Being the girl- I'll hold the camera. Don't want to ruin the mood, but someone's gotta make a profit around here, I have a bankroll to think about.

Jane: you make good posts. You should post more throughout the forum, IMO.

You could sell the video in pieces on BBV. Just release a teaser and then hold each part ransom until enough people pay.

She may want to be on the other side of the camera if we expect the BBV4Lers to buy it.

Hmm, good point. Maybe a Stu gay porno would have more value in RGT, even if it's only sentimental value.

Jane I never said homosexuality was a choice.

Can you explain how desiring to have sex with an animal is unnatural and desiring to have same gender sex is perfectly natural? Like I said earlier, I won't buy the consent angle unless you also claim to be a vegetarian.

Now that's a well executed burn...

Ryanb exactly what rights are we denying homosexuals?

The rights to equality and the pursuit of happiness to start.

Equality in the sense that marriage is a legally recognized union which holds certain benefits and is in fact a prerequisite for certain other rights or benefits (tax breaks, insurance benefits, hospital policies, etc) but is denied to homosexual couples by a government that should not be discriminating based on sexuality.

The pursuit of happiness is a pretty obvious one. We are all given that right. It's a basic right. If I am gay and in a consensual relationship and would like to pursue that relationship I should not be denied that right. More so the government should have no say in my right to parent a child through the same process that other couples unable to have children are provided, nor should they deny me the same tax benefits, nor should they protect less my right to benefits within my employment, or my civil rights and safety.

I could get into exact legalities later if I have the time, but is my firm belief that until a gay couple is viewed the same legally as a straight couple there are several of their rights which are being violated.

I suppose you could argue that the bottom line is that they at this time don't hold those same rights and therefor they are not being violating, which is why I argue back to the two most basic, the right to equality and the pursuit of happiness, both of which are accorded to everyone and both of which are clearly violated by denying them the additional rights afforded to straight couples.

No, there's no way I could live without meat.

There's a difference between killing an animal to eat it and having sex with it. I don't think animals should be hurt for the sake of it (forcing sex upon an animal falls into this category). However, if we can humanely kill animals to provide food, then I'm all for it.

o rly

Gay prostitution in the vatican

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...030401395.html

Well you certainly could live without eating meat and you lose lots of credibility by claiming you can't. You have an inconsistency in your world veiw which you can easily resolve by taking the position that bestiality is just as moral as homosexuality.

Ganstaman....how does it feel to realize you're both a hypocrite and a bigot?

I agree that Ganstaman has a morally inconsistent view, but the irony of YOU calling someone else a hypocrite and a bigot... is too much.

I'm about $8K below in all-in equity this year so that sums up how I feel right now.

I thought it was clear that I didn't mean that I literally would be unable to live without meat. I was saying that I really enjoy meat and would be very sad if I had to live without it. There's no credibility issues here, just issues of understanding common English phrases.

So tell me, what's inconsistent about my view and in which way am I a bigot?

If you don't know the answer to this question you are hopeless.

Looks like you can get in on the hypocritical and personal insult train too. And i didn't know you could be bigoted towards animals. The more you know.


Stu you don't seem to like to answer my questions but ill ask anyway. Do you think bestiality is wrong? If so what do you base that on? I assume its not based on consent. And please don't say its based on abnormality unless you think all abnormal behaviors are wrong. And please don't say its based on health risks unless you think all behaviors that are health risks are wrong. And please don't say its based on it being unnatural since the version of unnatural your using just means unusual or abnormal behavior.

I regret asking this question simply because its really a politcal subject and doesn't belong in the forum/this thread is convoluted enough.

Quit being silly....He is bigoted towards zoophiles not animals.

Yes I think bestiality is wrong.....but like homosexuality I'm not sure I could make a compelling argument that it is wrong. The whole "the animal doesn't give its consent" angle is b.s. We do lots of things worse than rape to animals without their consent just to further our own happiness.

so in conclusion, stu is against homosexuality in principal because

- it is not in accordance with nature

- any homosexual thought or act is a temptation that otherwise should be resisted with intellect and critical thought

- if all the males on the planet turned gay all the heterosexual women would feel bad / neglected


is that a fair synopsis stu?

You haven't shown this to be true, you've simply asserted it.

I can see this being an expectation of God, especially if reason intellect are special gifts from Him.

so god would rather have someone be unhappy and solitary rather than build a loving relationship, simply because of gender requirements?

What evidence do you have that a celibate life is necessarily an unhappy one?