Gay DNA found

[Zysoclaplem]

Originally posted by: bozack

Originally posted by: PatboyX

1. no. tim isnt a pervert for getting a glance at another guys d. or for enjoying it. i would call that "human"
2. i was just asking if you had articles or proof of your examples. not for proof that tim was involved in it.
3. i entered the bathroom cause there were too many damn guys on line for the other one. in fact, the police did see me at belmar beach in south jersey but they didnt seem to give a damn. and i didnt go in there looking under stalls, i went in there to piss. but i did see some attractive ladies. and i had thoughts about them...which they knew nothing of.

1. Yes he is a pervert as he was looking at someone without their consent, not only was it perverted but also rude...now if he were looking at a homosexual porno or someone who openly flashed him his unit then that is a different story....

2. What articles do you want a net link, I have visited the malls, I have seen the holes in the stalls, I have heard the stories on the local news a few years back....

3. did you see the ladies naked? did you see them pulling down their panties? did you go out of your way to check out their goods as Tim seems to have?? also if there were all stalls for men as well then this might not be as easily accomplished...and as said before if a woman in there did make a stink about it you can bet your ass that a cop would have been all over you like white on rice.

For every one person who looks you have many who don't.
Imagine knowing there is a attractive naked female right beside you, but trying not to look at her. I can imagine it would be hard. No pun intended.

 

[intogamer]

:shocked:

 

[Proletariat]

Originally posted by: Zysoclaplem

Originally posted by: bozack

Originally posted by: PatboyX

1. no. tim isnt a pervert for getting a glance at another guys d. or for enjoying it. i would call that "human"
2. i was just asking if you had articles or proof of your examples. not for proof that tim was involved in it.
3. i entered the bathroom cause there were too many damn guys on line for the other one. in fact, the police did see me at belmar beach in south jersey but they didnt seem to give a damn. and i didnt go in there looking under stalls, i went in there to piss. but i did see some attractive ladies. and i had thoughts about them...which they knew nothing of.

1. Yes he is a pervert as he was looking at someone without their consent, not only was it perverted but also rude...now if he were looking at a homosexual porno or someone who openly flashed him his unit then that is a different story....

2. What articles do you want a net link, I have visited the malls, I have seen the holes in the stalls, I have heard the stories on the local news a few years back....

3. did you see the ladies naked? did you see them pulling down their panties? did you go out of your way to check out their goods as Tim seems to have?? also if there were all stalls for men as well then this might not be as easily accomplished...and as said before if a woman in there did make a stink about it you can bet your ass that a cop would have been all over you like white on rice.

For every one person who looks you have many who don't.
Imagine knowing there is a attractive naked female right beside you, but trying not to look at her. I can imagine it would be hard. No pun intended.

What is hard for you to understand? That is why we have seperate bathrooms and showers.

I don't understand why all the straight guys are getting so much flak for being concerned about it. I don't like the idea of gays checking me out and/or touching me and have in the past hit people for doing it. Even women would do that if you were staring at their pussy/boobs.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Zysoclaplem
Ethics are based on morality and opinions. So both are in the eye of the beholder.

Ethical relativism is false. This is readily demonstrated by a simple contradiction. If you believe murder is wrong but I think it's just fine and dandy, I can now kill you and you have no recourse to tell me differently. Obviously, this is unacceptable, so ethics are not relative. Further, morals may be based on ethics, but general ethical principles are independent of morals.

Originally posted by: conjur
No. You're trying to project your version of morality (again, likely based on religious views) onto others.

So, are you saying that the two purposes of our sexual faculties that I set forth are incorrect? Or are you just going to try to wave your hands and hope I drop it? If they're incorrect, for what purpose(s) do our sexual faculties exist?

 

[Zysoclaplem]

Originally posted by: Proletariat

Originally posted by: Zysoclaplem

Originally posted by: bozack

Originally posted by: PatboyX

1. no. tim isnt a pervert for getting a glance at another guys d. or for enjoying it. i would call that "human"
2. i was just asking if you had articles or proof of your examples. not for proof that tim was involved in it.
3. i entered the bathroom cause there were too many damn guys on line for the other one. in fact, the police did see me at belmar beach in south jersey but they didnt seem to give a damn. and i didnt go in there looking under stalls, i went in there to piss. but i did see some attractive ladies. and i had thoughts about them...which they knew nothing of.

1. Yes he is a pervert as he was looking at someone without their consent, not only was it perverted but also rude...now if he were looking at a homosexual porno or someone who openly flashed him his unit then that is a different story....

2. What articles do you want a net link, I have visited the malls, I have seen the holes in the stalls, I have heard the stories on the local news a few years back....

