Gay Relationships In Luxor

[Teddyboy]

OK Mr Clever **** (lol). I cannot think of an argument against that piece of info so I give up on that score.
Nevertheless, just because they might have a special restriction for homosexual sex, as they might also have for bestiality and knot holes in doors, that still doesn't mean that homosexuals are particularly victimised! Surely it just means that ANY sexual activity is forbidden unless it is within a marriage contract, and, if any deviation from this is discovered, it might well be punished by execution.
Therefore homosexuals are not any more discriminated against (in those particular societies) than an ugly or poor heterosexual man might be if he were rejected by the object of his desires!
A desire for sexual satisfaction or expression is just that, no matter what brings it about or by what action it may satisfied.

[jewel]

Celibacy is often seen as a requirement in order to attain spiritual fulfilment in various religions and also buddhist monks and nuns are celibate for these reasons(which includes masturbation)

But in general any sexual act is ok

.....where there is mutual consent,
 

.....where there is no harm done to anyone,
 

.....where the breaking of a commitment to another person is not involved
 

.....and where our intention is to express affection with respect, and give pleasure to each other.

This would apply irrespective of the gender or sexual orientation of the parties involved. The same principles would be used to evaluate all
relationships and sexual behaviour, whether heterosexual or homosexual.

Incidentally celibacy should not be enforced, but should come from letting go of the desire...................
We all know what happens with certain Catholic priests force celibacy upon themselves without actually letting go of their sexual urges.
I don't think that's the way forward. Its probably best to let go of sexual urges, because repressing them can harm you and others.

I have heard it said that eventually, once you are away from it for awhile, you become peaceful, serene, much like it felt to be a child, and the joy of celibacy becomes far more valuable than the sensual pleasure of lust.

When you weigh it up, if you really want mental calm and clarity then It would seem prudent to avoid sexual relationships with all the fantasising, desire and physical and emotional turbulence involved.
Besides it's no big deal anyway, pigs and earthworms have orgasms....which in fact last for half an hour!

[Who2]

Quote; Celibacy is often seen as a requirement in order to attain spiritual fulfilment in various religions and also buddhist monks and nuns are celibate for these reasons(which includes masturbation.....

'your God is whatever fills your brain............

[Brian Yare]

TB

"knot holes in doors"

You should form a splinter group.

[jewel]

Gays cause genocide by having sex and must be arrested........
Is that a bad thing then?



http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/gh ... 9/03/26352

[Teddyboy]

"Splinter group": very good Brian!!!

[Arthur]

TB, when you equate gay relationships with "bestiality and knot holes in doors" are you unable, for even a nanosecond, to accept the notion that two people of the same sex are capable of fulfilling the same meanings of love and intimacy as two people of a different sex? Are your arguments so weak that you have to, literally, dehumanise those of us who are different to you.

Your personal view is that sexual intimacy should only ever take place within marriage. But you don't appear to advocate that "ugly or poor heterosexual men", should be excluded from marriage, or cite evidence supporting that view.

But you are emphatic that "marriage is between a man and a woman" and "There is no such thing as 'gay marriage', full stop!". I assume the only adults apart from intimate family members you would exclude from marriage are people of the same sex? And your reason...?

Can't marry, can't have sex outside of marriage... no discrimination? I must still be missing something in following your tortuous logic. Perhaps it isn't logic at all, just fear. Fear of what, though ...?

[Arthur]

Gays cause genocide by having sex and must be arrested........
Is that a bad thing then?

http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/gh ... 9/03/26352

Former Ghanaian Deputy Minister, Sam P. Valley said:“Genocide results in the extermination of the human race and if you expand the meaning of homosexuality to mean that a man cannot have a child with another man then it means that that practice would lead to the extermination of mankind and therefore for me if i am to charge anybody apart from having unnatural carnal knowledge, i would also charge him with genocide and see how he can get out of that situation."
http://www.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/N ... ?ID=217622

By his logic anyone using any form of contraception, or who is infertile, should be tried for genocide. I can't see any evidence of a crisis of under-population in Ghana.

Even in the UK there is no shortage of parents unable to care for their children. Last year, it cost council tax payers £7.2 million for agency fostering and an additional £4.2 million for in-house foster caring in my city. Which may be partly why the council is actively trying to recruit gay couples to foster and adopt unwanted children. And the evidence shows they are doing an excellent job.

[Teddyboy]

Dear Arthur,
That last post was beneath you, and I'm very surprised that you should stretch your imagination to infer the things you actually did from what I have written in this thread!

I did not equate bestiality etc with 'gay relationships', I equated a ban on 'gay relationships' with a ban on any other sexual activity outside of marriage. Not quite the same, I think!

Extrapolating your initial fantasy understanding, you go on to accuse me of not accepting that two people of the same sex can share love and intimacy and that I have dehumanised homosexuals. What utter tosh!

I'm sorry to have to contradict you again, but it is certainly NOT my 'personal view' that 'sexual intimacy should only ever take place within marriage'.

Ugly or poor heterosexual men should NOT be excluded from marriage on the grounds that they are ugly or poor, but they may well be anyway. (I don't really get your point here.)

"And your reason?"
OED: Marriage: The legal union of a man and a woman in order to live together and often to have children.
I should think that disallows people of the same sex, wouldn't you?

Other than the fact that the people next door have children, I have no idea of their sexuality. That's the way I like it, I'm not interested whether they have wild orgies or whether they are married and celibate. I don't want to know about theirs or anyone else's sex lives. Or yours! Unless it damages society or other individuals, it's no-one else's business.

