Monks Teach Maleness To Thai 'Ladyboys'

[nurofiend]

As for the actual topic ... I am a little disturbed to see some people condemning Buddhism or at least Thai Buddhism. As the article clearly states, this is one Temple out in the boonies with some uncharacteristic hardcore practices. I agree it is sad to see women's abilities be limited in most all of the temples but it is not easy to bring about change in a religion and/or belief system that has been around so long. Changes come slow. And this one perceived (my perception) negative doesn't take away all the good this body does do.

I also find comments such as most people become monks for improper reason, offensive too. Anyone is welcome to go and live at the Temple who have no money and young men are free to go to whatever Temple they want. I have no problem with any religion including Islam that has hardcore believers or sects as long as they are not going out and hurting others or forcing outsiders to believe what they do. If you don't want to be part of that sect, then don't but I can see no reason to complain if you knowingly go to a Temple where they practice beliefs that are different than your own. In fact, if you don't like the religion then don't be part of it but unless they are harming you or society, mind your own business. As for some Monks doing bad things, please name one group of people in society where you don't have bad apples. Just because their are ladyboys who are thieves, liars and pickpockets shouldn't mean we should condemn all ladyboys.

If somebody chooses to go to a specific Temple where they know they are going to be harassed for their beliefs then they are the ones with the problem, not the Temple. On the other hand if people from the Temple go outside their walls to harass people then this is a completely different story.

IMO, this OP is a story about nothing. If I went to study with Malcom X's congregation back in the day should I be surprised if I am called a white devil? Whose to say what is right or wrong when it comes to beliefs. Maybe those people are right who believe God does hates gays and commies and that only straight, conservative capitalist will go to heaven None of us can say for sure but I am of the mind that we need to follow what we believe is right inside our heart of hearts and not rely on some out dated texts to tell us what is right ... hopefully I am right and I don't end up burning for eternity or being reborn as a cockroach but who knows for sure?

don't worry, there's no god and we're all just gonna be wormfood

let that comforting thought ease your mind....

but yeah, no one knows shit about shit in all honesty!

Edited July 17, 2011 by nurofiend

[DumFarang]

No, using the NATURAL definition of normal. Homsexuality is as natural as heterosexuality. Are red haired people normal? They have hair. It has a color. NORMAL. Gay men. They are men. They have a healthy sexual (and emotional/love) preference. NORMAL. The opposite of NORMAL is abnormal. That's a nasty thing to say about gays. I don't care about the opinion of someone like you -- I don't consider you a friend of gays and I doubt most other gay men would either if they read your posts.

I will compare here to Israel. Israel is desperate these days for ANY kind of friend. So they scraped the bottom of the barrel and accept the support of right wing Xian fundamentalists. These people need Israel to fulfill their bizarre belief in how the world will end. In their belief system after the Jews fulfill their purpose in Israel they will all then burn in hell. It is very sad that Israel can't afford to show them the door. I think gays are in a better position that way and don't need so called friends who insult us.

Jingthing, I'm just curious and I hope you don't jump down my throat with an angry rant from this question. What is your response to the claim that sex, despite being as enjoyable as it is, exists for the purposes of procreation? It's enjoyable because that pleasure encourages procreation which is a part of the survival mechanisms hardwired into every creature on Earth. Since only a man and a woman can procreate then sex clearly exists to serve this relationship.

I don't know if you believe in evolution. I do. But, if we evolved with survival hardwired into us then where does homosexuality, or anything non-heterosexual for that matter, fit into evolution? Why would we evolve to have sex for anything other than survival?

[sirchai]

Buddhism and Ladyboys (Transgenders)

Why are you called phet thi saam (the third sex) by people in Thailand, May? I asked one day.

Because we are better than lady, better than man. We are number 3, the best one! said May.

Source: http://www.ladyboyfashion.com/articles/english/ladyboyfashionblog.html[/center]

Edited July 17, 2011 by metisdead
Edited for fair use.

[metisdead]

A post has been edited due to possible violation of copyright and non compliance of fair use. It is generally accepted, but not written into law, that quoting the first two or three sentences of an article and giving a link to the source is considered “fair use” and not a violation of copyright.

Some inflammatory posts and replies have been removed as well.

[sirchai]

A post has been edited due to possible violation of copyright and non compliance of fair use. It is generally accepted, but not written into law, that quoting the first two or three sentences of an article and giving a link to the source is considered "fair use" and not a violation of copyright.

Some inflammatory posts and replies have been removed as well.

Khop Khun Maak Khrap............:jap:

Edited July 17, 2011 by sirchai

[erobando]

No, using the NATURAL definition of normal. Homsexuality is as natural as heterosexuality. Are red haired people normal? They have hair. It has a color. NORMAL. Gay men. They are men. They have a healthy sexual (and emotional/love) preference. NORMAL. The opposite of NORMAL is abnormal. That's a nasty thing to say about gays. I don't care about the opinion of someone like you -- I don't consider you a friend of gays and I doubt most other gay men would either if they read your posts.

