AJ,

"Is Mise,

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

Of course nature intends rape, rape is common in nature and is one of the mechanisms that ensures the continuation of a species and its diverse DNA.

So the argument is valid as is the common use of "intended" with reference to the 'laws of nature'.

Therefore those who take it like a chook but are not akin to chooks are acting unnaturally.

//No, not really.//

Christ you're slow...

//If everything that occurs in nature is natural then it must mean that nothing is unnatural right?//

Aye. See, not that hard after all, was it?

//So why do we have a word 'natural'?//

Buggered if I know.

//Can you point me to something which is unnatural perhaps?//

Unicorns. Unicorns are a meaningful concept; they appear in the dictionary and we all know what they look like. But they don't occur in nature, as far as we know. So they're unnatural. Dragons, peanut allergy-inducing vaccines (ask Armchair Critic) and gods are also unnatural.

//Of course nature intends rape, rape is common in nature and is one of the mechanisms that ensures the continuation of a species and its diverse DNA.

So the argument is valid as is the common use of "intended" with reference to the 'laws of nature'.//

So physical laws have intentions now? This is a new one.

Let us consider a simple form of a physical law we should all be familiar with: Newton's second law, F = ma. Where is the intention? All I can see are force, mass and acceleration. If intention is inbuilt into the laws of nature, why isn't there a term for it in any equation I've ever looked at? And why do the equations still seem to work despite the omission of this apparently crucial intention term?

Your hypothesis seems weak.

In what units do we measure intentions? How do we express these units in terms of the base S.I. units?

Posted by OntheBeach, Tuesday, 30 August 2016 2:09:08 AM

" ... 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). ... "

OH, some people consider it a delicacy I believe. And whilst its fair to say that no one wants a novice thrashing around in there that does not go to say that there aren't plenty of people who indulge, just because it is outside your own limited personal experience.

But see here again, there is a divide. Because this debate has gone on for a long time. Some people plainly choose not to want to engage in reasoned argument but rather clang on like the sound of a rubbish bin lid being beaten.

And something more deeply offensive is that to me it seems that some people find non-hetero people to be the object of scorn. That for example, homosexuals themselves are unnatural. Because the plain truth is that when it comes to sexuality there are those who are physiologically very male, and those that are very female, and also those who are blended, part male and part female. To look upon them it is quite plain in some cases. As for those inner parts of us that we cannot see, it is for us merely to accept the not unreasonable wishes of others in relation to their sexualtiy and for muggles not to want to maintain a regime of disrespect and discrimination.

The homophobes in the guvment have lost the reasoned debate, and lost it a long time ago, so they turn to sh!t heads and trolls to promote the hatred, fear and loathing of the "other."

And long have they maintained an underclass of others to be scorned, for the mentality of the average Australian is such that they are mostly easily led by their prejudice.

It makes no sense (which is what you would expect from the parliament) that we are having all this agonising about a storm in a teacup when the man who is supposedly leading the country can decide to invade another country with no debate and cause enormous death and destruction.

As for why some homosexuals do not care for marriage anyway, I would like to hear a little more from others about why that is.

I would say that one reason is a reason that they share in common with everyone. And that is we wish to freely co-habitate without the noose of property loss on account of the legal implications of a recognised de-facto or married relationship.

It is not, I believe, that the majority of them object to those members of their community who wish to have their relationships consecrated by way of some religious sacrament and for that sacrament to have equal legal recognition with all others.

And of course giving legal recognition to the sacraments of some religious organisations and not to others is a joke in this day and age.

Australia has a long way to go before the reality of the legal framework reflects the best of Australians' hopes and aspirations for one another.

I was just trying to be conciliatory, phanto.

<<Who's "we". Have you been uncivil?>>

Although I'm sure there has been the odd moment here or there where I could have been more polite.

<<Which behaviour of yours do you consider was uncivil?>>

None that I can think off the top of my head. Your last few posts to me have been particularly nasty, however. With nothing left to argue, you are interested now only in character assassination.

<<Exposing your aggression and arrogance is a most civil quest.>>

You have merely asserted it. Can you point to some specific examples?

<<The less aggression and arrogance we have on the forum the more civil it becomes don't you agree?>>

Absolutely! It’s just a pity that you only care about the aggression and arrogance that comes from one side, and that your interpretation of what constitutes aggression and arrogance is guided only by emotional responses rather than what is actually being said or done. Which places a question mark over your sincerity.

<<There is one thing they all have in common and that is homosexual behaviour.>>

There's also stigmatisation and the effects that result from it.

<<So maybe [homosexual behaviour] is the reason for their mental health issues.>>

You would need to be more specific about what behaviour it is exactly that you have in mind.

<<If someone was looking at why they have mental health issues they would look for common factors wouldn't they.>>

As a starting point, yes.

<<If you do not take into consideration homosexual behaviour you would be very unprofessional in your research.>>

Again, it depends on what you mean by “homosexual behaviour”. If what you’re referring to is debunked from the outset by what is already known, then no.

<<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?>>

Yes, but there’s a difference between not looking out of fear of the answer, and not looking because the evidence strongly suggests that there is no point in looking there.