Of course there is a legal discrimination in the countries we are discussing, and a discrimination among many in countries where homosexuality is perfectly legal as well. But the public displays of affection which might advertise one's sexuality (by those of any sexuality) are not really a necessary part of love. What 'goes on behind closed doors' is not only no-one's business, but neither should anyone else know what it is! It surely follows that, unless you have to go blabbing on and on and on, like so many homosexuals seem to want to do, then why would anyone take any interest in whatever your sexuality is?

It's a perfectly logical argument as far as I can see! But then you go on to ask
"Fear of what, though ...?"
My fear is of 'the lunatics taking over the asylum', then we'll have our whole vocabulary turned upside down, and new meanings thrust upon us, not unlike Orwell's MiniTru in 1984? What price logic then?

[Arthur]

"And your reason?"
OED: Marriage: The legal union of a man and a woman in order to live together and often to have children.
I should think that disallows people of the same sex, wouldn't you?

The OED online also defines marriage thus: "informal a union between partners of the same sex; a civil partnership".
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/marriage

So, no TB, the OED specifically does include partners of the same sex within its definition of marriage.

[Teddyboy]

Being an 'old fart', I have a real OED, but it must be an old one.

So, we've actually come to it; the lunatics have taken over the asylum, and the work of the MiniTru has begun in earnest!

Maybe it's another reason to try and stay in Egypt for as long as possible?

[Arthur]

Last week the Scottish Government launched a consultation on whether to allow gay marriage there: "In publishing the consultation today, we are setting out our initial view. We tend towards the view that same-sex marriage should be introduced." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-14764707

At the May 2010 general election a Conservative party manifesto pledged: ''We will also consider the case for changing the law to allow civil partnerships to be called and classified as marriage.'' http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/electio ... riage.html

And its very simple, TB. In Spain in 2005 the bill to allow same-sex marriage only needed a brief amendment to article 44 of the civil code, saying that: "Matrimony shall have the same requisites and effects regardless of whether the persons involved are of the same or different sex".

Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero said: “a small change in wording that means an immense change in the lives of thousands of citizens. We are not legislating, ladies and gentlemen, for remote unknown people. We are expanding opportunities for the happiness of our neighbors, our work colleagues, our friends, our relatives...

With the approval of this Bill, our country takes another step in the path of liberty and tolerance that was begun by the democratic change of government. Our children will look at us incredulously if we tell them that many years ago, our mothers had less rights than our fathers, or if we tell them that people had to stay married against their will even though they were unable to share their lives. Today we can offer them a beautiful lesson: every right gained, each access to liberty has been the result of the struggle and sacrifice of many people that deserve our recognition and praise."

We were not the first, but I am sure we will not be the last. After us will come many other countries, driven, ladies and gentlemen, by two unstoppable forces: freedom and equality.”

[Arthur]

Same-sex marriage laws planned

The Government is to legislate for same-sex marriages before the next general election. A public consultation on how to make civil marriage available to same-sex couples is to be launched in March of next year. The timing means that any necessary legislative changes can be on the Statute Book before the next election, scheduled for May 2015.

The move was announced by Lib Dem equalities minister Lynne Featherstone, who is addressing the opening day of her party's annual conference in Birmingham on Saturday. "I am delighted to confirm that early next year, this Government will begin a formal consultation on equal civil marriage for same-sex couples," she said. "This would allow us to make any legislative changes before the end of this Parliament. We will be working closely with all those who have an interest in the area to understand their views ahead of the formal consultation." http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpres ... 199150113A

Not before time...

[Teddyboy]

"Newspeak", I'm sure that George Orwell will be laughing his socks off somewhere!

[Arthur]

Looks like you're becoming a sash wearing member of the 'Junior Anti-Sex League', TB.

You'd better watch out for the public consultation next March, so your voice is heard.

[Teddyboy]

LOL, Arthur!

I really don't know where you get the idea that I'm "Anti-Sex"? I'm anti unnecessarily changing the meaning of words, and imposing their new meanings, along with the assertiveness of the particular minority, onto a passively polite society, which I think is a bit different. And which the vociferous stalwarts of the "equality brigade" seem intent on doing at every opportunity. It smacks of the authoritarian nature of Big Brother, in fact the likeness is frightening at times.
Never mind, over the years, my wife has converted me to disgusting things like yogurt, and mayonnaise (but not yet garlic, thank heaven), so perhaps by the time my life is ebbing away I will turn, like our friend Winston Smith, and realise that I really do, love Big Brother!!!!

[Arthur]

"After centuries of inequality, gay people and straight people will at last be equal before the law, and the doctrine of ‘live and let live’ will have won the day."
Some homosexual horde raping and pillaging "a passively polite society"? No, just a piece from the Mail... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z1YIrrSaSQ

I think you'll find there is ample evidence, TB, that some in society are not as polite or passive as you imagine... http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/ju ... NETTXT3487.

[Who2]

If Oscar Wilde hadn't been such an extrovert, his time in Reading Jail would have been much easier, he forgot the the warders were married men with children, so often the quiet majority are shouted down by the vocal minority....

[WIZARD]

I don't mean to "rabbit on and on", and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on need I go on?............"talk of flogging a dead or even a bleedin slightly comatose horse...

Methinks he doth protest too much.

[Who2]

Surly by now by my various posts you would have realized I have never given a damn what anybody thinks, because most people dont.........