I will compare here to Israel. Israel is desperate these days for ANY kind of friend. So they scraped the bottom of the barrel and accept the support of right wing Xian fundamentalists. These people need Israel to fulfill their bizarre belief in how the world will end. In their belief system after the Jews fulfill their purpose in Israel they will all then burn in hell. It is very sad that Israel can't afford to show them the door. I think gays are in a better position that way and don't need so called friends who insult us.

Jingthing, I'm just curious and I hope you don't jump down my throat with an angry rant from this question. What is your response to the claim that sex, despite being as enjoyable as it is, exists for the purposes of procreation? It's enjoyable because that pleasure encourages procreation which is a part of the survival mechanisms hardwired into every creature on Earth. Since only a man and a woman can procreate then sex clearly exists to serve this relationship.

I don't know if you believe in evolution. I do. But, if we evolved with survival hardwired into us then where does homosexuality, or anything non-heterosexual for that matter, fit into evolution? Why would we evolve to have sex for anything other than survival?

I can't answer for Jingthing but I think your question implies a somewhat incorrect view of evolution.

Evolution is not purposeful or directional. Traits and behaviors of those that successful reproduced in a species' genetic history are be passed on... Many of those traits and behaviors increased the the chances of survival for those ancestors... hence, they lived to pass on their genes. But not every trait or behavior increases survival, some are just passed on along the way.

People (and other animals who sexually reproduce) like sex because it feels good. It's a lucky coincidence that increased sexual activities tends to increase the chance of passing on one's genetic (which include enjoying sex). Homosexuals (past and present) also have/had the genetic trait of liking sex... that same sex intercourse does not lead to reproduction is just a circumstance.

The genetic trait passed on = pleasure from sex... not a "hardwiring" for species survival.

Edited July 17, 2011 by erobando

[sirchai]

No, using the NATURAL definition of normal. Homsexuality is as natural as heterosexuality. Are red haired people normal? They have hair. It has a color. NORMAL. Gay men. They are men. They have a healthy sexual (and emotional/love) preference. NORMAL. The opposite of NORMAL is abnormal. That's a nasty thing to say about gays. I don't care about the opinion of someone like you -- I don't consider you a friend of gays and I doubt most other gay men would either if they read your posts.

I will compare here to Israel. Israel is desperate these days for ANY kind of friend. So they scraped the bottom of the barrel and accept the support of right wing Xian fundamentalists. These people need Israel to fulfill their bizarre belief in how the world will end. In their belief system after the Jews fulfill their purpose in Israel they will all then burn in hell. It is very sad that Israel can't afford to show them the door. I think gays are in a better position that way and don't need so called friends who insult us.

Jingthing, I'm just curious and I hope you don't jump down my throat with an angry rant from this question. What is your response to the claim that sex, despite being as enjoyable as it is, exists for the purposes of procreation? It's enjoyable because that pleasure encourages procreation which is a part of the survival mechanisms hardwired into every creature on Earth. Since only a man and a woman can procreate then sex clearly exists to serve this relationship.

I don't know if you believe in evolution. I do. But, if we evolved with survival hardwired into us then where does homosexuality, or anything non-heterosexual for that matter, fit into evolution? Why would we evolve to have sex for anything other than survival?

I can't answer for Jingthing but I think your question implies a somewhat incorrect view of evolution.

Evolution is not purposeful or directional. Traits and behaviors of those that successful reproduced in a species' genetic history are be passed on... Many of those traits and behaviors increased the the chances of survival for those ancestors... hence, they lived to pass on their genes. But not every trait or behavior increases survival, some are just passed on along the way.

People (and other animals who sexually reproduce) like sex because it feels good. It's a lucky coincidence that increased sexual activities tends to increase the chance of passing on one's genetic (which include enjoying sex). Homosexuals (past and present) also have/had the genetic trait of liking sex... that same sex intercourse does not lead to reproduction is just a circumstance.

The genetic trait passed on = pleasure from sex... not a "hardwiring" for species survival.

Evolution encourages Homosexuality. No one has to be a homosexual. :jap:

Edited July 17, 2011 by sirchai

[rubin]

Looks like after some period of time, the society will be forced to tolerate paedophilia, zoophilia, necrophilia, incest, drug abuse, rape and murder as a ''human right'' norm.

[chooka]

No, using the NATURAL definition of normal. Homsexuality is as natural as heterosexuality. Are red haired people normal? They have hair. It has a color. NORMAL. Gay men. They are men. They have a healthy sexual (and emotional/love) preference. NORMAL. The opposite of NORMAL is abnormal. That's a nasty thing to say about gays. I don't care about the opinion of someone like you -- I don't consider you a friend of gays and I doubt most other gay men would either if they read your posts.

I will compare here to Israel. Israel is desperate these days for ANY kind of friend. So they scraped the bottom of the barrel and accept the support of right wing Xian fundamentalists. These people need Israel to fulfill their bizarre belief in how the world will end. In their belief system after the Jews fulfill their purpose in Israel they will all then burn in hell. It is very sad that Israel can't afford to show them the door. I think gays are in a better position that way and don't need so called friends who insult us.

