Moderation, censorship and protectionism.

[RMorgan]

Hi everyone,

I´d like to thank you for keeping this thread polite and respectful. That´s the only way to conduct a fruitful discussion.

Now, I´d like to clarify some things.

Some of you may be thinking that I´m making a big deal out of small things and you´re relatively right. There are bigger things to worry about...right?

However, I went through a lot of changes during the last months and, for many reasons, I´ve learned that nothing can be neglected, specially the small, almost invisible things, because people have already been neglecting these apparently insignificant things for centuries, until that at some point, when people realized they should pay attention to those previously small issues, they had already grown so big, that nobody knows how to figure them out.

As I said on another thread, society is shaped as a pyramid, regarding all its aspects. In this specific case, you must be aware that , deposited at its base, there are a trillion small issues that we need to overcome before we can progress and solve the major issues on top.

We´ve been talking about pretty big stuff here, but why we can´t never come up with a practical and immediately applicable solution? Because we need, as a society, to solve small stuff first. There´s no shortcut.

It´s like if life worked from bottom to top, only that the only way you can reach and solve the top issues, is by eliminating the bottom ones, which allows gravity and momentum to bring the top issues to your reach...There are no stairs...No elevators...No shortcuts.

This thread is mostly centered around two issues: the moderation and lock down of that other thread and homophobia.

When those moderation choices were made regarding that other thread, an issue was created. It wasn´t there before. I guess by now you have an idea on how such apparently small issue could grow out of control, eventually leading to unnecessary conflict in this environment and beyond. Remember that this forum is a miniaturized model of society, and everything that happens here can happen anywhere else, but in much bigger dimensions.

The other issue is homophobia, which indeed carries a lot of energy. Behind the word lives the meaning, and the meaning, in this case, is oppression. The exact same moment happened many times before: We have abolished slavery and some people were against it. We gave women the right to vote and some people opposed it. We have granted black people the right to vote, to go to universities to be equal in the eyes of the law, but some people were against it...

The same people that are now against same sex marriage, were always against any measure to restore freedom, were always against natural consciousness evolution. If the world was managed by people like Hagmann, we would still be living in a XVI century like society, or worse.

First, have in mind that, before law, there was freedom in its purest form, where anyone was naturally free to do whatever they want but also free to suffer the full weight of the consequences of their actions. The law was created as a ridiculous attempt to regulate freedom, and freedom doesn´t like being regulated. Freedom is self regulated and doesn´t need laws or morals; It´s beautiful and cruel, like nature.

Anyway, this is about the conflict generated by oppressed and oppressor. It´s the energy of freedom claiming back its territory. Conflict generates energy beyond rational comprehension, and such energy can either be released and, as you know, energy is never lost, but transformed into something else, or such energy could be oppressed, locked, and it gets denser and denser, because it has got nowhere to go, not enough space to expand, until it eventually implodes, releasing chaos.

So, again, be careful with who or what you support. Be extra careful to where you direct your energy to. Life is magic, and each gesture, word and thought has a meaning that goes way beyond what our intellect could ever rationalize.

You only get to be who you want to be if you live with absolute awareness of the whole, where the tiniest of things is indistinguishable from the gigantic.

Reality is not an illusion; Just the contrary. It´s much more real than we could ever imagine, and the vast majority of things happen at levels that are either so small or so overwhelmingly huge, that we can´t make sense of them; Literally.

So, more important than watching your steps is to watch everything that happens in the space in between them.

Cheers,

Raf.

[Whiskey_Mystic]

You mods know that I support you. Even when my best buddy was banned.

I think you should take another look at what Raf is saying.

[christian]

A general comment: Removing disruptive emotional charges makes communicating so easy. I'm so glad that I have no horse in this race.

Posted by RMorgan (here)
Well, let alone his other opinions about other pretty relevant matters for his working field, like that way he´s always and repeatedly using the word Marxism and Socialism to mislead his readers into thinking that, using his own words, there´s a "Marxist takeover of America" happening right now, while in fact, what´s truly happening is exact the contrary.

Behind the scenes, the establishment is very much into Marxism/Socialsm/Communism in the sense of creating a centrally controlled society, I think. Rockefeller endorsed Mao, Wallstreet bankers founded the Bolshevik revolution, numerous high-ranking politicians in the US openly endorsed communistic ideas at one time or another... Corporatism, Communism, Fascism, it all boils down to a tiny elite tyranically ruling over everybody else. The left-right debate is phony in my eyes, it's freedom vs. tyranny, self-determination vs. feudalism.

