Homosexuality: a tool of war

[Mike Windu]

Originally posted by Tyrion

I meant more along the lines of how it was adopted into society(particularly war) itself( I might be confusing myself with the Macedonians, however). And just to set myself clear, I do support homosexual marriages, if you got the wrong vibe from what I said.

 

 

Achilles was bisexual. As well as many other numerous heroes of mythology. Homosexuality was quite common among Roman athletes also.

 

 

>.>

 

<.<

 

 

 

Orlando Bloom roxX0rz my b0xX0rz!

[Spider AL]

You belong to a group named Spartans, right? And Spartans in history were ultra-masculine warriors who practiced homosexuality.

Actually the claim that homosexuality between mentors and students was institutionalized in ancient Sparta is very revisionist in nature and quite unsupported by any evidence. Contemporary commentators such as Xenophon actually remarked on the distinct lack of pederasty in Sparta.

 

I'm not sure why this strange idea has become widespread other than the possibility that trendy-lefty revisionist historians got involved, but it's a misconception.

[ET Warrior]

They may not have practiced homosexuality, that is debatable. But it isn't really debatable that ancient greeks were VERY infatuated with the male form, in particular that of the adolescent male, which is evidenced in their art, PARTICULARLY the Kouros sculptures.

[Spider AL]

But it isn't really debatable that ancient greeks were VERY infatuated with the male form,

That's a non-issue ET. Look at the action stars of the eighties: Schwarzenegger and Stallone. Were all the young men who idolised them as the ideal male role-models homosexual? Obviously not. Are bodybuilders and those who wish to look like them all homosexual? Obviously not.

 

Admiring the male form in the way of ancient greece does not directly hint at any perverse sexual fascination, though trendy-lefty revisionists would have you believe otherwise.

 

Remember, "infatuated" is in this case a loaded term, and unworthy of debate.

[ET Warrior]

But were you to give a kid a choice between a stellar hot woman model and Arnold, MOST guys are going to go with the woman, whereas in Ancient Greece if they used women in art they buried them in clothes. The REAL beauty came from men in their eyes.

[Spider AL]

whereas in Ancient Greece if they used women in art they buried them in clothes. The REAL beauty came from men in their eyes.

That's a non sequitur. Societies often bury women in clothing PRECISELY BECAUSE they're more desirable than men. Look at Islamic societies. Are they all secretly gay? Obviously not.

 

In bodybuilding competitions, the men show more flesh than the women. Is that because the viewers are gay, and find the men more "beautiful"? Obviously not, it's merely the societal standard we live in that women should cover their upper torso.

 

Revisionists must necessarily read much into minute details in order to support their cases. This is often therefore a clue to their failings.

[Cyborgninja]

Originally posted by Rogue15

homosexuality is totally unnatural, and prolly what pissed God off enough to wipe out Sodom and Gammorah.

 

oh and here is what i found in leviticus chapter 18:

 

 

 

thank u for stating that so I didn't have too(not that I am tryin to flame an gays out there)

[TK-8252]

Homosexuality is more natural than sitting here browsing internet forums.

[Spider AL]

Homosexuality is more natural than sitting here browsing internet forums.

It is not more natural than a man and a woman bumping uglies like bunnies, though.

 

Is it?

[Mike Windu]

Making it any less natural than "true" intercourse and/or sexual orientation doesn't necessarily make it evil does it?

 

[Spider AL]

I think you'll find that I haven't said that it's evil, nor have I said that it's not evil. I have pointed out that any claim that it's "natural" is meaningless.

[Tyrion]

Originally posted by Spider AL

I think you'll find that I haven't said that it's evil, nor have I said that it's not evil. I have pointed out that any claim that it's "natural" is meaningless.

 

True. Murder and aggression are natural things that humans do and feel, but they aren't neccessarily encouraged upon...

[Mike Windu]

Originally posted by Spider AL

I think you'll find that I haven't said that it's evil, nor have I said that it's not evil. I have pointed out that any claim that it's "natural" is meaningless.

 

 

Ah, so sorry Meester D. Advocate.

 

 

 

I'd like to know, very blatantly, your opinion on this matter. Do you support it or not?

 

 

and no playing a little red guy with a red hot poker either...

