JJ Abrams says gay characters will "of course" be included in future Star Wars movies...

thejeff wrote:

I never said anything about only using sex for reproduction. I said that a penis and a vagina were made for each other. You hear what you want to hear.

If you want to go shove yours in every lubricated oblong orifice that you can find, be my guest. That doesn't mean that the orifice was designed for that purpose. If you think the anus was designed for that, then quit taking dumps.

Once again you are *asserting* design without *proving* design. You don't have evidence that humans were "designed." We have evidence that humans *evolved*, but that is much different than design. You can't just assert without evidence.

I'll entertain your thinking for a moment here. Since the hand wasn't designed to go around the penis, is masturbation immoral? I mean, that goes against nature right? Are chimpanzees immoral when they engage homosexual activity? Aren't their bodies anatomically similar to ours? Why would monkeys do things that are contrary to nature? What about birds?

We don't you just be completely honest about the proverbial elephant in the room here: the reason you don't like homosexuality is because your religion dictates it. That's really the only leg you have left to stand on. Just admit it. It'll be okay.

How did they "evolve", then? I am thinking that the function of the penis and vagina had something to do with it.

You are the one who keeps bringing up religion in this thread, not me. I purposefully didn't even use the work "design". You are projecting religion onto my thoughts because of what you know about me from other threads. You don't need religion to see that homosexuality goes against the natural order of humanity. You want to use evolution? Great. Every atom of our being and the survival of our species demands heterosexual sex.

I am not being inconsistent. I am asking YOU those questions; I am not saying they are ok.

Your answer about legality is obviously the right one, and a lucid one at that. What you are illustrating, though, is that morality obviously extends beyond the realm of "consent". (I would advise AGAINST using legality to justify much of anything, however, considering that it was recently legal to keep women and minorities from voting, etc.)

thejeff wrote:

morality obviously extends beyond the realm of "consent". (I would advise AGAINST using legality to justify much of anything, however, considering that it was recently legal to keep women and minorities from voting, etc.)

Actually no. Standards are arbitrary. Read it again. While eighteen is the agreed upon standard this does not mean that all eighteen year olds have the same capacity for consent. Legal? Yes. Moral? Not necessarily.

Stagger Lee wrote:

thejeff wrote:

morality obviously extends beyond the realm of "consent". (I would advise AGAINST using legality to justify much of anything, however, considering that it was recently legal to keep women and minorities from voting, etc.)

Actually no. Standards are arbitrary. Read it again. While eighteen is the agreed upon standard this does not mean that all eighteen year olds have the same capacity for consent. Legal? Yes. Moral? Not necessarily.

I am with you :-)

C3PO has been a positive role model for gay youth since the 1970's.

thejeff wrote:

I never said anything about only using sex for reproduction. I said that a penis and a vagina were made for each other. You hear what you want to hear.

If you want to go shove yours in every lubricated oblong orifice that you can find, be my guest. That doesn't mean that the orifice was designed for that purpose. If you think the anus was designed for that, then quit taking dumps.

Jeff, given the repeated use the language about the purpose of these sexual organs, I'm not sure exactly what else you might have meant.

Don't you think it's more than a little absurd to reduce sex and sexuality to a pole and a hole?

If you think the anus has no sexual function, then don't engage anal sex. But other people enjoy that. Some people like to kiss. Some people don't like it at all. Some people like oral sex. Some people don't like it at all.

I'd suggest if you want to use the word "immoral", the ore appropriate application for that would be to describe someone thinking s/he can tell other people what parts of their body should be used how, where and with whom.

If you think your penis was designed to stick into a vagina, quit peeing out of it.

I would like to thank you for making it through an entire post without telling what I am thinking or what I meant by something. We obviously aren't going to change each other's minds, but I feel like we have at least made SOME progress :-)

I would like to thank you for for making it through an entire post with being a passive aggressive patronizing p ...... uh .... errr ... never mind.

Thanks, friend ;-)

thejeff wrote:

Thanks, friend ;-)

Here is the latest.

FWIW, I have no problem with "open to interpretation". I would have a problem with inserting an LGBT character, just for the sake of having one.

thejeff wrote:

Thanks, friend ;-)

Close .. but still no cigar.

thejeff wrote:

thejeff wrote:

Thanks, friend ;-)

http://www.theguardian.com/film/2016/mar/04/mark-hamill-luke-skywalker-gay-jj-abrams-star-wars-episode-viii?CMP=fb_us

Here is the latest.

FWIW, I have no problem with "open to interpretation". I would have a problem with inserting an LGBT character, just for the sake of having one.

You're all for "don't ask, don't tell" ... Jeff, try to join us in the 21st century some time.

JJ takes the cawk so of course he'll continue the propaganda.

POTDUS wrote:

thejeff wrote:More to the point, I resent using an established platform to make a controversial socio-political stance[quote]thejeff wrote:

Lord Jeff, you're beginning to sound like the LRC co-founders

Homosexuality is a 'well-established platform.' It's practiced all over the world, goes on in the minds of all sorts of 'straight' people, and is commonplace among all sorts of species.

Including homosexuality in a film is not 'controversial', it's not 'a stance'. It's an accurate depiction of reality. Especially war-making reality, or realities where people have to travel far from home and have little access to women.

Abrahamic faiths (and many other cultures) make it out to be something impure. It's bigotry.

You're being a bigot. You have lots of company on these boards.

thejeff wrote:

Thomas Jefferson's Love Child wrote:

Right. I'm sure the mental heath issues are directly related the act of gay sex and have nothing to do with things like homophobic bullying, struggling to come out, and being rejected by jeebus-loving family members.

Or, it could be that homosexual feelings are a bi-product of deeper psychological and mental disorders. Please don't pretend to know causation, here.

You stole the words right out of my mouth.

Stagger Lee wrote:

thejeff wrote:

2. Are you seriously comparing our mental abilities to invent a heavier-than-air flying craft with the clear natural design of the human body that males are meant to be with females?

You are implying causation without proof of causation; we don't know that males are "meant" to be with females or "designed" to be with each other. We do know that humans evolved to reproduce through sexual means.

Two incorrect premises here.

First, if you look at a male and a female from the front view, it is clear that one is an "innie" and the other is an "outie", making it a design for the two to be together with their sexual parts.

Second, humans did not evolve to produce through sexual means. They were created (designed0 that way.

That is a good argument for the concept that one chooses to be gay, and was not born gay.

Stagger Lee wrote:

someone has the mental capacity to, say, stand trial, as one example.

I'm not sure how the "standards in this thread" would condone a 15 year old child consenting to insidious activity. You aren't being consistent.

Define "insidious" in the context of his post.