NMP Thio Makes 2nd Police Report

crosshairs SG

You don't really understand the idea of "nature", do you? And where does Darwin start talking about homosexuality?

Icemoon SG

I think the arguments made for homosexuality can be used to support the repeal of laws concerning bestiality, necrophilia and incest too.

Homosexuality is definitely not against nature because:

1. the behaviour seems to be quite rampant in the animal kingdom.

2. there is no natural obstruction to deter homosexual acts. Like .. I suck your dick .. you feel shiok right? I poke your backside you feel shiok right? In fact, homosexual acts seem to provide faster, instant gratification compared to heterosexual acts.

crosshairs SG

1) Asking for Incest laws to be removed will put your relatives on guard automatically and is akin to begging for a mob attack. There is also no scientific basis for any individual to be predisposed to be sexually attracted to a close relative, and should not be compared to homosexuality. This discussion can be brought up again one day when we have a term for that particular condition.

2)Same sex marriage......why not? They have that in certain countries. They seem happy. It's their business. If you want to talk about various rights meant for legally married couples then sound off.

3)Beastiality law is meant to protect animals from humans because animals cannot represent themselves, they can't give consent. End of story.

Icemoon SG

Of course I don't understand man! Laughing

Gedanken SG

How so?

Icemoon SG

1. Huh? What are you talking about? Why on guard? There is still the rape or molest laws to protect the female party isn't it? Huh? What scientific basis for sexual attraction to close relative? Surely there is scientific basis for sexual attraction between different genders isn't it? Laughing

2. No comments.

3. But protecting animals come under the preview of animal laws isn't it? I mean those laws that fine you if you are seen causing harm to animals. If I can prove that no harm is caused to the animal .. why shouldn't beastality be allowed? Maybe the dog goes oww oww like a zhabor. Laughing

Icemoon SG

Because the arguments are similar. The govt will be inconsistent if they repeal 377A but not those said laws.

crosshairs SG

Icemoon, for a proper discussion to take place, you must have a stand. If your stand shifts, there can be no discussion.

Icemoon SG

I already have a stand - no repeal of 377A. Laughing

Gedanken SG

The similarity seems to lie in the fact that all four are considered sexually deviant behaviours. Apart from this matter of classification, what makes them similar?

crosshairs SG

Explain why it would be inconsistent.

Icemoon SG

Nope, I never said they are sexually deviant. This is the religious argument which we are trying to avoid .. isn't it?

They are similar because

1. No harm is caused to either party.
2. Acts are essentially private.

Icemoon SG

done in my reply to Ged.

crosshairs SG

You refered to the repeal of 377A as a basis for progessive repeals of other laws, I provided the reasons why that would not happen due to the nature of the act. If you are not clear on the direction of the discussion, please sound off. Striking an own goal whilst in a cloud of confusion is not a win.

2. No comments.

Why no comments? Isn't this the crux of the issue? Isn't the progressive acceptance of gay coupling given full rights of a heterosexual union the basis of your discussion and the source of your discontent? Why are you silent on it now?

3. But protecting animals come under the preview of animal laws isn't it? I mean those laws that fine you if you are seen causing harm to animals. If I can prove that no harm is caused to the animal .. why shouldn't beastality be allowed? Maybe the dog goes oww oww like a zhabor.

Preview? What preview? What animal law? What no harm caused to animals? If someone has intercourse with you without your explicit consent is that not an offence? Or when a doubt exists to whether the party being exploited has the ability and sound judgement to give consent in the first place, like in the case of the underaged? Dogs bark and whimper all the time you think they are asking you to have intercourse with them without a reasonable doubt? With regards to this particular paragraph you have posted, I urge you to keep within the scope of discussion and refrain from making a mockery out of your own concerns about the direction the society is about to take. And please leave those poor animals alone.

crosshairs SG

1) Sexual contact between close members will increase by many folds the chances of a defective gene to be passed on to the next generation. Harm IS caused.

2) Refering to 1) private acts of illegal abortion is also private thus making this point redundant.

crosshairs SG

And it would do your arguments more justice if you would kindly wipe that smiley face off your posts. It reflects plenty on how serious you are about a discussion.

Gedanken SG

Hmm, well with necrophilia I expect that nothing worse could really be done to the stiff, but with incest and beastiality there is potential for harm as crosshairs has pointed out. Genetic disorders associated with inbreeding certainly constitute harm, and there's no possibility of consent where animals are concerned. That being the case, there's inadequate grounds for considering beastiality and incest along with homosexuality in this case.

Icemoon SG

But harm to animals *should not* come under beastality isn't it? Furthermore sexual intercourse by itself does not constitute a harmful action.

The law about underage sex is also ridiculous. If defense can prove the "victim" has the ability to give sound judgement, why should the adult be prosecuted?

Icemoon SG

1. What rubbish? Going by your argument, if someone can prove homosexual acts will increase the chance of tiok HIV, then must outlaw homosexual acts ah? Rolling Eyes

2). huh?

Icemoon SG

I am as serious as I can be.

And still try to be cordial.

See .. I haven't start calling you names right? Laughing

« Previous Page Next Page »