Hagman from all I know about him seems to be in favor of a lot of freedom but with a hardcore Christian taint, wanting to limit individual freedoms that I think shouldn't be limited.

As for the "Is Hagman homophobic" thread, it was very lop-sided, in my opinion, an overly harsh attack against Hagman. But we can all help to put it into perspective.

In my opinion, his most important point in this article is:

A very important aspect of those goals focuses on breaking down all cultural standards of morality, including the promotion of all forms of homosexuality, promiscuity and degeneracy as “normal and healthy.”

This is what's happening, I think, which of course doesn't mean that every gay person is corrupting the society. Look at many inventors, philosophers, and great spirits from ancient Rome or Greece for instance. But Hagman would like to prohibit homosexuality in general:

It was in 1986, a mere 27 years ago, that the U.S. Supreme Court upheld state’s rights to enact sodomy laws in the landmark case of Bowers v. Hardwick. Citing then Chief Justice Warren Burger, “To hold that the act of homosexual sodomy is somehow protected as a fundamental right would be to cast aside millennia of moral teaching.” That fragile thread of morality lasted only 17 years. In 2003, the Bowers v. Hardwick was overturned by the Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down the sodomy law in Texas and, by extension, invalidated sodomy laws in other states.

Although it was contended at the time that the latter case had nothing to do with same-sex marriage, Supreme Court Justice Antonion Scalia astutely saw through the smoke screen and during oral arguments, flatly admonished anyone who would listen that the decision would open the floodgates toward the recognition of same-sex marriage. And so it did.

I think he'd be better off focusing on more important crimes and solutions to societal problems. I'm not into homosexuality and I wouldn't really encourage anyone to get into it because personally I feel like it's healthy to embrace your gender and find someone of the other gender for a healthy energetic interchange. But I do acknowledge that there may be such a thing as a gender-indentity problem within some people, so I know I should be prudent with judgements.

In general people should follow their dreams as long as they do it voluntarily and don't harm others, I think for some people being gay may be a good choice, for some people it may not. In any case, people should be free to choose. To counteract moral degeneration, I'd suggest simply live a good life, inspire others freely, and call out the real tyrants and psychopaths that are deliberately hellbent on putting down humanity.

[RMorgan]

Posted by christian (here)
A general comment: Removing disruptive emotional charges makes communicating so easy. I'm so glad that I have no horse in this race.

Hey Chris,

Just some brief comments about your reply.

First, the figure of a central authority is not a premise of Marxism and all its variations, but a premise of totalitarianism, which is a variable that could be applied to any social economical model.

All those guys, when they had supported allegedly socialist models, they were just conducting their business as usual. They are known to finance all sides of the same war.

Everybody should read Carl Marx, who is your fellow countryman. The man was simply brilliant...If society was advanced enough to apply and improve his theories without corruption, we would be living in a much better society right now.

About the degeneration of society, homosexuality is far from being a determining factor. The degeneration of society is driven by a majority, from many aspects, while homosexuals are part of a minority; They simply don´t have enough power to degenerate society on their own. As a quick observation, homosexuals are no more promiscuous than heterosexuals.

If you could read minds, probably you would find much more dirty little secrets in the Sunday´s mass, than you could find in a gay club. Morality is nothing but a cheap mask used as a pathetic attempt to hide what´s behind it.

Another point is that being gay is not a choice, just like being born blond, black, yellow or diabetic. It just happens and there´s nothing you can do about it. There´s no choice or "cure". I have many gay friends, and they had made that clear to me a number of times.

Of course, there are people who engage homosexual adventures just to try something different, which is indeed a choice, but those are not natural born homosexuals.

Cheers,

Raf.

[Sierra]

Raf says, "You only get to be who you want to be if you live with absolute awareness of the whole, where the tiniest of things is indistinguishable from the gigantic."

God is in the details.

[Beren]

Another point is that being gay it´s not a choice, just like being born blond, black, yellow or diabetic. It just happens and there´s nothing you can do about it. There´s no choice or "cure". I have many gay friends, and they had many that clear to me a number of times.

Of course, there are people who engage homosexual adventures just to try something different, which is indeed a choice, but those are not natural born homosexuals.

