Australian Politics Forum - Marriage equality only for homosexuals

Grendel

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 28080
Gender: male

Re: Marriage equality only for homosexuals
Reply #105 - Jun 6^th, 2013 at 6:30pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 6^th, 2013 at 6:25pm:

Grendel wrote on Jun 6^th, 2013 at 6:19pm:

oh and would you believe that people attracted to the opposite sex can indulge in sex with people of the same sex? hard to believe eh... who'd think they'd ever choose to do that.

Of course I can believe that: I just said as much in my previous post.

"We have the ability to choose our partners and the type of sex we have, however, we can not choose who we are attracted to."

nice that we can agree on something isn't it.
Do you get the feeling I was talking to more people than just you?

Back to top

IP Logged

Grendel Gold Member Offline OzPolitic Posts: 28080 Gender:	Re: Marriage equality only for homosexuals Reply #106 - Jun 6^th, 2013 at 6:30pm just a weird glitch
Back to top	IP Logged

...

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 23673
WA
Gender: male

Re: Marriage equality only for homosexuals
Reply #107 - Jun 6^th, 2013 at 6:59pm

ahhh so you do think that homos should choose not to act on their attraction. Thgreggerypeccary wrote on Jun 6^th, 2013 at 6:25pm:

Grendel wrote on Jun 6^th, 2013 at 6:19pm:

oh and would you believe that people attracted to the opposite sex can indulge in sex with people of the same sex? hard to believe eh... who'd think they'd ever choose to do that.

Of course I can believe that: I just said as much in my previous post.

"We have the ability to choose our partners and the type of sex we have, however, we can not choose who we are attracted to."

I also agree - so for grendel, would you say someone who is attracted to people of the same sex but doesn't act on it, is really gay?

By the same token, Is a schoolboy virgin who lusts after pin-up girls (but obviously doesn't sleep with them) really heterosexual?

I say yes. But these attractions aren't a choice.

Back to top

In the fullness of time...

IP Logged

Grendel

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 28080
Gender: male

Re: Marriage equality only for homosexuals
Reply #108 - Jun 6^th, 2013 at 7:51pm

... wrote on Jun 6^th, 2013 at 6:59pm:

ahhh so you do think that homos should choose not to act on their attraction. Thgreggerypeccary wrote on Jun 6^th, 2013 at 6:25pm:

Grendel wrote on Jun 6^th, 2013 at 6:19pm:

oh and would you believe that people attracted to the opposite sex can indulge in sex with people of the same sex? hard to believe eh... who'd think they'd ever choose to do that.

Of course I can believe that: I just said as much in my previous post.

"We have the ability to choose our partners and the type of sex we have, however, we can not choose who we are attracted to."

I also agree - so for grendel, would you say someone who is attracted to people of the same sex but doesn't act on it, is really gay?

By the same token, Is a schoolboy virgin who lusts after pin-up girls (but obviously doesn't sleep with them) really heterosexual?

I say yes. But these attractions aren't a choice.

honestly...
honky would you say that a man who is hetero and finds a woman attractive and doesn't act on it is gay? Or shy? Or respectful? or.....
was she attractive or sexually attractive... do you recognise a difference?

schoolboys and pinups?
hmmm... given they were probably brought up in a hetero norm society i'd say they have realistic expectations to find the pinups attractive and even sexually arousing. id say that is a societal expectation. wouldn't you?
never masturbated eh... hmmm...

ever watched porn?
hetero or gay?

let me tell you I choose to buy the magazine and the type of magazine.... for a specific purpose.
Do you not think learned behaviour is part of that?
It's all a bit Pavlovian you know.

Back to top

IP Logged

Grendel

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 28080
Gender: male

Re: Marriage equality only for homosexuals
Reply #109 - Jun 6^th, 2013 at 7:54pm

here ya go kiddies...