Jingthing, I'm just curious and I hope you don't jump down my throat with an angry rant from this question. What is your response to the claim that sex, despite being as enjoyable as it is, exists for the purposes of procreation? It's enjoyable because that pleasure encourages procreation which is a part of the survival mechanisms hardwired into every creature on Earth. Since only a man and a woman can procreate then sex clearly exists to serve this relationship.

I don't know if you believe in evolution. I do. But, if we evolved with survival hardwired into us then where does homosexuality, or anything non-heterosexual for that matter, fit into evolution? Why would we evolve to have sex for anything other than survival?

I can't answer for Jingthing but I think your question implies a somewhat incorrect view of evolution.

Evolution is not purposeful or directional. Traits and behaviors of those that successful reproduced in a species' genetic history are be passed on... Many of those traits and behaviors increased the the chances of survival for those ancestors... hence, they lived to pass on their genes. But not every trait or behavior increases survival, some are just passed on along the way.

People (and other animals who sexually reproduce) like sex because it feels good. It's a lucky coincidence that increased sexual activities tends to increase the chance of passing on one's genetic (which include enjoying sex). Homosexuals (past and present) also have/had the genetic trait of liking sex... that same sex intercourse does not lead to reproduction is just a circumstance.

The genetic trait passed on = pleasure from sex... not a "hardwiring" for species survival.

Evolution encourages Homosexuality. No one has to be a homosexual. :jap:

The world relies heavily on straight people. It is hetro sexual communities througout the ages that have reproduced and provided partners for the gay community. If Adam and Eve were gay then we would not be here today.

[chooka]

Looks like after some period of time, the society will be forced to tolerate paedophilia, zoophilia, necrophilia, incest, drug abuse, rape and murder as a ''human right'' norm.

That's a fair point and it will happen. Mankind will be demonstrating for thier rights to legally marry thier cat or dog even goldfish so they can live in a normal happy family enviroment just like everyone else.

[DumFarang]

No, using the NATURAL definition of normal. Homsexuality is as natural as heterosexuality. Are red haired people normal? They have hair. It has a color. NORMAL. Gay men. They are men. They have a healthy sexual (and emotional/love) preference. NORMAL. The opposite of NORMAL is abnormal. That's a nasty thing to say about gays. I don't care about the opinion of someone like you -- I don't consider you a friend of gays and I doubt most other gay men would either if they read your posts.

I will compare here to Israel. Israel is desperate these days for ANY kind of friend. So they scraped the bottom of the barrel and accept the support of right wing Xian fundamentalists. These people need Israel to fulfill their bizarre belief in how the world will end. In their belief system after the Jews fulfill their purpose in Israel they will all then burn in hell. It is very sad that Israel can't afford to show them the door. I think gays are in a better position that way and don't need so called friends who insult us.

Jingthing, I'm just curious and I hope you don't jump down my throat with an angry rant from this question. What is your response to the claim that sex, despite being as enjoyable as it is, exists for the purposes of procreation? It's enjoyable because that pleasure encourages procreation which is a part of the survival mechanisms hardwired into every creature on Earth. Since only a man and a woman can procreate then sex clearly exists to serve this relationship.

I don't know if you believe in evolution. I do. But, if we evolved with survival hardwired into us then where does homosexuality, or anything non-heterosexual for that matter, fit into evolution? Why would we evolve to have sex for anything other than survival?

I can't answer for Jingthing but I think your question implies a somewhat incorrect view of evolution.

Evolution is not purposeful or directional. Traits and behaviors of those that successful reproduced in a species' genetic history are be passed on... Many of those traits and behaviors increased the the chances of survival for those ancestors... hence, they lived to pass on their genes. But not every trait or behavior increases survival, some are just passed on along the way.

People (and other animals who sexually reproduce) like sex because it feels good. It's a lucky coincidence that increased sexual activities tends to increase the chance of passing on one's genetic (which include enjoying sex). Homosexuals (past and present) also have/had the genetic trait of liking sex... that same sex intercourse does not lead to reproduction is just a circumstance.

The genetic trait passed on = pleasure from sex... not a "hardwiring" for species survival.

...and you think my interpretation of evolution is simplistic, wow. You combined and separated concepts there to fit your argument, because your argument doesn't fit so neatly into the reality. Evolution may not be purposeful or directional, and I never said it was, however, oddly enough, it does follow a course. It doesn't take random turns and do weird things like grow a hand on a person's butt, unless that's a very unfortunate defect of course. So in humans the fact that procreation equals survival, and it happens to be so pleasurable, evolved along side each other for a purpose. It may not be a purpose that we understand the way we understand the decision making process, but whatever it is that makes evolution tick stuck those two together and has kept it that way.

For all we know non-heterosexuality in its various forms serves an evolutionary purpose, maybe it's a control mechanism meant to control the population, even though if that's the case it obviously failed miserably.

Your point about passing on successful traits is of course true, so I think it's safe to say the procreation and enjoying the hell out of it were successful which gives them unanimously heterosexual origins.

[Ulysses G.]

