Birmingham (Alabama) mayor denies gay parade permit

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Young men with raging hormones need to be able to tie their women up and keep them in their basements. When women are allowed to leave the home in the absence of a male escort, these young men are forced to find other targets for their hormonal rage. Often, the target ends up being someone more important than women - it ends up being other men.

[Peikko 1,575]

Yes, I can see that but neither banning homosexuality, nor sex before marriage would actually lead to men being able to indulge in this clearly important behaviour. This would be some extra added requirement beyond what has been proposed thus far.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

You talk too much. Insolent woman.

[Alhamdulillah 0]

Again, your ideas on what is the 'ideal' family unit are based on a false construct. The isolated two parent family is somewhat of a Western notion and is by no means the only way to organise the human family unit. In fact, I would suggest that a more normal human family unit would be communal as per other primates, a collection of adults supporting one another and mutually caring for the offspring. I am not suggesting that we could or should adopt this but biologically, it's probably nearer to normal than what we recognise as normal in our society.

I see your point but, fortunately, nature shows us that it takes a man and a woman to make a baby. Two men cannot have a child without the assistance of a woman and two women can't have a baby without a man. This is proof enough that we are specifically designed to be two opposite sex parent families at a minimum since mankind would become extinct if everyone were to adopt homosexual lifestyles..... at least it would have in the past before modern scientific discoveries. It's against nature.

However, I do agree with your communal theory with regards to the actual rearing of the children. I strongly believe "it takes a village to raise a child" but that doesn't change that fact that it takes a man and woman to make the child.

I'm also in no way insinuating that a family must consist of a man and only one woman, however, my personal belief is that more than one man in the immediate family unit is incorrect.

Sexual freedom doesn't lead to disease however, irresponsible sex can.

The only 100% effective method of safe sex is abstinence.... I think we can all agree on that.

If person A and person B both have an STD and person A has been sexually active with one person, while person B has exercised his "sexual freedom" and been sexually active with 20 people, who is more likely to be spreading their disease? It's simple math. Again, this doesn't really require a scientific study.

I am curious though as to which criminal activities you think would reduce, which heinous acts would disappear were the corrupt west to adopt more sexually restrictive practices?

Crimes of passion

The spreading of diseases

Drug use

Homosexuality

Molestation

Rape

The divorce rate would likely decrease

Absentee / Deadbeat parents

With an improved family structure, children would have a better opportunity to be instilled with proper morals and petty crimes and felonies alike would see a dramatic decrease

If young men were free to beat up their wives at home, they'd be less likely to go out and hang out on the corners and mug people.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

...more than one man in the immediate family unit is incorrect.

More than one man can work as long as only one of the men is an alpha and the other are losers who do as they are told.

[Alhamdulillah 0]

Young men with raging hormones need to be able to tie their women up and keep them in their basements. When women are allowed to leave the home in the absence of a male escort, these young men are forced to find other targets for their hormonal rage. Often, the target ends up being someone more important than women - it ends up being other men.

I'd like to know how your wife feels about your opinion of women being less important than men.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Young men with raging hormones need to be able to tie their women up and keep them in their basements. When women are allowed to leave the home in the absence of a male escort, these young men are forced to find other targets for their hormonal rage. Often, the target ends up being someone more important than women - it ends up being other men.

I'd like to know how your wife feels about your opinion of women being less important than men.

Good question. I should run it by her one of these days.

[Alhamdulillah 0]

...more than one man in the immediate family unit is incorrect.

More than one man can work as long as only one of the men is an alpha and the other are losers who do as they are told.

How would you know who the father of the children was if multiple men were sleeping with the women? Even today, even DNA testing is not 100% accurate. This would lead to possible inbreeding issues later on down the line I'm afraid.

There's usually very little doubt as to which wife the baby came out of

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

...more than one man in the immediate family unit is incorrect.

More than one man can work as long as only one of the men is an alpha and the other are losers who do as they are told.

How would you know who the father of the children was if multiple men were sleeping with the women? Even today, even DNA testing is not 100% accurate. This would lead to possible inbreeding issues later on down the line I'm afraid.

There's usually very little doubt as to which wife the baby came out of

The other men should be castrated. Preferably right after they were kidnapped from their birth parents and before puberty.

[Alhamdulillah 0]

The other men should be castrated. Preferably right after they were kidnapped from their birth parents and before puberty.

I don't know why I read your posts and actually take them seriously

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

The other men should be castrated. Preferably right after they were kidnapped from their birth parents and before puberty.

I don't know why I read your posts and actually take them seriously

Because you never learn.

[jundp 191]

And no, homosexuality is not something you're born with. Chilren are not attracted to anyone in a sexual way.... it's something we learn as we grow. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that one out either. Just look at how what type of people are considered attractive varies from one society to another.... in one communtiy skinny woman are it while in others big women are more preferable..... because we learn these things from our surroundings.

