Homosexuality in Australia (2 Viewers)

[*Minka*]

Homosexuality has been around forever and we seem to have reproduced enough to surive for well over 3000 years, so I fail to see the validlity of that arguement.

 

[robo-andie]

Not to mention: do you really think Humans are going to live forever? It is fate. Eventually we will wipe ourselves out, one way or another.

For any who are interested, Isaac Asimov (The popular science fiction writer) says:

"One natural end that is unavoidable, even if nothing else goes wrong, is of course the death of the sun. It will gradually use up its hydrogen fuel and, in about 8000 million years from now, it will destroy the earth."

Upon being asked the question
You say the earth will probably last another 8000 million years. Will mankind also survive that time or will be blow ourselves up?
His reply:
"That could happen any time - except that the longer it does not happen, the more I believe it will not. We have had opportunities for nuclear wars and we have avoided. them."


Obviously this is just the view of one man. Though I agree with his last quote, the longer it doesn't happen, the less likely it is to happen. Of course if you consider one of Nostradamus's prophecies (should you be even a slight believer) then the third anti-christ (born from China) is soon to enter the world and challenge America. The result is supposedly unknown, though it was forecast a large portion of America would be suffer from famine.
That doesn't mean to say that the world will end from this battle though.
Anyway, thought someone might be interested.

 

[robo-andie]

Some other small notes:

• Our projected population growth in Australia from 2000 - 2050 is 19,165 (2000) - 24,176 (2050) that's an increase of 26.15%.
  
  
• On 2 May 2006 at 18:47:29 (Canberra time), the resident population of Australia is projected to be:
  
  20,647,876
  
  This projection is based on the estimated resident population at 30 September 2005 and assumes growth since then of:
  * one birth every 2 minutes and 0 seconds,
  * one death every 3 minutes and 56 seconds,
  * a net gain of one international migrant every 4 minutes and 47 seconds leading to
  * an overall total population increase of one person every 2 minutes and 12 seconds.

Our population may not be increasing as fast as the Government wants it to, but it is increasing.

People Facts and Figures
Australian Bureau of Statistics

 

[Not-That-Bright]

lol nostradamus.

 

[robo-andie]

lol nostradamus.

I would laugh at someone also if I saw them grabbing at straws.
Damn you nostradamus for being a straw!! DAMN YOU!

 

[yoakim]

Nowhere is there a law against Homosexuality.

However, there are official punishments (yes, capital punishments) against homosexual marriages in some countries.

 

[blue_chameleon]

...one of Nostradamus's prophecies...the third anti-christ (born from China) is soon to enter the world and challenge America...a large portion of America would be suffer from famine...

Whaaa?

What the flip was Nostradamus smoking?

*Calls on Team America*

 

[robo-andie]

However, there are official punishments (yes, capital punishments) against homosexual marriages in some countries.

Thread title "Homosexuality in Australia".
Australia has no laws against homosexuality.

 

[robo-andie]

Whaaa?

What the flip was Nostradamus smoking?

*Calls on Team America*

We're going to need a montage.

 

[_dhj_]

Reproduction my friend. That is their disability. How do we survive, offspring, then they survive through offspring etc. That is how they are disabled and yes, it isnt classed as a disability, but if it was, there would be many more gay rights marches out there.

I'm inclined to believe that most homosexuals are male, and so the reproduction issue is solved by heterosexual men mating females more often. Surely you consider this to be a good thing...?

 

[blue_chameleon]

Derka Derka, Mohammedjihad mohamedjihad!

 

[Gangels]

Being Homosexual doesn't render you incapable of reproducing. We also have this wonderful new technology called IVF.
I will also remind you, that the physical inability to reproduce (or produce sperm/ovum) can be an issue for anyone, not just homosexuals.
A homosexuals lack of desire to mate with the opposite sex does not constitute an inability to do so. And regardless of this, it is still possible (medically) for reproduction to take place without sexual intercourse.

Not natural dude. You can do that all you want but it still dont mean it aint a disability. Straight men who are incapable of reproducing also have a disability.
And the inability to have sex with the opposote sex does render them unable to reproduce (except for IVF), for would you fuck a dude? No, you wouldnt. Its the same for them with females. They are nowhere near attracted to it, even if you said this is your only way to save the whole of human life, they wouldnt do it. I asked Matt about this and his respnse was 'I'd rather give birth to a chair"!

 

[robo-andie]

Not natural dude. You can do that all you want but it still dont mean it aint a disability. Straight men who are incapable of reproducing also have a disability.
And the inability to have sex with the opposote sex does render them unable to reproduce (except for IVF), for would you fuck a dude? No, you wouldnt. Its the same for them with females. They are nowhere near attracted to it, even if you said this is your only way to save the whole of human life, they wouldnt do it. I asked Matt about this and his respnse was 'I'd rather give birth to a chair"!

It isn't an inability to have sex with the opposite sex, it is a preference not to. Stating homosexuality is a disability based on this is ridiculous, it's like saying someone is disabled because they don't want to eat a certain food. Preference does not equal inability. You said yourself

Straight men who are incapable of reproducing also have a disability.

So are homosexuals who are physically incapable of reproducing ie. cannot produce sperm. Do you honestly believe that just because a man has sex with another man he now can no longer produce sperm?
In answer to your question "would you fuck a dude". Don't assume I wouldn't, because I would, I do. I also wouldn't be so against sex with females, providing of course it was absolutely necessary to the survival of the human race, and it's not. Be realistic, men can mate with more than one person, and we will never be at a point where there are not enough willing men to do so.