Looks like after some period of time, the society will be forced to tolerate paedophilia, zoophilia, necrophilia, incest, drug abuse, rape and murder as a ''human right'' norm.

Power to the people.

[animatic]

No, using the NATURAL definition of normal. Homsexuality is as natural as heterosexuality. Are red haired people normal? They have hair. It has a color. NORMAL. Gay men. They are men. They have a healthy sexual (and emotional/love) preference. NORMAL. The opposite of NORMAL is abnormal. That's a nasty thing to say about gays. I don't care about the opinion of someone like you -- I don't consider you a friend of gays and I doubt most other gay men would either if they read your posts.

I will compare here to Israel. Israel is desperate these days for ANY kind of friend. So they scraped the bottom of the barrel and accept the support of right wing Xian fundamentalists. These people need Israel to fulfill their bizarre belief in how the world will end. In their belief system after the Jews fulfill their purpose in Israel they will all then burn in hell. It is very sad that Israel can't afford to show them the door. I think gays are in a better position that way and don't need so called friends who insult us.

Jingthing, I'm just curious and I hope you don't jump down my throat with an angry rant from this question. What is your response to the claim that sex, despite being as enjoyable as it is, exists for the purposes of procreation? It's enjoyable because that pleasure encourages procreation which is a part of the survival mechanisms hardwired into every creature on Earth. Since only a man and a woman can procreate then sex clearly exists to serve this relationship.

I don't know if you believe in evolution. I do. But, if we evolved with survival hardwired into us then where does homosexuality, or anything non-heterosexual for that matter, fit into evolution? Why would we evolve to have sex for anything other than survival?

Sex encourages that relationship and encourages procreation certainly.

But then again post-menopausal women still have sex,

and men with no sperm counts still have sex,

so there is no reproductive imperative actualized.

We have an inherent ability to enjoy sex,

and most of the religious and societal taboos on sex are meant to control this natural urge to get off. In tribal times this was because it increased numbers of the tribe and that meant better survival odds of the tribe, or city state etc.

The urge is there to procreate, because the sensation is pleasurable, but that pleasure doesn't end with procreation is not the reason for doing it. Yet the societal pressures to confirm to 'breeding behavior' remain. They need not for all individuals in this day and age, but was important back in the day of tribe or village vs village warfare for scarce resources.

Yet remove the need for fighting numbers or many agriculturalists and the taboos remain, and in some cases because of medical or psychological reasoning. Yet even this is less necessary because of the greatly increased general medical knowledge of most adults.

In other words, for those opposing the average modern day gay or lesbian's choices, the reasons to dislike their non-reproductive choice of pleasure or intimacy with another, is not based on actual group imperatives, but the age old HABITS of that former, now displaced tribal imperative.

Edited July 17, 2011 by animatic

[animatic]

Looks like after some period of time, the society will be forced to tolerate paedophilia, zoophilia, necrophilia, incest, drug abuse, rape and murder as a ''human right'' norm.

That's a fair point and it will happen. Mankind will be demonstrating for thier rights to legally marry thier cat or dog even goldfish so they can live in a normal happy family enviroment just like everyone else.

No, because these are not norms of equal and informed consent,

but of taking advantage or abuse of another entity living or dead.

Though I challenge any government to successfully prosecute

someone for having sex with a plastic bag filled with cows liver...

Or say a water mellon

As bizarre as it maybe, is it illegal?

Of course wanting to MARRY the water mellon

would indicate a level of mental disorder worth treatment.

[phuketdreaming]

And who will teach the monks how to be masculine? Frankly speaking, I don't see monks being good role models for masculinity so not too surprised their teachings are rejected by many.

[animatic]

Gays and lesbians also seem to have children these days.

Some from earlier hetero relationships, and others from In-vitro procedures with donors. So to say these days it exclusively removes them from the gene pool no longer is valid.

Edited July 17, 2011 by animatic

[DumFarang]

Gays and lesbians also seem to have children these days.

Some from earlier hetero relations ships, and others from In-vitro procedures with donors. So to say these days it exclusively removes them from the gene pool no longer is valid.

That's true, but I don't think we're talking about large or sustainable numbers here.

On the other point, I completely agree that the notion of heterosexuality and procreation being linked harks directly back to our age old ancestors, the farmers, the hunters, and the tribes etc.

And, I realize we've moved on. However, we are enjoying a period of relative decadence right now, and of course we've overpopulated Earth. I don't really care how many ladyboys, homosexuals, MSM's, and whatever else are running around. At least, for the most part, they're not breeding which is good for the state of our planet right now.

I just don't think the value of a heterosexual union should be diminished in any way. Even homosexuals, ladyboys, etc. owe their very existence to a heterosexual union or, at the very least, a sperm fertilizing an egg, whatever. If the human race ever gets itself in a fine pickle again where our numbers are threatened non-heterosexuals will once again be of no value in terms of forwarding the progress of the human race. Right now it's just really easy to look around and overlook the true purpose of marriage between a natural man and woman and the family they plan to create. Admittedly, at the moment that contribution isn't necessarily necessary.