[Spider AL]

Well I've actually addressed that very question earlier in the thread.

 

But what the hell.

 

I consider that in the ideal society, people should be allowed to do whatever they want, as long as it doesn't seriously harm others, so if people want to molest each other with grapefruits, they should be allowed to do so. But that doesn't mean that shoving a six-inch diameter sphere into a distinctly smaller orofice is good for their physical or psychological wellbeing. But it's people's moral right to damage themselves in whatever way they wish, in the privacy of their own home.

 

But frankly, I do have several problems with the cultures of sexual perversions of all sorts:

 

Firstly, sex for non-procreative purposes is purely for fun, and therefore no more important than any other hobby. Yet sexual predelictions of all sorts bombard us via the media and via charities and campaigning groups... It's really not that important, and it obsesses so many people so much...

 

Secondly, It's a bad thing for our society that people define themselves by their sexuality rather than their skills or abilities or other sundry good points. Sexuality has become a uniform, everything from fursuits to the butch lesbian look have become nigh-mandatory in the communities to which they belong, and it's sad that these people, many of whom proclaim themselves to be more enlightened than the rest of humanity are enmeshed and mired in brainwashing of a different shade. Their sexual predilictions have defined not only their behaviour inside the bedroom, but also outside the bedroom, and in the way they dress and think... it's awful. And hypocritical, in many ways.

 

And thirdly many people from these insular cliques define the rest of the world in negative terms. The word "straight" has become an insult. Some of the most intolerant people I've ever met have been members of sexual minorities.

 

---

 

To put my views very simply: I don't like the fact that the majority of people with sexual perversions that I've encountered define themselves and others by their sexuality. I find it petty.

 

I dislike being bombarded with other people's fetishes. I keep my fantasies about desert islands populated with nubile young lay-deeees to myself, and I expect plushie fetishists to keep their encrusted cuddly toys to themselves as well, not plaster them all over leaflets and mass-mailshots and TV spots. Sexuality has become so overexposed it's now cheap, tawdry and on occasion genuinely disgusting.

 

And finally I'm tired of trendy-lefty activists trying to define things like the act of molesting a stuffed giraffe as "normal." It's not normal, it's perverted sexuality, purely by definition.

 

"Hey friend," I say, "hump a sports-bag if you like, but don't try and salve your outdated victorian concience and quell your ingrained self-loathing by equating the savage rape of Geraldine the Happy Giraffe with procreative sex between two adult humans of different genders. Because it don't wash, and I don't want to hear it. Just shut the hell up."

 

In short, it's not sexual perversion I have a problem with, any more than I have a problem with golf, or table-tennis. Like smoking, it's the irresponsible and frankly offensive way it's used by certain elements that I have concerns concerning. It's not inherently bad for society to want to pork a plush toy, but if the obsession becomes all-consuming, it can definitely have a negative effect on the world.

[Mike Windu]

I must have missed your post then. My apologies.

 

 

I agree with some parts of your statements.

 

1) People can do what they want sexually, however "morally" or "immorally" justified it may be.

2) Sexuality is overrated and overhyped and media driven.

3) Raping a stuffed animal is not normal.

 

Your post in a nutshell I believe.

 

[Spider AL]

Corrections

 

1) In the privacy of their own homes.

2) Perversion especially.

3) Anything perverted is abnormal, including raping stuffed animals, but also including homosexuality and any other non-procreative fetish.

[90SK]

Whats depressing to me is that in modern times (especially in the U.S., as I've witnessed firsthand) the populace is less educated on such subjects as gay marrage. They turn to the tabloids for information. Some say that the bible states that gayness is a sin and is wrong, but consider this:

 

The bible is a piece of scripture over 500 years old, and has been translated counless times. On some occasions, the translator has changed certan extremes that contredict what they feel is right. In the end, we have something half complete, it seems.

 

Another thing is, is George W Bush gay? No, so how can he know its wrong and unnatural when he hasn't even experienced it? This entire situation can be compared with the Civil Rights movement, to the dot. If we don't learn from our mistakes, history repeats itself. That seems to be Mr. Bush's speciality.

