A J Philips:

"Yes, Im sure what I say feels very aggressive to you."

No it does not feel aggressive - there is no such feeling. It is my opinion that you are aggressive.

"We all feel attacked when dearly held beliefs are shown to be unjustified."

No we don't feel attacked. We might feel fear but not all people feel fear all of the time when that happens. So in this particular instance there is no evidence to support your claim. I am not defending any beliefs though. I am just expressing an opinion about your behaviour.

"How about you try addressing my arguments first?"

Why? I am perfectly entitled to address your aggression if I want and ignore your arguments as I see fit and there is nothing you can do about it so why bother appealing to me? That will never make me stop.

"you should probably report me too."

But I don't need to you. Those of us who want to deal with your aggression are already doing exactly what we need to do.

" given that I’m out-numbered here."

What does it matter if you feel no guilt? Wouldn't you want to maintain your dignity and just carry on behaving the way you do? The numbers are irrelevant if you are in the right.

"Clearly your homophobia is something that is very dear to you and your inability to mount a rational argument to justify it has you very upset."

You keep changing the subject. This is about your aggression. It is irrelevant what my arguments about the topic of the thread are. This is about YOU. Not your arguments or mine but your behaviour.

"You are welcome to take that out on me, if that’s what you need to do."

I don't need your permission. I already have the right to what I am doing.

"By weighing up the harms and benefits that result from it."

Who decides what are harms and what are benefits?

Toni Lavis:

"Does it occur in nature? Yes.

So it's natural. Getting the hang of it now, phanto"

No, not really. If everything that occurs in nature is natural then it must mean that nothing is unnatural right? Unless there is somewhere other than nature where we can go. So why do we have a word 'natural'? It does not mean anything. Words are meant to describe something to distinguish one thing from another. So what does the word natural mean? Can you point me to something which is unnatural perhaps?

o sung wu:

Why should anal sex be called sex? How do we define sex exactly? What is wrong with the word sodomy or buggery? Is vaginal sex really sex or is vaginal sex the only thing that should be called sex? Should vaginal sex be forced to change its name?

These are interesting questions that you have touched on.

A J Philips:

"Yes, and, once again, I have provided multiple links demonstrating this."

I know, I know but I haven't been paying attention. You are right to scold me so. I apologise for asking a question to which links have already been provided. You have the patience of a saint when it comes to me. If only you were not so arrogant you might become a saint.

*AJP*

"How about you try addressing my arguments first?"

phanto:

" ... Why? I am perfectly entitled to address your aggression if I want and ignore your arguments as I see fit and there is nothing you can do about it so why bother appealing to me? That will never make me stop. ... "

How to define yourself as a half wit by phanto. LOL

Seriously, I don't think a cup of tea alone will do the job. phanto has clearly long since gone over the edge and is still thrashing about.

..

I think Jesus was most likely bi-sexual (as he Loves everyone equally) and had it off with not only John, but Mary and others as well.

o sung wu,

I'm trying to keep this civil but your tone is slowly worsening and you are creeping back into ad hominem territory.

<<...vaginal 'rape' is a natural act, but it's neither good nor lawful.>>

Agreed.

<<But if the victim is sodomised against his or her will, then it's a crime.>>

Agreed. So far you have not contradicted anything I have said.

<<In a heterosexual marriage AJP, I guess it's whatever 'floats your boat'>>

So why is it alright for heterosexual couples but not homosexual?

<<Duck or weave to your heart's content…>>

Huh? I haven't ducked or weaved. I have tackled everything you have said head on.

<<...sodomy or buggery is wholly unnatural.>>

This is the Appeal to Nature fallacy again. We have always been a party of nature. Again, though this reasoning is fallacious.

You need to decide what you're arguing against too. Homosexuality or sodomy? Currently you're switching between and conflating the two and when it’s convenient.

<<This is despite all the links and academic invalidation you've sought to introduce into the discussion…>>

So how does a fallacy trump the fact that homosexuality is an evolved trait?

<<...in some vain attempt to demolish this basic principle>>

You haven't yet justified this principle with a sound basis.

<<This 'Appeal to Nature' fallacy - It's no delusion…>>

At no point have I claimed that it’s a delusion.

<<Just because some scientific whizz loudly exclaims to everyone who'll listen; '...nature is all a fundamental nonsense, sodomy is now quite 'natural' therefore it can be practiced with gay abandon...', does it make it right ?>>

When did that happen?

The rest of your post is ad hominem - which is also fallacious. Most of it rather flattering ad hominem too.

<<The only real difficulty is, you're wrong, absolutely>>

You are yet to demonstrate this.

--

phanto,

Thanks for that change of tone in your second post to me. Hopefully we can keep things civil from here on in.

<<Who decides what are harms and what are benefits?>>

Society collectively. We do the same with questions of morality. It's not difficult.

Hi there PHANTO...

Anal penetration is not sex in the true sense of the word, though many people I'm sure would disagree ? In reality it's a practice adopted by homosexual men and it's referred to a sodomy or buggery. In law those who penetrate the anal cavity they're referred to as sodomites. Again, many will most fervently disagree with me, and I can live with that.

It's an unnatural act, one if not careful can injure and transmit diseases if those who practice this abominable act aren't careful and hygienic. We're all aware of the true purpose of the anal cavity ? To assist in voiding one's waste material from the body, nothing else. However homosexual men find other users for it, other than it's natural functions ? Well there you go I suppose ? As I said in an earlier thread, whatever floats your boat !

Humans have two holes below the waist (disregarding the uniary functions) one is designed for excretion of bodily wastes and the other for procreation,
Hens have one hole that is designed for both purposes,
humans may act like chooks if they want to but it ain't what nature intended.
Homosexuality is common among hens but only when they are deprived of a male and it's not natural, put a rooster in the equation and beheaviour reverts to normal; to what nature intended.