Anal Sex. I've only got one thing to say. Gerbils. ;-)

The trouble is A J Philips you revert to the old A J P the annoying 'know all' ! You are neither the moderator, nor the convener of this Forum or this specific Topic. Nor are you the appointed aficionado, who sets and arbitrates on what's 'truth' - what you are in reality A.J.PHILIPS is a complete study in 'Narcissistic Personality Disorders' - precisely that, which deals with; aberrant diagnostic features of this cursed narcissism which apparently has you, well and truly in its grip !

Every time you open your mouth you present with this social disorder in spades my friend. You have this grandiose sense of self- importance. You always seem to overestimate your abilities and inflate your accomplishments, as this important criminologists, thus appearing boastful and pretentious. You have this perception you're superior or unique to everybody else, and expect us all on the Forum, to recognise that superiority ? Problem is the only feature we do recognise and accept about you A J P, is your pronounced hubris, which is a real worry for you of course, as it confounds your credibility significantly.

Oh yeah I know, another tragic example of ad hominen behaviour

It seems some of us here are having a strangely difficult time understanding why appealing to nature is a fallacious and an invalid argument. o sung wu finally got it, but then attacked a straw man by informing me that the fallacy isn’t a delusion. Now that that has all fallen through, he’s back to attacking me personally.

--

Is Mise,

Nature doesn’t “intend” anything. Did it intend rape? Your argument is invalid.

--

o sung wu,

That wouldn’t be an excuse for personal attacks even if it were true.

<<The trouble is A J Philips you revert to the old AJP the annoying 'know all'>>

Revert? Nothing's changed. All I’m doing is explaining why I think you’re wrong and providing evidence and reasoning for that.

<<You are neither the moderator, nor the convener of this Forum or this specific Topic.>>

Nothing I have said should suggest that I think I am.

<<Nor are you the appointed aficionado, who sets and arbitrates on what's 'truth'...>>

Well then it should be easy enough to discredit what I say.

<<Every time you open your mouth you present with this social disorder [Narcissistic Personality Disorder] in spades my friend.>>

Apparently not: http://www.bpdcentral.com/narcissistic-disorder/hallmarks-of-npd

<<You have this grandiose sense of self- importance. You always seem to overestimate your abilities and inflate your accomplishments…>>

I’m sure it feel's that way when your arguments keep collapsing. It is, after all, a classic way of avoiding the stress and discomfort of cognitive dissonance. But you need to provide specific examples.

<<Oh yeah I know, another tragic example of ad hominen behaviour>>

You guessed it. So why do it? Wouldn’t it be better to discredit my position and send me packing? There is no need to attack me personally if my position is flawed.

You seem fond of words like ‘sodomy’ and ‘buggery’. Your use of these words are not only emotive, but sound as though they’re employed with the intent of inspiring disgust, and perhaps even hatred, in others.

Remember what I was saying about mental health issues in the gay community and what causes them?

Yeah…

O sung wu:

“Your fervent support of homosexual men is understandable A.J. Philips, protecting your own is quite as expected, it's the way you go about it that gets up peoples nose. You can't confer, you lecture, always postulating from a superior position ... “

It is a good point you make. Given what has happened in Canada, changing the marriage definition would result in homosexuals “always postulating from a superior position”, regardless of whether they engage in so-called same-sex marriage or not. The Australian human rights machinery would see that marriage between a man and a woman could no longer be judged superior. It would be pointless looking to the minister responsible, Senator Brandis, to ensure fair play – after all Brandis and the HR agencies are in favour of changing the marriage definition.

In effect, we would have a situation where 2% of the population comprising homosexuals would be looking down on the rest who are not.

Sadly, unless they have studied what transpired in countries such as Canada, virtually all Australians including MPs would have little idea of the Australian implications. The MPs coerced by the homosexual lobby into accepting same-sex marriage would have been told only half of the story.

A J Philips:

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

Who's "we". Have you been uncivil? Which behaviour of yours do you consider was uncivil? I certainly don't consider my behaviour towards you as uncivil. Exposing your aggression and arrogance is a most civil quest. The less aggression and arrogance we have on the forum the more civil it becomes don't you agree?

Or perhaps you have changed your weapon of choice to sarcasm?

"Remember what I was saying about mental health issues in the gay community and what causes them?"

There is one thing they all have in common and that is homosexual behaviour. So maybe that is the reason for their mental health issues. If someone was looking at why they have mental health issues they would look for common factors wouldn't they. That would seem the scientific approach. If you do not take into consideration homosexual behaviour you would be very unprofessional in your research. Not looking where you do not want to look for fear of finding what you do not want to find could be a fear of cognitive dissonance couldn't it?

Outside of recent queer activism where all manner of claims are made without corroborating evidence I have never heard of a woman who prefers and initiates sodomy of her body (or anyone else's).

Women find it uncomfortable to hurtful, risky, dangerous and degrading. The back passage has evolved for the unique purpose of eliminating waste.

If feminists really cared about women and especially the young girls who are being pushed by force and emotional blackmail into complying with anal sex because it is being promoted by porn sites, Hollywood and the media as a fait accompli, they would be 'outing' it as partner disrespect, highly risky and likely violence.

No woman wants to have a leaky bottom.

But no, the educated middle-class women who are the big hitters of feminism are more concerned about playing cynical political games to protect and hopefully extend their own privilege. It is time they were called out themselves for their greed and cynicism.