For every scientific study that tells you that children aren't born homosexual, there is one that tells you they are. And do you actually know any homosexuals? If you do perhaps you should ask them when they knew. There is nature and nurture and neither one can be mutually exclusive. But just because a person is homosexual does not make him/her a sexual "deviant." Greed and disregard for respect of human life and dignity are bigger contributors to the breakdown of society than homosexuality is.

I'm also in no way insinuating that a family must consist of a man and only one woman, however, my personal belief is that more than one man in the immediate family unit is incorrect.

Am I understanding this comment correctly? Is this your way of advocating for multiple wives in a marriage? And this isnt immoral or wrong? It is against the law however.

[Alhamdulillah 0]

For every scientific study that tells you that children aren't born homosexual, there is one that tells you they are. And do you actually know any homosexuals? If you do perhaps you should ask them when they knew. There is nature and nurture and neither one can be mutually exclusive. But just because a person is homosexual does not make him/her a sexual "deviant." Greed and disregard for respect of human life and dignity are bigger contributors to the breakdown of society than homosexuality is.

Granted but that doesn't rule out homosexuality as a contributing factor.

Am I understanding this comment correctly? Is this your way of advocating for multiple wives in a marriage? And this isnt immoral or wrong? It is against the law however.

Yes, there are times when a man having multiple wives can help the community. It has been done in pretty much every society other than modern western civilization and is still practiced in many communities around the world today.

However, I don't advocate a man marrying more than one woman at a time in any country where the law forbids it.

[Peikko 1,575]

Again, your ideas on what is the 'ideal' family unit are based on a false construct. The isolated two parent family is somewhat of a Western notion and is by no means the only way to organise the human family unit. In fact, I would suggest that a more normal human family unit would be communal as per other primates, a collection of adults supporting one another and mutually caring for the offspring. I am not suggesting that we could or should adopt this but biologically, it's probably nearer to normal than what we recognise as normal in our society.

I see your point but, fortunately, nature shows us that it takes a man and a woman to make a baby. Two men cannot have a child without the assistance of a woman and two women can't have a baby without a man. This is proof enough that we are specifically designed to be two opposite sex parent families at a minimum since mankind would become extinct if everyone were to adopt homosexual lifestyles..... at least it would have in the past before modern scientific discoveries. It's against nature.

However, I do agree with your communal theory with regards to the actual rearing of the children. I strongly believe "it takes a village to raise a child" but that doesn't change that fact that it takes a man and woman to make the child.

I'm also in no way insinuating that a family must consist of a man and only one woman, however, my personal belief is that more than one man in the immediate family unit is incorrect.

Sexual freedom doesn't lead to disease however, irresponsible sex can.

The only 100% effective method of safe sex is abstinence.... I think we can all agree on that.

If person A and person B both have an STD and person A has been sexually active with one person, while person B has exercised his "sexual freedom" and been sexually active with 20 people, who is more likely to be spreading their disease? It's simple math. Again, this doesn't really require a scientific study. If all persons engage in safe sex practices the spread of disease is pretty much eliminated.

I am curious though as to which criminal activities you think would reduce, which heinous acts would disappear were the corrupt west to adopt more sexually restrictive practices?

Crimes of passion Why would these decrease?

The spreading of diseases is not a crime

Drug use again, why would drug use decrease if sex before marriage and homosexuality were banned? I see no connection between the two

Homosexuality is not a crime

Molestation Again, show the causation between sexual freedome and increased molestation

Rape ditto

The divorce rate would likely decrease Why?

Absentee / Deadbeat parents This is not a criminal offence and I don't see the correlation

With an improved family structure, children would have a better opportunity to be instilled with proper morals and petty crimes and felonies alike would see a dramatic decrease Correlation? How exactly does sexual freedom lead to petty crime and felony? I see no connection between the two.

What you seem to be suggesting is that restricting sex to marriage and restricting marriage to men/women relationships will effectively eliminate most other criminal activity would that it were so easy - but yet you have produced not one iota of evidence to support your assertion. Personally, I don't think it has any effect on criminal activity either way. The fact that people murder, steal, force sex onto unwilling participants is down to many contributing factors. If I was forced to give one factor that would have the greatest influence on whether someone would engage in criminal behaviour or not, I would site poverty not sexual freedom.

If young men were free to beat up their wives at home, they'd be less likely to go out and hang out on the corners and mug people.

Edited May 25, 2008 by Purple_Hibiscus

[Heracles 417]

Homosexuals are not criminals nor should they be compared to them.

However, I understand that some religious people feel the need to sneer at others just because they might be different call them sinners and immoral. You might think that's nice behaviour, personally I think that kind of intolerance is sick.

Funny how when it is the other way around then anyone religious is told that how dare you force your snake oil beliefs down other people's throats.

But when it comes to ####### like gay parades then you are a bigot if you do not accept it.