[animatic]

Gays and lesbians also seem to have children these days.

Some from earlier hetero relations ships, and others from In-vitro procedures with donors. So to say these days it exclusively removes them from the gene pool no longer is valid.

That's true, but I don't think we're talking about large or sustainable numbers here.

On the other point, I completely agree that the notion of heterosexuality and procreation being linked harks directly back to our age old ancestors, the farmers, the hunters, and the tribes etc.

And, I realize we've moved on. However, we are enjoying a period of relative decadence right now, and of course we've overpopulated Earth. I don't really care how many ladyboys, homosexuals, MSM's, and whatever else are running around. At least, for the most part, they're not breeding which is good for the state of our planet right now.

I just don't think the value of a heterosexual union should be diminished in any way. Even homosexuals, ladyboys, etc. owe their very existence to a heterosexual union or, at the very least, a sperm fertilizing an egg, whatever. If the human race ever gets itself in a fine pickle again where our numbers are threatened non-heterosexuals will once again be of no value in terms of forwarding the progress of the human race. Right now it's just really easy to look around and overlook the true purpose of marriage between a natural man and woman and the family they plan to create. Admittedly, at the moment that contribution isn't necessarily necessary.

There need not be sustainable numbers of procreating gays and lesbians, because no one is saying, nor advocating, that all should turn gay since they are free to do so. This has always been a strawman argument of the change adverse... 'if we let them freely do this they will subverte the culture entirely'.

I've never understood why joining any 'couple of individuals' together as sustained and devoted partners with legal rights of assignment and child custody should in anyway diminish another couples relationship.

From a medical point of view in the age of AIDS etc, bonding couple of what ever genders THEY choose is a public health benefit and running against any sense of decadence.

From a sociological point of view joining couples creates family units that aid in sustaining themselves with out state assistance. Often there are earlier spawned children involved regardless of the couples procreate intent, and official joining them makes for more stable child rearing regardless of parental sex preferences.

There is if anything a social imperative to limit numbers of births, with out removing all procreation completely.

And we adopted an orphaned pre-teen niece to raise as our own, because this helps the situation, versus the wife and I procreating.

Which in no ways means I do not intend to have sex with the Mrs. regularly, even if we plan no babies. I reject anyones telling me the true purpose of our deciding to make love together and not make a baby...

Decadence –noun

1.the act or process of falling into an inferior condition

or state; deterioration; decay: Some historians hold that the fall of Rome can be attributed to internal decadence.

2.moral degeneration or decay; turpitude.

3.unrestrained or excessive self-indulgence.

4.( often initial capital letter ) the decadent movement in literature.

Often a culture is called decadent when it is in a state of flux or transition from one state to another. Often caused by thing such as Industrial Revolution, invention of gunpowder, over-population, over reach geographically by leadership, medical advances that alter the status quo of generations.

Progress in general often can be blamed by some as causing decadence. Also freedom of choice in one segment of a culture, can be abhorred by less free areas of and culture.

Essentially like inner city urbanistas vs rural agri-belt fundamentalists.

In some case segments of a culture move at differing speeds for different reasons, and the slower ones often cry DECADENCE while their children often assimilate and gravitate to the new modality.

Edited July 17, 2011 by animatic

[ginjag]

Gays and lesbians also seem to have children these days.

Some from earlier hetero relations ships, and others from In-vitro procedures with donors. So to say these days it exclusively removes them from the gene pool no longer is valid.

That's true, but I don't think we're talking about large or sustainable numbers here.

On the other point, I completely agree that the notion of heterosexuality and procreation being linked harks directly back to our age old ancestors, the farmers, the hunters, and the tribes etc.

And, I realize we've moved on. However, we are enjoying a period of relative decadence right now, and of course we've overpopulated Earth. I don't really care how many ladyboys, homosexuals, MSM's, and whatever else are running around. At least, for the most part, they're not breeding which is good for the state of our planet right now.

I just don't think the value of a heterosexual union should be diminished in any way. Even homosexuals, ladyboys, etc. owe their very existence to a heterosexual union or, at the very least, a sperm fertilizing an egg, whatever. If the human race ever gets itself in a fine pickle again where our numbers are threatened non-heterosexuals will once again be of no value in terms of forwarding the progress of the human race. Right now it's just really easy to look around and overlook the true purpose of marriage between a natural man and woman and the family they plan to create. Admittedly, at the moment that contribution isn't necessarily necessary.

QUOTE= If the human race ever gets itself in a fine pickle again where our numbers are threatened non-heterosexuals will once again be of no value in terms of forwarding the progress of the human race.

Rubbish, it doesn't mean gays could not "perform" if things in the world get desperate, and also sperm banks can exist, and if it was that only gays were left to impregnate, to your idea's they are sterile??

your attitude then would mean only hetro's are a useful form of continuing the species? maybe you would think like others on this thread that all the offspring would turn out to be gay :lol:

[animatic]

Gays and lesbians also seem to have children these days.

Some from earlier hetero relations ships, and others from In-vitro procedures with donors. So to say these days it exclusively removes them from the gene pool no longer is valid.