3. did you see the ladies naked? did you see them pulling down their panties? did you go out of your way to check out their goods as Tim seems to have?? also if there were all stalls for men as well then this might not be as easily accomplished...and as said before if a woman in there did make a stink about it you can bet your ass that a cop would have been all over you like white on rice.

For every one person who looks you have many who don't.
Imagine knowing there is a attractive naked female right beside you, but trying not to look at her. I can imagine it would be hard. No pun intended.

What is hard for you to understand? That is why we have seperate bathrooms and showers.

I don't understand why all the straight guys are getting so much flak for being concerned about it. I don't like the idea of gays checking me out and/or touching me and have in the past hit people for doing it. Even women would do that if you were staring at their pussy/boobs.

That's some type of insecurity within yourself. I won't try to venture into that. But you shouldn't hit people for looking at you. That is the worst type of overcompensation.

 

[Steeplerot]

If I had a "little secret" I would get aggro too. :laugh:

 

[alchemize]

I'm a little surprised at the liberals getting all worked up over a gay guy checking out your package. So what? I'd probably laugh about it.

 

[Zysoclaplem]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Zysoclaplem
Ethics are based on morality and opinions. So both are in the eye of the beholder.

Ethical relativism is false. This is readily demonstrated by a simple contradiction. If you believe murder is wrong but I think it's just fine and dandy, I can now kill you and you have no recourse to tell me differently. Obviously, this is unacceptable, so ethics are not relative. Further, morals may be based on ethics, but general ethical principles are independent of morals.

Originally posted by: conjur
No. You're trying to project your version of morality (again, likely based on religious views) onto others.

So, are you saying that the two purposes of our sexual faculties that I set forth are incorrect? Or are you just going to try to wave your hands and hope I drop it? If they're incorrect, for what purpose(s) do our sexual faculties exist?

That's not a contradiction. It's a difference of opinion. How is that a contradiction? Right and wrong are perceptions. That is two people with two different opinions. Neither one right or wrong.
It's unacceptable because you want me to die and I don't want to die. You can try and I can defend myself.

I disagree about your statement on ethics. I believe ethics are based on morality and opinions, which are one and the same. That doesn't mean I am right, that means that is my opinion.

As for your second comment, you are correct in one way. Sex is for procreation. But homosexuals aren't all about sex. I have had a meaningful relationship with my bf for 3 years now, and it's not about sex. But to anyone who has ever had sex for pleasure, received a BJ, worn a condom, had their girl take birth control, or any other type of contraceptive device, you have no right to condemn any homosexual act. Don't give me this BS about bringing the male and female closer in their relationship and unity. That is just an empty excuse to condone sex without the intention of having a child, while at the same time condemning homosexuals for doing the same thing.

 

[Proletariat]

Originally posted by: Zysoclaplem

Originally posted by: Proletariat

Originally posted by: Zysoclaplem

Originally posted by: bozack

Originally posted by: PatboyX

1. no. tim isnt a pervert for getting a glance at another guys d. or for enjoying it. i would call that "human"
2. i was just asking if you had articles or proof of your examples. not for proof that tim was involved in it.
3. i entered the bathroom cause there were too many damn guys on line for the other one. in fact, the police did see me at belmar beach in south jersey but they didnt seem to give a damn. and i didnt go in there looking under stalls, i went in there to piss. but i did see some attractive ladies. and i had thoughts about them...which they knew nothing of.

1. Yes he is a pervert as he was looking at someone without their consent, not only was it perverted but also rude...now if he were looking at a homosexual porno or someone who openly flashed him his unit then that is a different story....

2. What articles do you want a net link, I have visited the malls, I have seen the holes in the stalls, I have heard the stories on the local news a few years back....

3. did you see the ladies naked? did you see them pulling down their panties? did you go out of your way to check out their goods as Tim seems to have?? also if there were all stalls for men as well then this might not be as easily accomplished...and as said before if a woman in there did make a stink about it you can bet your ass that a cop would have been all over you like white on rice.

For every one person who looks you have many who don't.
Imagine knowing there is a attractive naked female right beside you, but trying not to look at her. I can imagine it would be hard. No pun intended.

What is hard for you to understand? That is why we have seperate bathrooms and showers.

I don't understand why all the straight guys are getting so much flak for being concerned about it. I don't like the idea of gays checking me out and/or touching me and have in the past hit people for doing it. Even women would do that if you were staring at their pussy/boobs.

That's some type of insecurity within yourself. I won't try to venture into that. But you shouldn't hit people for looking at you. That is the worst type of overcompensation.