Read the previous posts, they should provide you with a very thorough argument on why homosexuallity isn't unnatural.

 

[kami]

Not natural dude. You can do that all you want but it still dont mean it aint a disability. Straight men who are incapable of reproducing also have a disability.
And the inability to have sex with the opposote sex does render them unable to reproduce (except for IVF), for would you fuck a dude? No, you wouldnt. Its the same for them with females. They are nowhere near attracted to it, even if you said this is your only way to save the whole of human life, they wouldnt do it. I asked Matt about this and his respnse was 'I'd rather give birth to a chair"!

How is sex with the person you desire unnatural? Especially when it occurs in nature without human influence/intervention, and has done so since far before our civilizations.

And regardless of being straight or gay - being unable to have children is not a disability. A disability is something that hinders you, one's own life is not diminished by not having it filled with one's own offspring.

Also, gay men and women are able to have sexual intercourse with the opposite sex it is just that there is a simply no desire to do so. In fact you sort of provide an example for my statement yourself: "I'd rather give birth to a chair". Nowhere does it say the individual couldn't but merely they would not if they could avoid it.

 

[Gangels]

It isn't an inability to have sex with the opposite sex, it is a preference not to. Stating homosexuality is a disability based on this is ridiculous, it's like saying someone is disabled because they don't want to eat a certain food. Preference does not equal inability. You said yourself So are homosexuals who are physically incapable of reproducing ie. cannot produce sperm. Do you honestly believe that just because a man has sex with another man he now can no longer produce sperm?
In answer to your question "would you fuck a dude". Don't assume I wouldn't, because I would, I do. I also wouldn't be so against sex with females, providing of course it was absolutely necessary to the survival of the human race, and it's not. Be realistic, men can mate with more than one person, and we will never be at a point where there are not enough willing men to do so.

Read the previous posts, they should provide you with a very thorough argument on why homosexuallity isn't unnatural.

Ok, so your gay. If you are attracted to females as well that does not make you a homosexual, obviously. But did i say that men cant produce sperm through sex with another man. A straight man who cannot produce sperm and a gay man who isnt attracted to females does obviously not have the same disability.

Ok, what im saying is based on creation. We were made with taste buds, therefore allowing us to decide on what foods we like. We were also made to be attracted to females, not men. There is your difference.

Obviously you missed the sarcasm. I meant that a gay man would just not have sex with a woman. As i said before, that is bi-sexuallity.

Well actually, think about the Spartans. They were all gay cayse they were made to do everything together and knew nothing of female comfort. They were gay throught the intervention of man. And so were many others.

Ok, to me, the idea of sex with a dude is the furtherst thing from my thought. Even if it meant saving my life i dont think i would do it. That is because i have absolutely no sexual attraction to a man. It is the same for a gay man, once again, if a gay man is willing to have sex with a woman, he must be attracted to her, therefore making him Bi sexual.

 

[Xayma]

Obviously you missed the sarcasm. I meant that a gay man would just not have sex with a woman. As i said before, that is bi-sexuallity.

Well actually, think about the Spartans. They were all gay cayse they were made to do everything together and knew nothing of female comfort. They were gay throught the intervention of man. And so were many others.

Ok, to me, the idea of sex with a dude is the furtherst thing from my thought. Even if it meant saving my life i dont think i would do it. That is because i have absolutely no sexual attraction to a man. It is the same for a gay man, once again, if a gay man is willing to have sex with a woman, he must be attracted to her, therefore making him Bi sexual.

Umm no you don't have to be attracted to people to have sex with them. So if it was a choice of being raped or killed. Most people would still pick rape.

 

[Gangels]

Umm no you don't have to be attracted to people to have sex with them. So if it was a choice of being raped or killed. Most people would still pick rape.

You do if your a guy. Its impossible to have sex with a chick if you dont have an erection. Otherwise you'll just be small and floppy

 

[kami]

You do if your a guy. Its impossible to have sex with a chick if you dont have an erection. Otherwise you'll just be small and floppy

No - it just wouldn't be the chick turning you on. If you were aroused by something else you would still be able to use your erection in that situation.

 

[ogmzergrush]

You do if your a guy. Its impossible to have sex with a chick if you dont have an erection. Otherwise you'll just be small and floppy

Wrong, an erection can be brought about purely by physical stimulation, with no interest on the male's part required. You may research this more for yourself by googling "male rape" and reading, though I get the distinct impression that you're not one for broadening your horizons.

 

[Enlightened_One]

On of my high school camps we had an openly gay man called Frank there. He lives somewhere up past Forster, or maybe near Coffs or something. Anyway, he was there to give a talk on being gay and all that sort of thing.
I remember he said something about trying to sleep with women and his penis just went limp when it came to penetration. Anyway, the point is, in that case it seems to be something more than just a preference not to sleep with women.
Didn't any of your schools do anything like this? I thought it was a Board of Studies directive (the bloke worked for them).
With the case of the Spartans that is social influence (which I believe was a significant factor in certain Roman activities), and there was nothing natural about either of them. Just because homosexual sex has been done in 'civilised' societies for as long as their are records does not preclude the fact that it may just be social influences shaping it.
However, and I am not an expert on the topic, but it would be interesting to discover if homosexuality was part of any primitive tribe (unfortunately, even they do have a society and thus social influences), then there would be a stronger (but no where near conclusive) argument for it being natural.