That's true, but I don't think we're talking about large or sustainable numbers here.

On the other point, I completely agree that the notion of heterosexuality and procreation being linked harks directly back to our age old ancestors, the farmers, the hunters, and the tribes etc.

And, I realize we've moved on. However, we are enjoying a period of relative decadence right now, and of course we've overpopulated Earth. I don't really care how many ladyboys, homosexuals, MSM's, and whatever else are running around. At least, for the most part, they're not breeding which is good for the state of our planet right now.

I just don't think the value of a heterosexual union should be diminished in any way. Even homosexuals, ladyboys, etc. owe their very existence to a heterosexual union or, at the very least, a sperm fertilizing an egg, whatever. If the human race ever gets itself in a fine pickle again where our numbers are threatened non-heterosexuals will once again be of no value in terms of forwarding the progress of the human race. Right now it's just really easy to look around and overlook the true purpose of marriage between a natural man and woman and the family they plan to create. Admittedly, at the moment that contribution isn't necessarily necessary.

QUOTE= If the human race ever gets itself in a fine pickle again where our numbers are threatened non-heterosexuals will once again be of no value in terms of forwarding the progress of the human race.

Rubbish, it doesn't mean gays could not "perform" if things in the world get desperate, and also sperm banks can exist, and if it was that only gays were left to impregnate, to your idea's they are sterile??

your attitude then would mean only hetro's are a useful form of continuing the species? maybe you would think like others on this thread that all the offspring would turn out to be gay :lol:

Agreed.

And as has been noted gays typically come from hetro matings, so they have essentially the same gene structures. And the same working parts to do it. Must not the specific desire to do it if given the choice between the two geneders. If the need for procreation is strong enough most anyone can get the job done.

Edited July 17, 2011 by animatic

[DumFarang]

Gays and lesbians also seem to have children these days.

Some from earlier hetero relations ships, and others from In-vitro procedures with donors. So to say these days it exclusively removes them from the gene pool no longer is valid.

That's true, but I don't think we're talking about large or sustainable numbers here.

On the other point, I completely agree that the notion of heterosexuality and procreation being linked harks directly back to our age old ancestors, the farmers, the hunters, and the tribes etc.

And, I realize we've moved on. However, we are enjoying a period of relative decadence right now, and of course we've overpopulated Earth. I don't really care how many ladyboys, homosexuals, MSM's, and whatever else are running around. At least, for the most part, they're not breeding which is good for the state of our planet right now.

I just don't think the value of a heterosexual union should be diminished in any way. Even homosexuals, ladyboys, etc. owe their very existence to a heterosexual union or, at the very least, a sperm fertilizing an egg, whatever. If the human race ever gets itself in a fine pickle again where our numbers are threatened non-heterosexuals will once again be of no value in terms of forwarding the progress of the human race. Right now it's just really easy to look around and overlook the true purpose of marriage between a natural man and woman and the family they plan to create. Admittedly, at the moment that contribution isn't necessarily necessary.

QUOTE= If the human race ever gets itself in a fine pickle again where our numbers are threatened non-heterosexuals will once again be of no value in terms of forwarding the progress of the human race.

Rubbish, it doesn't mean gays could not "perform" if things in the world get desperate, and also sperm banks can exist, and if it was that only gays were left to impregnate, to your idea's they are sterile??

your attitude then would mean only hetro's are a useful form of continuing the species? maybe you would think like others on this thread that all the offspring would turn out to be gay :lol:

I didn't say only hetero's can forward our species, just that they typically do.

Non-heterosexuals just have no interest in procreating. If we're ever in a "fine pickle" again how do you know there will be sperm banks?

Of course they could still have a societal value whether it be social, work related, or whatever, but they wouldn't be putting more butts in diapers on average, so what would be their legacy if they don't contribute something like art or inventions?

[473geo]

A waste of time.

These children are clearly wire differently in the brain than their genitals are externally observed.

You can't retrain a brain to be what it is not. Only add more information to what it has. If you load

in basic contradictions it only breeds mental disharmony, and doesn't correct what some see as a

social disharmony between the individual and society.

Conservative Christians have tried this in the west and caused more deviation than was started with.

This includes family men living a lie inside themselves and finally opting for abandoning their families,

or even as drastic as suicide etc.

A waste of time or worse.

Bravo...I cannot believe that katoy "choose" to be feminine...Who would "choose" to disappoint their conservative families...Who would "choose" to be ostracized by much of Thai society...As long as katoy refrain from criminal behavior, they should be tolerated.

I guess somebody who wished to rebel against parental control?.....and the fact that they are not ostracised, but rather accepted, and also the theatrical element, and also the fact that they can look attractive....where in most countries the larger male cross dressing does not.

Edited July 17, 2011 by 473geo

[chooka]

Looks like after some period of time, the society will be forced to tolerate paedophilia, zoophilia, necrophilia, incest, drug abuse, rape and murder as a ''human right'' norm.

That's a fair point and it will happen. Mankind will be demonstrating for thier rights to legally marry thier cat or dog even goldfish so they can live in a normal happy family enviroment just like everyone else.

