Philo: << Gays are very capable of producing fertile sperm >>

Only if they're male.

<< the purpose of fertile sperm is to reproduce a human being >>

No ejaculation allowed unless reproduction is intended!

<< if homosexuals think anal sex is normal they are deluded >>

Another homophobe who imagines that all homosexuals (and only homosexuals) engage in anal sex. What about oral sex? What about heterosexual anal sex?

You homophobes clearly have very limited sexual experience and/or knowledge.

CJM
Your ignorance is demonstrated by your anger.
What is the clinical purpose of sperm?

What is the clinical purpose of an Ovum?

For you sex with an animal is natural.

Philo: << For you sex with an animal is natural. >>

Fascinating to see you trot out the old fallacious homophobic equation between homosexuality and bestiality.

I'm not angry, Philo. Indeed, I rather thought it was you homophobes who seem to be angry that gay people have rights.

I just obviously have more knowledge and exeperience of human sexuality than you do. Have you ever had oral sex, for example?

I must have missed the bit where CJ said sex with animals is okay.

Gees these debates get silly after a while.

Al
I will fight for your rights to free speech but I wish you would use your considerable zeal and enthusiasm to defend the rights of individuals to live their lives without interference from others. It is about not doing harm. Consenting adults having sex does not constitute harm. Is there not an expectation of freedom of association that goes with free speech?

Maybe, deep down there is a part of you that can understand why defending the rights of homosexuals is not the same as defending abhorrent practices of pedophiles.

But still...I cannot debate you on the instrinsic rights to criticise as you see fit I can only hope that others who disagree with your view might one day shed a different light. An entrenched view does not always mean it is right (acknowleding that 'right' is subjective).

Folks.. please spend some time studying the opening post with the reference to how legislation is used to socially engineer society.

That little 'CLAUSE 61' was slipped in to a totally different bill in the hope (my opinion) that it would not be noticed by the Lords and sneak through.

It is as pernicious as it gets.. the reason I showed this was not really to open up a 'mechanics of gay sex' debate (CJ and PHILo *frown*)

The only issue in my mind in opening this is freedom of expression and how the left's view of 'A TOLERANT' society is all about REPRESSION ala Marcuse's first paragragh...

Others try to 'repress' antiseptic's views and rid themselves of his 'intolerance' so they can 'tolerate' the behavior which Antiseptic and a heap of others find abhorrent.

There is a culture war going on..and I've felt it first hand.. militance and untolerance are the characteristics of many Gay Rights neo Nazi's.
They learned it from the students of Marcuse who were their professors.

I've got loads of issues (aah.. you already knew that right :) which will really make ur heads explode if you care about freedom.

CJ... do you see the pathway to 'true tolerance' as envisaged by Marcuse to be true? "repress opposing views" ? (I must confess you do tend to manifest that attitude at times)

More to come Australia!

For the "religiously" inclined:

" ... That you Luv 1 Another, As I Luv U ... "

As far as I am concerned, and as said on numerous occasions, if 2 individuals come together in Luv, then no person has the right to interfere with that. As we are more than just "Flesh & Blood."

..

There is a definite problem with people who feel they have the right to injunct relationships of Luv, whatever the persuasion, with delusions of grandeur often being the diagnosis.

..

As to Clause 61, free speech ought not extend so far that it allows for the criticism of how 2 individuals choose to express their Luv for 1 another. It is a matter for consential partners, who are not imposing in any manner upon others.

However, whist the likes of *Proxy* et al are well contained here in their antics of so called "Free Speech," if let loose upon the vulnerable, suicide is often the result.

The catholics in particular in my view have much Blood of the innocent Youth on their hands in this regard.