[kipperthefrog]

Originally posted by CaptainSkye

 

If we don't learn from our mistakes, history repeats itself. That seems to be Mr. Bush's speciality. [/b]

 

Bu$h is making a lot of mistakes made before! he just wants gay marae and abortion (not to mention the war in iraq) to be a distraction from REAL issues like the economy, our dependence on oil, andthe multi billion dolar depicit!

[90SK]

Originally posted by kipperthefrog

Bu$h is making a lot of mistakes made before! he just wants gay marae and abortion (not to mention the war in iraq) to be a distraction from REAL issues like the economy, our dependence on oil, andthe multi billion dolar depicit!

 

Exactly! Sometimes...ok, all the time I wonder how the U.S. re-elected such a Yak! Have we become THAT ignorent? Or have we just given up? Or have all the choices ran out?

[Spider AL]

Another thing is, is George W Bush gay? No, so how can he know its wrong and unnatural when he hasn't even experienced it?

You know that I agree that Bush is a tard, and that homosexuality isn't inherently amoral any more than playing golf is amoral...

 

But you don't have to experience something to judge its nature and ramifications. I don't have to hit someone in the head with an axe to know that it wouldn't be a nice thing to do, for instance.

 

Again, don't get me wrong, I don't think sexual practices are issues of morality, I'm just making a point on that... point.

[90SK]

Originally posted by Spider AL

But you don't have to experience something to judge its nature and ramifications. I don't have to hit someone in the head with an axe to know that it wouldn't be a nice thing to do, for instance.

 

 

Ok, point taken. I suppose a better way to state my point is: Don't make assumptions over something you don't fully understand. Bush probably has no info on the travails of homosexuality so he assumes its immoral and sees to "amend" the constitution in order to stop this "problem", while we both can safely say that hitting someone's head with an axe would by mean.

[toms]

whatever your opinion of sexuality or gay marriages, it is pretty clear that bush (or more likely his advisors) used the ISSUE as a way to mobilise people into supporting them. Putting a controversial issue like that on the ballot is a clever way to get your supporters riled up and out there at the polling stations.

So it was definately a propoganda weapon...

[Spider AL]

Oh absolutely. What suprises me is that more Democrats didn't get out there and take Bush to the cleaners because of the presence of such divisive issues. Maybe America really is made up of a majority of neoconservatives.

[stingerhs]

heh, doubtful. its just that the majority of americans that vote are moderately conservative. the actual population, i believe, is actually a bit more left leaning. the dems just have a hard time getting them to the polls (try harder in 2008, foo's )

 

my views on homosexuality(prepare for wierdness):

 

homosexuality is not natural. i believe that sexual preference is deturmined by a person's environment during the sexually impressionable time period that starts at the beginning of adolescence. so far, no one has proven that homosexuality is natural in humans. you can cite the gay sheep all you want, but they aren't human.

 

homosexuality is a sin. the Bible clearly states this in several different locations, not just Leviticus. of course, this depends on whether or not you believe in God. otherwise, you can ignore this point.

 

homosexuals should have the right to marry (this is where all the fundalmentalists get really pissed at me). marriage is considered to be a natural right. the supreme court stated in 1967 that marriage is indeed a natural right, and it should not be prevented by law, constitutional amendment or otherwise. this is a democracy people, not a theocracy. whenever Revelations 19:11-21 occurs, then God will ban it for you.

 

until then, we, as christians, are apart of this world, although not of it (born again means that we've attempted to abandon our fleshy desires in favor of God). you can try to define marriage as between the opposite sexes, but that is your definition, not the definition of homosexuals. in a democracy, thats called limiting the rights of the minorities to promote the values of the majority (which is especially odd considering that only approx. 30% of the american population considers themselves to be 'christian').

 

homosexuals should have equal rights, no benefits. as i've stated earlier, we live in a democracy. giving benefits to a certain group is called favortism. of course, thats why i'm opposed to affirmative action, but thats another thread.

[TK-8252]

I agree with stingerhs.

 

I heard this little story on the radio this morning. Heh, it's like the gay sheep.

 

A breeder is suing a farmer for selling him a top-dollar pig to be bred. But the pig was gay and only interested in other male pigs, so he couldn't breed. He even has pictures to prove it!

 

But if homosexuality is natural in humans is more difficult to prove. Either way, no matter if it's natural or not it does not mean they shouldn't have equal rights.