unmasked wrote:
The topic touches on transhumanism which is certainly VERY interesting indeed.
Certainly monetary power will be directing the track of this technology and I agree strongly it is something to keep an eye on.

Its either a natural occurrence and therefore normal or it isn't.

So, playing along for a moment, if I am to maintain that homosexuality is not normal, and I follow the rules of your argument, I must say that homosexuality is not a natural occurrence.

I think I can see where this one's going. Blundered right into it.

andyh wrote:
I thought this part of our discussion was about evolution. but I agree, those things can be passed on.

grackus wrote:
It is visible throughout the animal kingdom.
You can view it as natures way of controlling population figures if you like and nature created it not man. Ergo it is natural.
'Normal' in this respect is a cultural viewpoint. What is viewed as 'normal' by one culture can be designated completely the opposite by another or some shade in between. You are ofc welcome to state that something is not normal by your cultural viewpoint but mother nature would just point and laugh...a bit like humanity considering all sorts of things to be normal or natural but it has nothing to do with reality.

@grackus - the key to what people will and will not accept as ok from my experience comes down to consent - a child cannot give informed consent and therefore paedophillia will never ever be an acceptable form of sexual expression.

As for why people are gay - for me it is not important - it is one of the few things that I feel 'just are' and the why is not important.

Abrahamic religious morality regarding relationships with children is nothing to crow about.
Now that stuff was a cultural choice.

Homosexuality is a natural variation imo.
What I find unnatural is why people who it does not effect want to condemn it.

Try it you might like it.

batou wrote:

If oi's earlier post is anything to go on and going by his homophobic tendancies, I imagine grakus has liked it but only when nobodies looking.

It's sad when a grown gay man has to come on the internet and hate himself. We cant help you until you help yourself grak

thoreau wrote:
Thank-you for a sensible, and reasoned post, thoreau. I tend to agree with you about the why, seeing as the percentage of homosexuals is supposed to be about 1.5%.

As for consent I happen to think 16 is a fair age. Peter Tatchell, however, is well known for wanting the age of consent to be reduced.

www.pinknews.co.uk/2013/01/21/peter-tatc...ge-of-consent-to-14/

People are trying to prove that children can consent to sex. People are trying to say that because children are having sex with each other anyway there should be a change in the law. In my opinion this is wrong.

feather wrote:
Firstly I have not mentioned religion, Abrahamic or otherwise, in this thread. Secondly giving your opinion that homosexuality is not normal does not add up to condemnation. Do you agree?

andyh wrote:
I think I would prefer it if you viewed it as nature's way of controlling population figures. I would rather concentrate on scientific facts when it comes to nature. The same with Mother Nature. If you think that this person has some relevance then that is fine, but please don't expect me to take her pointing and laughing as some sort of evidence for your opinions.

Also I do not think that in matters of sexual morality that looking at the animal kingdom is really any help at all. You said earlier that murder happens in the animal kingdom. I think you are looking at the animal kingdom a bit too much. Animals are incapable of murder. And some dogs will run around fucking anything at all. In my opinion that does not provide any guidelines for how I feel I should act.

9 @grackus I too think that 16 is a 'good age' for consent to sex however I do think that it can have some 'wriggle room'. There is a huge difference imho between two fourteen year olds having consensual sex and a 30 year old and 14 year old and I would not like to see a 14 year old criminalised for having sex with his/her 14 year old partner - nor do I think that people wake up on their 16th birthday suddenly capable of making an informed decision as to whether they are emotionally ready to have sex. My view is that pre 14 (and this is entirely based on my own experiences so in no way scientific) consent cannot be given in an informed manner.

I do believe the age of consent should be the same for all regardless of gender or sexuality


There are people campaigning to lower the age of consent - some for selfish reasons based on their own desires and others in order to not criminalise the young. Having read the article you linked it would appear tatchell and i share some similar views about the grey area of two similarly aged people being criminalised.

grackus wrote: You've done well not to reveal the source of your bigotry so far, I'll give you that.

When you mention and draw parallels between homosexuality and paedophilia in the same breath you've more than made the condemnation clear.
However erroneously based that assertion is.

It's my stance that children are far better protected from paedophiles the further they are from those who take their 'morality' from iron age religious myths.

Awwww, he's still ignoring all my points completely, verifies their validity somewhat

grackus wrote:
Mother Nature is not a person, lol

As for animals, cats will kill a bird or a mouse just for the pleasure of it. Often not eating what they kill.

You're swerving the issue, which is that your version of what is 'normal' is a cultural viewpoint just like religion etc. It has nothing to do with reality hene the use of the word 'normal' is plain stupid.

Grackus, I don't think this is the first time you've tried to link homosexuality with paedophilia, and, unlike the act of love between consenting adults, that attempt is shamefully immoral, imo.

Gilly wrote:
Wasn't it Putin who tried to do that too?

Says a lot doesn't it..
What other skeletons in his closet waiting to come out?

feather wrote:
Maybe I should make my position clearer for those of you unable to stop themselves leaping to the wrong conclusions. I am not condemning homosexuality. I am simply saying that it is not normal. What I am saying is normal is a man and a woman who have sex in order to create little baby humans. I am not saying that homosexuals will end up in Hell for eternity, or that homosexuality should be illegal and homosexuals be put in prison.

I agree with you in part about the iron age myth thing, feather. Once Christianity became the state religion of the Roman Empire no child in the world was safe/ But I think it is also important to bear in mind that our pagan, luciferian secret masters seem to generate quite a lot of heat when it comes to things like paedophilia, drug abuse, rape etc. A book like Programmed to Kill by Dave McGowan makes it abundantly clear that bog standard Christians are not the source of paedophilia. Moreover it is the satanic rulers of the world.