Quote:

Yes I agree with this. Sexual attraction isn't a "social construction". There's definitely something biological about it (which is a given when you consider its main purpose).

really?
yet different societies and cultures find different things attractive. in some cultures large woman are considered attractive in others not. Some older men. etc, etc, etc... so the attraction thing can indeed be a social construct. It can be learned by and ingrained in both sexes.

Back to top

IP Logged

... Gold Member Offline Posts: 23673 WA Gender:	Re: Marriage equality only for homosexuals Reply #110 - Jun 6^th, 2013 at 7:54pm You seem to be getting overwhelmed and confused. Best keep it simple, and stick with what gerggery said: "We have the ability to choose our partners and the type of sex we have, however, we can not choose who we are attracted to."
Back to top	In the fullness of time... IP Logged

Grendel

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 28080
Gender: male

Re: Marriage equality only for homosexuals
Reply #111 - Jun 6^th, 2013 at 7:56pm

... wrote on Jun 6^th, 2013 at 7:54pm:

You seem to be getting overwhelmed and confused. Best keep it simple, and stick with what gerggery said:

"We have the ability to choose our partners and the type of sex we have, however, we can not choose who we are attracted to."

I'm not confused in the least.
perhaps you are.

You keep wanting to move the goalposts... hint... your aim is still bad

want me to explain what karnal said or did you finally work that one out?

Back to top

IP Logged

Postmodern Trendoid III

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 10266
Gender: male

Re: Marriage equality only for homosexuals
Reply #112 - Jun 6^th, 2013 at 9:42pm

Grendel wrote on Jun 6^th, 2013 at 7:54pm:

here ya go kiddies...

Quote:

Yes I agree with this. Sexual attraction isn't a "social construction". There's definitely something biological about it (which is a given when you consider its main purpose).

really?
yet different societies and cultures find different things attractive. in some cultures large woman are considered attractive in others not. Some older men. etc, etc, etc... so the attraction thing can indeed be a social construct. It can be learned by and ingrained in both sexes.

Attraction is primal and biological. Penises, vaginas, testosterone, oestrogen, testicles etc. aren't social constructs. Any "choice" would be a secondary act; one that requires cognition, asceticism, self-discipline, training, education etc. that directs the primal urge.

Back to top

IP Logged

Postmodern Trendoid III Gold Member Offline Posts: 10266 Gender:	Re: Marriage equality only for homosexuals Reply #113 - Jun 6^th, 2013 at 9:55pm What I am saying is, you don't make a decision first to be attracted to someone and then be attracted. Attraction comes first and then "choices" are played out on top of that initial attraction.
Back to top	IP Logged

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: Marriage equality only for homosexuals
Reply #114 - Jun 6^th, 2013 at 9:57pm

Gay marriage is like me demanding admission to the lesbian convention on the grounds that I am a lesbian trapped in a man's body.
Ridiculous. Preposterous. Marriage equality is the stupidest smacking nonsense.

But it is also sinister.

Imagine if I demanded to be allowed to enter a float in the next Mardi Gras with the theme of 'Gay men are vagina-phobes. Down with vagina-phobia! Down with misogynist vagina denialists!!

Or "Lesbians are phallo-phobes, down with phallo-phobic discrimination!!"

That's how stupid gay 'marriage' is. If it's OK for two blokes to 'marry' - what is it NOT OK to marry?

Once gay marriage is OK, who says where the limit is? Pony? Cat (hello, SOB)? Dog? Pet rock? 500 pet rocks. 200 cats? 200 blokes and 200 lasses?

If this perversity and aberration is OK, which perversity and aberration is NOT OK? On what grounds can you exclude any other perverts from 'marrying' their particular arsehole object of fixation??

