(Fr Andrew): Say...what?

Fr.Andrew

(Fr Andrew):

Dr Rick

That's exactly why I love and support RADORTH (responsible Africaneers doing obviously rehensible obscenities regardless of the harm).

Those stupid "niggers;" copulating and reproducing like they're as smart as the rest of us; will they ever learn?

Golly, from a logical POV, they should lighten their skins and not copulate like they're white or something until they learn a thing or two.

yguy

Not if I didn't have one.

yguy

They're copulating like they're as smart as the idiots of other races who behave likewise. I realize it's a terrible violation of their civil rights that they are, for the time being, forced to bear the consequences of their irresponsibility, unlike those in other countries. No doubt the RCC should be the defendant in some sort of international civil rights lawsuit for their diabolical failure to protect these people from their own stupidity.

Fr.Andrew

(Fr Andrew-previously): And does it not occur to you that responsible copulation would involve condom use?


(yguy) Not if I didn't have one.

(Fr Andrew): Why would that be a factor?

yguy

Forget it.

Bill Snedden

I think you mean "emigrated"...

Are you under the impression that all immigrants were nuclear families?

Does immigration convey the status of "autonomy?"

You still haven't answered: autonomous WRT what? "Autonomy" means "independent." Perhaps if I rephrased the question: Autonomous from what?

What does "capability" necessarily have to do with same or opposite sexual contact?

What does "stability" necessarily have to do with same or opposite sexual contact?

What does it mean for something to be "suitable to human nature?" I ask this because homosexual activity is clearly part of human nature (as humans engage in it) and just as clearly satisfies needs of those humans who engage in it (or they wouldn't do so). What else does "human nature" mean? "Procreative function"?

I think we agree that mere sexual attraction does not convey moral status, no? This must certainly be neutral WRT both positions, no?

Whether or not "women are rarely rapists or pedophiles" conveys nothing whatsoever about the "concept of homosexuality." Your assertion is both fantastic and nonsensical.

Rape and pedophilia are absolutely irrelevant to a discussion about the morality of homosexuality as there is absolutely no necessary connection to homosexuality. Can we please, please try and stay on topic?

Regards,

Bill Snedden

dk

dk: Migration between nations by a family demonstrates autonomy from nations, and for that matter civilzations. I don’t accept homosexuality as part of human nature, the word wasn’t coined until 1890s by Freud. There have been Civilizations that build homosexuality into the social order but these civilizations are now dead. If you have some particular historical source, please offer it. I submit male homosexuality is primitive violent and hierarchical in its norms, and exists most purely in prisons and military ranks where lower ranking males are bonded to their benefactor in exchange for protection, and dominant males form a rigid hierarchical structure ruled by brutality and violence.

dk: I don't think we agree, its certainly not neutral to anyone that's been raped or sexually molested. Women are rarely rapists or pedophiles, and that undermines the concept of homosexuality all together. I don't see how we can arrive at an ethical form if we must start with an irrational concept.
Bill Snedden: I think we agree that mere sexual attraction does not convey moral status, no? This must certainly be neutral WRT both positions, no?
dk: I don’t assume anything. I see no reason for nuetrality once we accept an egotistic form as the basis of social order.

Bill Snedden: Whether or not "women are rarely rapists or pedophiles" conveys nothing whatsoever about the "concept of homosexuality." Your assertion is both fantastic and nonsensical.
dk: If homosexuality is self evident, which is the case I think you’re making, then pedophilia is likewise self evident , the sexual object being justified by the attraction. Children haven’t the capacity to consent so by extension neither does a young girl, and so forth and so on. My point is that societies that let homosexuality into the order degenerate into a brutal hierarchy dominated by alpha males that extend their protection to vassals, protégés, and others they choose for one reason or another to protect.

Bill Snedden: Rape and pedophilia are absolutely irrelevant to a discussion about the morality of homosexuality as there is absolutely no necessary connection to homosexuality. Can we please, please try and stay on topic?
dk: I find your statement rather judgmental. You’ve got to give a reason, and you haven’t.

Dr Rick

There have been civilizations that build religion into the social order that are also now dead.

That's a desciption more applicable to Catholicism.

Homosexualiy is sexual desire for one of the same sex; it is not a hierarchy or a form of violence.

Homosexual sex occurs in women's prisons and among women in the military, too.

Heterosexuals have been known to brutalize and dominate their mates.

Like most *edited inappropriate remark*, you're just stereotyping the object of your fear and hate.

The vast majority of non-consensual sex acts are heterosexual; how does that undermine homosexuality?

I don't see how we can make sense of this babble. Would you please post with comprehensible terminology...?

,,,pretty please?

Merely putting the word "pedophilia" in the same paragraph with the word "homosexulaity" is not adequate to draw a comparison; there is nothing "self-evident" about any similarity between the two.

Rape and pedophilia are not the topic; your posts about them in this thread are irrelevant.