No, because these are not norms of equal and informed consent,

but of taking advantage or abuse of another entity living or dead.

Though I challenge any government to successfully prosecute

someone for having sex with a plastic bag filled with cows liver...

Or say a water mellon

As bizarre as it maybe, is it illegal?

Of course wanting to MARRY the water mellon

would indicate a level of mental disorder worth treatment.

Yes I agree with what you say. However wasn't homosexuality once an illegal act (Buggery) and some who committed such an act were considered suffering a mental condition. Yes society has evolved and the stigma removed but how can anyone say that the same will not occure for the offence of beastiality. Those that indulge in such a thing today may very well be the homosexuals of yesterday.

[ginjag]

Gays and lesbians also seem to have children these days.

Some from earlier hetero relations ships, and others from In-vitro procedures with donors. So to say these days it exclusively removes them from the gene pool no longer is valid.

That's true, but I don't think we're talking about large or sustainable numbers here.

On the other point, I completely agree that the notion of heterosexuality and procreation being linked harks directly back to our age old ancestors, the farmers, the hunters, and the tribes etc.

And, I realize we've moved on. However, we are enjoying a period of relative decadence right now, and of course we've overpopulated Earth. I don't really care how many ladyboys, homosexuals, MSM's, and whatever else are running around. At least, for the most part, they're not breeding which is good for the state of our planet right now.

I just don't think the value of a heterosexual union should be diminished in any way. Even homosexuals, ladyboys, etc. owe their very existence to a heterosexual union or, at the very least, a sperm fertilizing an egg, whatever. If the human race ever gets itself in a fine pickle again where our numbers are threatened non-heterosexuals will once again be of no value in terms of forwarding the progress of the human race. Right now it's just really easy to look around and overlook the true purpose of marriage between a natural man and woman and the family they plan to create. Admittedly, at the moment that contribution isn't necessarily necessary.

QUOTE= If the human race ever gets itself in a fine pickle again where our numbers are threatened non-heterosexuals will once again be of no value in terms of forwarding the progress of the human race.

Rubbish, it doesn't mean gays could not "perform" if things in the world get desperate, and also sperm banks can exist, and if it was that only gays were left to impregnate, to your idea's they are sterile??

your attitude then would mean only hetro's are a useful form of continuing the species? maybe you would think like others on this thread that all the offspring would turn out to be gay :lol:

I didn't say only hetero's can forward our species, just that they typically do.

Non-heterosexuals just have no interest in procreating. If we're ever in a "fine pickle" again how do you know there will be sperm banks?

Of course they could still have a societal value whether it be social, work related, or whatever, but they wouldn't be putting more butts in diapers on average, so what would be their legacy if they don't contribute something like art or inventions?

If they have no interest doesn't mean they could not donate does it ??

[DumFarang]

If they have no interest doesn't mean they could not donate does it ??

Well a donation usually means a person gives to a cause they will not directly be helping out with, hence the donation is the help they're giving. So, yeah, homosexuals can contribute and then who does the child rearing? Who are the role models? What about family? Doesn't sound like a good system to me.

[animatic]

Looks like after some period of time, the society will be forced to tolerate paedophilia, zoophilia, necrophilia, incest, drug abuse, rape and murder as a ''human right'' norm.

That's a fair point and it will happen. Mankind will be demonstrating for thier rights to legally marry thier cat or dog even goldfish so they can live in a normal happy family enviroment just like everyone else.

No, because these are not norms of equal and informed consent,

but of taking advantage or abuse of another entity living or dead.

Though I challenge any government to successfully prosecute

someone for having sex with a plastic bag filled with cows liver...

Or say a water mellon

As bizarre as it maybe, is it illegal?

Of course wanting to MARRY the water mellon

would indicate a level of mental disorder worth treatment.

Yes I agree with what you say. However wasn't homosexuality once an illegal act (Buggery) and some who committed such an act were considered suffering a mental condition. Yes society has evolved and the stigma removed but how can anyone say that the same will not occure for the offence of beastiality. Those that indulge in such a thing today may very well be the homosexuals of yesterday.

Again, comes back to informed consent.

Even if you use a condom with the sheep it doesn't know what it is agreeing to.

[animatic]

animatic' timestamp='1310884135' post='4564309'

Gays and lesbians also seem to have children these days.

Some from earlier hetero relations ships, and others from In-vitro procedures with donors. So to say these days it exclusively removes them from the gene pool no longer is valid.

That's true, but I don't think we're talking about large or sustainable numbers here.

On the other point, I completely agree that the notion of heterosexuality and procreation being linked harks directly back to our age old ancestors, the farmers, the hunters, and the tribes etc.

And, I realize we've moved on. However, we are enjoying a period of relative decadence right now, and of course we've overpopulated Earth. I don't really care how many ladyboys, homosexuals, MSM's, and whatever else are running around. At least, for the most part, they're not breeding which is good for the state of our planet right now.