Back to top

« Last Edit: Jun 6^th, 2013 at 10:07pm by Soren »

IP Logged

Grendel Gold Member Offline OzPolitic Posts: 28080 Gender:	Re: Marriage equality only for homosexuals Reply #115 - Jun 6^th, 2013 at 10:08pm I like that Soren...
Back to top	IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 96693

Re: Marriage equality only for homosexuals
Reply #116 - Jun 6^th, 2013 at 10:23pm

... wrote on Jun 6^th, 2013 at 5:37pm:

Karnal wrote on Jun 6^th, 2013 at 5:33pm:

... wrote on Jun 6^th, 2013 at 5:32pm:

Karnal wrote on Jun 6^th, 2013 at 5:26pm:

He'd never been interested in guys before that.

He'd never admitted to being interested in guys before that, but one on the edges of the spectrum of gayness

tm

cannot choose to swing to the other side. One a scale of 1-100, 1 being the gayest gay and 100 being the heteroest hetero, a 51 may choose to be gay. There is some elasticity, but not to make a meaningful difference for the vast majority of people.

Gee - that's scientific. How do you know all this, Honky?

1.because I'm a genius.
2.because I am learned.

Learned, are you? Who learned you?

A gentle older man who learned you through the ways of learning with an abundance of patience?

Or merely by your own hand?

One thing is certain, Honky. A genius you are not. Misty will testify to that.

Back to top

IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 96693

Re: Marriage equality only for homosexuals
Reply #117 - Jun 6^th, 2013 at 10:33pm

Soren wrote on Jun 6^th, 2013 at 9:57pm:

Gay marriage is like me demanding admission to the lesbian convention on the grounds that I am a lesbian trapped in a man's body.
Ridiculous. Preposterous. Marriage equality is the stupidest smacking nonsense.

But it is also sinister.

Imagine if I demanded to be allowed to enter a float in the next Mardi Gras with the theme of 'Gay men are vagina-phobes. Down with vagina-phobia! Down with misogynist vagina denialists!!

Or "Lesbians are phallo-phobes, down with phallo-phobic discrimination!!"

That's how stupid gay 'marriage' is. If it's OK for two blokes to 'marry' - what is it NOT OK to marry?

Once gay marriage is OK, who says where the limit is? Pony? Cat (hello, SOB)? Dog? Pet rock? 500 pet rocks. 200 cats? 200 blokes and 200 lasses?

If this perversity and aberration is OK, which perversity and aberration is NOT OK? On what grounds can you exclude any other perverts from 'marrying' their particular arsehole object of fixation??

The only good thing about the gay marriage idea is that it causes the old boys an enormous amount of beard-tugging anxiety.

What a pointless debate. No one on any side has any good arguments. It's all a lot of hot air, signifying nothing.

Tomorrow, and tomorrow and tomorrow.

Old boy, you win the prize for the most het-up pointless denier and defender in this thread. You've completely forgotten what you're defending.

Good work.

I guess that's the essence of what old boy's do - argue about things they've forgotten why they're arguing.

Yes friends, first prize goes to the old boy. A bowl of stool will be sent in the mail - a treat!

Keep up the good work, old chap.

Back to top

IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 96693

Re: Marriage equality only for homosexuals
Reply #118 - Jun 6^th, 2013 at 10:38pm

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jun 6^th, 2013 at 9:55pm:

What I am saying is, you don't make a decision first to be attracted to someone and then be attracted. Attraction comes first and then "choices" are played out on top of that initial attraction.

Young chappies who think with their dicks don't always understand the ways of love.

Love is, indeed, a choice.

If it wasn't, no one would stay together after the honeymoon period.

The best attraction comes from the heart. All else is just rubbing others raw beneath sheets.

Back to top

IP Logged

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: Marriage equality only for homosexuals
Reply #119 - Jun 6^th, 2013 at 10:54pm

Karnal wrote on Jun 6^th, 2013 at 10:33pm:

The only good thing about the gay marriage idea is that it causes the old boys an enormous amount of beard-tugging anxiety.

What a pointless debate. No one on any side has any good arguments. It's all a lot of hot air, signifying nothing.

You blather as if you were above the arguments. But your assessment is also a self-assessment - so bugger off, you are full of "hot air, signifying nothing".

Back to top

IP Logged