Cheers,

Raf

Raf,

It is a choice but a one which is made before a soul came into this life.
You don`t have to believe this but many a expert of this field can testify this.
Many psychiatrists or MD who dealt with life between lives phenomena can point you in this that everything is a choice before we go on into next adventure in body.

Other question is why some soul chose to be homosexual in this life and hetero in others...

My question is why humans (most) are feeling very ugly when they see homosexual acts?
Is it something deeply ingrained in psyche?

Do we try to over rationalize it now - the one of the many human acts and behaviours?

First and foremost we have to observe the fine connection between our acts and thoughts and words and the results of the same.
Maybe the deeply ingrained sense of extending the species or enabling the new soul to come in physical is awaking the fire in us when we see the act of another human being who chose to act differently...

There is freedom of choice but we cannot negate or ignore the emotions and feelings we have when we observe our or someone else`s choices.
We can feel the possible result thus we grow the particular emotion towards it.

There are few stages of the emotion:

1. a man or woman sees other men or women in homosexual behaviour
2. an instinct kick in of specie preserve and a outburst of negative feeling (because homosexual cannot extend the specie naturally)
3. if the first reactionary emotion is controlled (if it doesn`t outburst as anger deemed as homofobia) then comes the second of rationalizing it
4. then comes understanding of why someone is doing something and realization of free will of that someone
5. but then that someone cannot ask for right of free will for their acts without allowing the act of free will of others who see their acts as erroneous
6. then the conflict arises which is basically name calling of two polarized sides
7. conflict can be dealt with only with higher understanding of who we are- not bodies - souls-spirits
8. homofobia implies that someone is afraid of homosexual act or people, some are afraid because of various reasons-thus they attack
9. but also there others who are not afraid of homosexuality but do not see it as high human expression, rather as depression of certain soul`s potential.
10. and then if all these stages are passed through one emerge as a person who is above sexual division and personal choices understanding that they are personal choice s which will have consequences - good or bad.

All this above is and can be used for any instance not just a choice of homosexual or heterosexual act.
A person is not defined by what he or she does in an intimate way.
But if a person wants to be identified as homo or hetero sexual- it implies that this choice colors every aspect of their lives.

For example I am heterosexual but I don`t walk around telling everybody how proud I am of being one, I don`t post on facebook endless comments about what do I as heterosexual want and do and I don`t put hashtags of hetero everywhere, I don`t emotionally harras all about my sexuality and how many women I want to **** or anything other that is connected to openly brag myself about what my sexual choice is.


And I know many homosexuals who doesn`t do either of these things. They know who they are and they are fine with it. They look at the bigger picture.


In this context of emotionally unstable people of both choices , corporations are heavily abusing their lives.
Women are constantly sexualized for the sake of selling the product, men are started to being that as well.

Then same corporations introduced the political correctness to people now threatening their free expression so you have both examples of men and women, Homo or hetero.
Sex is being heavily abused theme because it`s a glue to all kind of parasites because through sexual acts we release enormous energy.

[naste.de.lumina]

In my view, although the topic have originated in a discussion about homophobia, reactions and attitudes turned him into a discussion of principles.
I understand that Raf is defending the principles that form the basis of his character. And these principles can not be modified according to the circumstances of sympathy and / or friendship, under penalty of being discredited.
It's a difficult topic but it can provide valuable moments of intense reflection and reaffirmation of purpose and principles defined by consciousness as a goal.
Grateful to all.

[mevlana]

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)

Posted by mojo (here)
Accusations on Greer were allowed to persist and they were not called ad hominem attacks and wonder how the Hagman thread was different?

The 'charges' against Greer were:

1. That he was lying about the ETs' benevolence, about abductions, and about what the US involvement with the ETs was.
2. That he had been involved in illegal activities.

None of (1) or (2) above applies to Hagmann,

there might be difference between lying and believing. If I see someone performing tracheotomy to 5 years old girl who has allergic tracheal spasm. i will approach him to help securing the tube which one has to be fixed surrounding tissue. If this was staged at Eastern of Turkey's suburban probably we would be considered as abductors and child torturer which would cause our self were lynched by locals.
If I witnessed same scene at western Turkey metropolis street I would try to stop the person in that situation which any immediate second an ambulance could arrive the place. Maybe Dr.? Greer was witnessed his all experience similar to my first sample and considering all interference are benevolent. My advice to him if he see me coughing from my smoking habit's result , performing a tracheotomy on me would not be appreciated and welcomed.
your second reasoning as a
"That he had been involved in illegal activities."
This is subjective issue depends on who governing and lawmaking is.
I could be accused for been involved in illegal activities these days even though my same action would be considered a heroic act 10 years ago.