I just don't think the value of a heterosexual union should be diminished in any way. Even homosexuals, ladyboys, etc. owe their very existence to a heterosexual union or, at the very least, a sperm fertilizing an egg, whatever. If the human race ever gets itself in a fine pickle again where our numbers are threatened non-heterosexuals will once again be of no value in terms of forwarding the progress of the human race. Right now it's just really easy to look around and overlook the true purpose of marriage between a natural man and woman and the family they plan to create. Admittedly, at the moment that contribution isn't necessarily necessary.

QUOTE= If the human race ever gets itself in a fine pickle again where our numbers are threatened non-heterosexuals will once again be of no value in terms of forwarding the progress of the human race.

Rubbish, it doesn't mean gays could not "perform" if things in the world get desperate, and also sperm banks can exist, and if it was that only gays were left to impregnate, to your idea's they are sterile??

your attitude then would mean only hetro's are a useful form of continuing the species? maybe you would think like others on this thread that all the offspring would turn out to be gay :lol:

I didn't say only hetero's can forward our species, just that they typically do.

Non-heterosexuals just have no interest in procreating. If we're ever in a "fine pickle" again how do you know there will be sperm banks?

Of course they could still have a societal value whether it be social, work related, or whatever, but they wouldn't be putting more butts in diapers on average, so what would be their legacy if they don't contribute something like art or inventions?

If they have no interest doesn't mean they could not donate does it ??

There is a difference in 'wanting to have sex with the opposite sex'

and 'wanting to procreate'. Gays and lesbians can very much want

to procreate but not have a regular sexual relations ship

with the donor or carrier of the correspondants chromosomes.

As to rearing and role models.

Lesbians have straight male acquaintances, just as gays have straight female acquaintances. The children see the gamut of straight people in their lives... unless you assume they are locked up till age 18 without TV, Movies or any kind of literature.

I have known children raised by male male and female female couples and the kids are open minded, tolerant, but most all straight.

Edited July 17, 2011 by animatic

[rubin]

Looks like after some period of time, the society will be forced to tolerate paedophilia, zoophilia, necrophilia, incest, drug abuse, rape and murder as a ''human right'' norm.

That's a fair point and it will happen. Mankind will be demonstrating for thier rights to legally marry thier cat or dog even goldfish so they can live in a normal happy family enviroment just like everyone else.

No, because these are not norms of equal and informed consent,

but of taking advantage or abuse of another entity living or dead.

Though I challenge any government to successfully prosecute

someone for having sex with a plastic bag filled with cows liver...

Or say a water mellon

As bizarre as it maybe, is it illegal?

Of course wanting to MARRY the water mellon

would indicate a level of mental disorder worth treatment.

Yes I agree with what you say. However wasn't homosexuality once an illegal act (Buggery) and some who committed such an act were considered suffering a mental condition. Yes society has evolved and the stigma removed but how can anyone say that the same will not occure for the offence of beastiality. Those that indulge in such a thing today may very well be the homosexuals of yesterday.

Exactly. Homosexuality was excluded from the list of mental disorders some time ago. Let's wait for a while, the perverts will start moaning that the society should recognize their ''right'' of marriage to a dead donkey or their own children.

[animatic]

rubin' timestamp='1310880893' post='4564169

Looks like after some period of time, the society will be forced to tolerate paedophilia, zoophilia, necrophilia, incest, drug abuse, rape and murder as a ''human right'' norm.

That's a fair point and it will happen. Mankind will be demonstrating for thier rights to legally marry thier cat or dog even goldfish so they can live in a normal happy family enviroment just like everyone else.

No, because these are not norms of equal and informed consent,

but of taking advantage or abuse of another entity living or dead.

Though I challenge any government to successfully prosecute

someone for having sex with a plastic bag filled with cows liver...

Or say a water mellon

As bizarre as it maybe, is it illegal?

Of course wanting to MARRY the water mellon

would indicate a level of mental disorder worth treatment.

Yes I agree with what you say. However wasn't homosexuality once an illegal act (Buggery) and some who committed such an act were considered suffering a mental condition. Yes society has evolved and the stigma removed but how can anyone say that the same will not occure for the offence of beastiality. Those that indulge in such a thing today may very well be the homosexuals of yesterday.

Exactly. Homosexuality was excluded from the list of mental disorders some time ago. Let's wait for a while, the perverts will start moaning that the society should recognize their ''right'' of marriage to a dead donkey or their own children.

Strawman argument.

If we let gays have their way, then others will want sex with animals.

Well guess what they are out there now, a few real oddballs,

But you don't see the Animal Sex campaigns happening,

because they are so far from any normal % of the human condition.

Not too likely any gays are going to suport that for any reasons.

But YOU are likely to REALLY piss them off....

'equating loving another human being with sex with animals.'

This slippery slope argument doesn't hold much besides fear in to.

Again the worse case scenarios for the end of society by allowing gays to be themselves is ginned up to assuage pure fear. Not logic and not a clear look at the human condition.

Edited July 17, 2011 by animatic

[rubin]

Marriage with same sex partner is against Nature. Can a gay couple give a birth, give a new life to a human being? No. They can't. Or they can? According to a new system of ''human values''?