[Nickolai]

Posted by EYES WIDE OPEN (here)
I cant help but call out this stuff. I wish I was more eloquent like other posters here. But I am not. I don't really have a way with words.
I seem to get myself in trouble all the time here.

Dear EYES WIDE OPEN,

I have no clue why should you ask for apologies here. It's promised that the forum is for humans who seek understanding and it is also promised we are free to speak what is on our mind....

You shouldn't be!

[Strat]

This thread is getting convoluted. The main point of the thread was/is(?) censorship.

Posted by RMorgan (here)
Going straight to the point. Our colleague posted the article for our appreciation and criticism. The absolutely ridiculous content, naturally, didn´t generate very positive feedback, though.

Then, the moderation, feeling offended because the author of the article is someone of their esteem, quickly changed the title to "..ad hominem attack.." and definitively locked the thread later on.

If this thread were to have an official mod team reply it would be:

Posted by Ilie Pandia (here)
I want to acknowledge that after reading Doug's piece fully, his views are indeed homophobic. His article is an attack on the gay community and it should not be minimized in the light of his other articles.

You should be an attorney...joking!

So we're basically all on the same page.

So should moderators change original thread titles? If so, what conditions would demand a title change?

---------------

Yes thread titles should change under certain circumstances. For instance if someone creates a thread and the title is, "got a question" and the context of the thread is about faraday cages, then ideally that would warrant a title change to, "faraday cage question" or whatever. Also if the title itself is offensive then it should be changed (deleted). This would include blatant profanity, racism, sexual references, marketing (spam) etc.

I don't see any other reason to change thread titles.

Regarding gay rights: 50 years from now people will look back and think how could we have been so prejudiced? Kinda like how we look back 50 years ago and think how could we have been so prejudiced?

Prejudiced isn't the word I'm looking for, doesn't carry the weight. I'm kinda using it as a blanket term. Someone with a better command of the English language help me out.

[BrianEn]

We live in a prejiced society. You can't really escape nor fight it at every turn. I hate a lot of the attitudes that I encounter. Have faced it myself as my nationality is known for its love of alcohol. It's no where near the levels that other have to face.

This video is about a grade 3 teacher who runs an experiment to help her students understand what it feels like to be discriminated against. I was astounded with the effectineness of her methods and how she grounded her students afterwards.

http://www.upworthy.com/watch-a-teac...nable-2?c=ufb1

I highly recommend this vid.

[Snoweagle]

Personally, I agree with the closure of the previous thread.
I also agree the views of Doug Hagmann were strongly homophobic by definition.
I also agree the moderators were correct to discontinue the personal attacks on any individual for what ever comments made.
That is Avalon, we are here to discuss topics. Discrediting the information provided is fair game though not the messenger.

A powerfully emotive topic requiring a global paradigm shift in cultural beliefs, has and will continue to be controversial, yet as already stated, is a tiny blip on the multitude of enforced changes forced on the global consciousness to separate and divide communities during this period of hierarchical change. A forceful distraction aligned with the gamut of pervasive decline in morality hardly entices nor encourages immediate acceptance and tolerance where once there was none. Change is painful, time is the healer, if we have enough.

Arguing strongly or forcibly for unerring unequivocal acceptance for same sex marriage will not win the day. State your case and allow others to do the same, hopefully and eventually, a semblance of temperate respect and dignity will champion this belief. Expect some stormy seas during this transition.

A cautionary opinion: a topic of such torrid opinions, now enshrined lawfully places everyone under the eagle eyed litigators watchful gaze. Protecting the principles of the Avalon forum is one thing, which I support but preventing the Avalon players from crossing any self inflicted legal issues has also to be considered which we must, (gags), accept the moderators reasonable decisions. Successfully and with difficulty, we have witnessed here during this debate.

Hopefully not off topic, which I have discussed with others quietly, during the 1930-1945s during the rise of National Socialism in Europe, minority groups were targeted. I am concerned now that with the rise again of National Socialism in North America with well acknowledged Camp systems, why this doesn't seem to be of concern as history has a habit of repeating itself.

Personally, as a single heterosexual man with both straight and gay friends, am coming out of retirement to start my own stable of ladies:-)
So all is good here:-)

Thank you Avalon for great discussion and discernment. Respect.

[AuCo]

Sorry to have missed the boat (previous thread). In regards to homosexuality, this is what I have observed:

- Women sterilization: strongly opposed [by general population]
- Abortion: costly and not all that welcomed
- One child policy: what a mess - China has 30 million men that cannot find their mate.
- Homosexual: by nature (or so some said) - now about 10% and growing.

I looked around. There were children growing up falling in love with boy/girlfriends - a beautiful thing. Then overnight some turn gay/lesbian. I told my friends that it must be the water. Well, vaccines come in liquid form mostly.

On the second hand, the Greek armies did not have vaccines back then that historians noticed.

There again, off the chart I go.

[christian]

Posted by RMorgan (here)
Everybody should read Carl Marx, who is your fellow countryman. The man was simply brilliant...If society was advanced enough to apply and improve his theories without corruption, we would be living in a much better society right now.

Oh, I just wanna be free. I don't like any kind of society where—even if you don't do any harm to others—you are forced to do certain things for the "benefit of the collective." Because the end (=benefit) doesn't justify the means (=force).

I'm all for actions that are for the benefit of the whole, but they gotta come from the heart voluntarily through conviction, not through law. In that spirit, I'd rather suggest to read the Austrians like Mises or Hayek.

Posted by RMorgan (here)
About the degeneration of society, homosexuality is far from being a determining factor. The degeneration of society is driven by a majority, from many aspects, while homosexuals are part of a minority; They simply don´t have enough power to degenerate society on their own. As a quick observation, homosexuals are no more promiscuous than heterosexuals.

Looking at the Latin roots of degeneration, I find:

de- = reversal, undoing, removing
genus = race, kind

Homosexual sex doesn't produce offspring. Humanity would die out if everybody would only choose to have homosexual relationships. So this can't really be it, hence in my eyes homosexuality is but a tolerable deviation, kind of like so many other things that humans do that are rather unhealthy but that some or even many people might somehow enjoy.

Posted by RMorgan (here)
Another point is that being gay is not a choice, just like being born blond, black, yellow or diabetic. It just happens and there´s nothing you can do about it. There´s no choice or "cure". I have many gay friends, and they had made that clear to me a number of times.

I understand that there probably is a predisposition of some kind. But then again, people have all kind of predispositions from past lives, not all of them are good, in fact many can be quite negative. People then may act compulsively and say, "that's just how I am, I have no choice." I'm not saying that homosexuality is or should be considered a crime, but many criminals justify their crimes exactly like that.

The way I see it, the physical and energetic bodies of males and females complement each other. If there is an imbalance somewhere, you might be drawn to homosexual relationships. Maybe if you as a homosexual person really work on a balance within your gender, you might overcome this and be no longer 'without choice.' Of course, this is only my speculation, it's only a thought that I entertain. I don't wanna force this perspective on anyone, especially not on people who would come to tell me how they experience it very differently and how I'm completly wrong. They may be right.

[Freed Fox]

I don't want to offend anybody here, but then again many of the comments (whether intentional or not) would be quite offensive to a homosexual.

Sexual orientation is not a choice. That should be blatantly obvious to anyone, even without scientific data to support it. To other heterosexual men here; did you ever, at any point, make a conscious decision to like women? Did you ever choose to not be attracted to other men? No. Of course you didn't. That was simply your predisposition.

The argument that same-sex relationships don't produce offspring is a tired one. Is 7 billion people simply not enough? Do we really need to be procreating like rabbits until overpopulation really does become an inescapable problem? Does every couple need to see childbearing as the bottom line, when there are already thousands of orphans with no one to care for them? Procreation is not the bottom line. Love is. Homosexuality isn't some kind of virus or contagious disease that, if allowed, is going to spread and doom the human race. Such absurd implications convey a severe misunderstanding of this issue, and is rather thinly veiled homophobia.

Of course, homophobia itself isn't of any major concern, unless it is acted upon (such as, for instance, claiming homosexuality is a 'problem' that needs to be somehow 'fixed').

[christian]

Posted by Freed Fox (here)
I don't want to offend anybody here, but then again many of the comments (whether intentional or not) would be quite offensive to a homosexual.

Which comments? Please clarify, let's figure this out.

[Ernie Nemeth]

We sure are messed up about sex. We can't even admit it is fundamentally governed by our own desire to orgasm, not on a sexual partner. I think homophobia is a convenient cover to our real hang-up, which is masturbation. No one wants to talk about that one. It's easier to target a small group and discuss their, not our own, deviant/non-deviant behavoirs.

Sex is sex, it's fun, it feels good. (So long as it is between consenting, respectful adults)

Procreation is another thing altogether...

[RMorgan]

Posted by christian (here)

Posted by RMorgan (here)
Everybody should read Carl Marx, who is your fellow countryman. The man was simply brilliant...If society was advanced enough to apply and improve his theories without corruption, we would be living in a much better society right now.

Oh, I just wanna be free. I don't like any kind of society where—even if you don't do any harm to others—you are forced to do certain things for the "benefit of the collective." Because the end (=benefit) doesn't justify the means (=force).

I'm all for actions that are for the benefit of the whole, but they gotta come from the heart voluntarily through conviction, not through law. In that spirit, I'd rather suggest to read the Austrians like Mises or Hayek.

Hey Chris,

I wont discuss homosexuality with you, because I totally disagree with your perspective and discussing it wouldn´t take us anywhere.

However, I can discuss Marxism and socialism, since it´s a much more black and white theme, with little possibility of relativization.

First of all, the only socialist model where the individual is obliged to do things which may go against his will, is the totalitarian state socialism, which assume totalitarian characteristics similar to those of fascism or any other authoritarian regime.

Apart from that, there are many extremely interesting models that I suggest you to explore, such as Libertarian Socialism, which of course comes from Marxism, and is a system that I truly believe to be a much better alternative to our current one:

Libertarian socialism is a group of political philosophies that promote a non-hierarchical, non-bureaucratic society without private property in the means of production. Libertarian socialists believe in converting present-day private productive property into common or public goods, while retaining respect for personal property.

Libertarian socialism is opposed to coercive forms of social organization. It promotes free association in place of government and opposes the social relations of capitalism, such as wage labor. The term libertarian socialism is used by some socialists to differentiate their philosophy from state socialism, and by some as a synonym for left anarchism.

Adherents of libertarian socialism assert that a society based on freedom and equality can be achieved through abolishing authoritarian institutions that control certain means of production and subordinate the majority to an owning class or political and economic elite.

Libertarian socialism also constitutes a tendency of thought that promotes the identification, criticism, and practical dismantling of illegitimate authority in all aspects of life.

I´m not sure if you enjoy Noam Chomsky´s work, but if you do, he´s a Libertarian Socialist, and has a lot to say about the subject.

Here´s a video interview, where he explains some concepts:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkaO12X-h1Y

Another nice article, by Chris Wilson:

How a Libertarian Capitalist Became a Libertarian Socialist

Another one, by Felipe Corrêa:

The Libertarian Socialist Thought of Noam Chomsky

From my point of view, it´s the freer, most democratic, horizontal, anti-authoritarian and viable social economic system that we could apply in today´s society.

I believe most people on Avalon would be interested to study such system, since it´s extremely aligned with what most of us believe to constitute a fair system, where there´s no pyramidal structure, no controlling elite, no authoritarian government, and where democracy is truly in the hands of the people.

I know most Americans still carry heavy residues of cold war propaganda, so, please be open minded and try to look to the terms Marxism and Socialism from an unprejudiced perspective, specially in this specific case, because Libertarian Socialism is very very interesting and promising.

By the way, using the term Marxism as pejorative, as Hagmann and Jones use all the time, is an idiot generalization. I´m absolutely sure that Carl Marx would not appreciate the authoritarian model of socialism, just like Adam Smith would not appreciate the current model of Free Market.

Cheers,

Raf.

[Freed Fox]

Posted by christian (here)

Posted by Freed Fox (here)
I don't want to offend anybody here, but then again many of the comments (whether intentional or not) would be quite offensive to a homosexual.

Which comments? Please clarify, let's figure this out.

I don't want to go pointing fingers, Christian. This topic is divisive enough as it is. The points I touched upon generally indicate what I take issue with. It is easy enough as a heterosexual to approach this topic in a cold and clinical fashion, but it is a matter of human rights, tolerance of something which is entirely harmless but is treated as otherwise by quite a few, and an issue which is too often met with physical and psychological abuse.

[ulli]

To find out if sex and procreation are linked we might want to ask those who engineered our genes in the first place.
They must have had a terrible fear of humanity dying out one day....hence they ensured the fun part, and even made the sex instinct stronger than the mind.