God I like being intellectual but you are going overboard dude. Some dude grabs your john area and you aren't going to hit him? Is what I did really that bad to you? Even women said it wasn't that bad.

I don't understand the overcompensation part either. Believe me, I am not closet gay. I respect gay rights and marriage but I find what PhillyTim is doing annoying. It seems as if gays want to have their cake and eat it too. "I want to stay in men's locker rooms and check out their cocks and bodys and faces while they shower". DUDE I want to be able to do that in womens locker rooms. Can I? No.

[n] excessive compensation
[n] (psychiatry) an attempt to overcome a real or imagined defect or unwanted trait by overly exaggerating its opposite

How am I doing that?

Look either u get ur own locker room. Or I get to go to the womens one

 

[Zysoclaplem]

Originally posted by: Proletariat

Originally posted by: Zysoclaplem

Originally posted by: Proletariat

Originally posted by: Zysoclaplem

Originally posted by: bozack

Originally posted by: PatboyX

1. no. tim isnt a pervert for getting a glance at another guys d. or for enjoying it. i would call that "human"
2. i was just asking if you had articles or proof of your examples. not for proof that tim was involved in it.
3. i entered the bathroom cause there were too many damn guys on line for the other one. in fact, the police did see me at belmar beach in south jersey but they didnt seem to give a damn. and i didnt go in there looking under stalls, i went in there to piss. but i did see some attractive ladies. and i had thoughts about them...which they knew nothing of.

1. Yes he is a pervert as he was looking at someone without their consent, not only was it perverted but also rude...now if he were looking at a homosexual porno or someone who openly flashed him his unit then that is a different story....

2. What articles do you want a net link, I have visited the malls, I have seen the holes in the stalls, I have heard the stories on the local news a few years back....

3. did you see the ladies naked? did you see them pulling down their panties? did you go out of your way to check out their goods as Tim seems to have?? also if there were all stalls for men as well then this might not be as easily accomplished...and as said before if a woman in there did make a stink about it you can bet your ass that a cop would have been all over you like white on rice.

For every one person who looks you have many who don't.
Imagine knowing there is a attractive naked female right beside you, but trying not to look at her. I can imagine it would be hard. No pun intended.

What is hard for you to understand? That is why we have seperate bathrooms and showers.

I don't understand why all the straight guys are getting so much flak for being concerned about it. I don't like the idea of gays checking me out and/or touching me and have in the past hit people for doing it. Even women would do that if you were staring at their pussy/boobs.

That's some type of insecurity within yourself. I won't try to venture into that. But you shouldn't hit people for looking at you. That is the worst type of overcompensation.

God I like being intellectual but you are going overboard dude. Some dude grabs your john area and you aren't going to hit him? Is what I did really that bad to you? Even women said it wasn't that bad.

I don't understand the overcompensation part either. Believe me, I am not closet gay. I respect gay rights and marriage but I find what PhillyTim is doing annoying. It seems as if gays want to have their cake and eat it too. "I want to stay in men's locker rooms and check out their cocks and bodys and faces while they shower". DUDE I want to be able to do that in womens locker rooms. Can I? No.

[n] excessive compensation
[n] (psychiatry) an attempt to overcome a real or imagined defect or unwanted trait by overly exaggerating its opposite

How am I doing that?

Look either u get ur own locker room. Or I get to go to the womens one

I didn't know the guy grabbed your crotch. If a guy grabs your crotch, well be my guest and hit him. I thought you meant you hit him because he looked at you funny.

I have been in locker rooms with naked guys. And I have seen some attractive guys naked. But I never talked to them nor did I try to touch them, nor did I give them a second look. Most gay guys won't. There are good gay people who aren't interested in getting into your pants. Chances are you know a few but are unaware. Then there are the gays that give homosexuality a bad image. You've seen them. The sun pails in comparison to those guys.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Zysoclaplem
That's not a contradiction. It's a difference of opinion. How is that a contradiction? Right and wrong are perceptions. That is two people with two different opinions. Neither one right or wrong.
It's unacceptable because you want me to die and I don't want to die. You can try and I can defend myself.

I disagree about your statement on ethics. I believe ethics are based on morality and opinions, which are one and the same. That doesn't mean I am right, that means that is my opinion.

As for your second comment, you are correct in one way. Sex is for procreation. But homosexuals aren't all about sex. I have had a meaningful relationship with my bf for 3 years now, and it's not about sex. But to anyone who has ever had sex for pleasure, received a BJ, worn a condom, had their girl take birth control, or any other type of contraceptive device, you have no right to condemn any homosexual act. Don't give me this BS about bringing the male and female closer in their relationship and unity. That is just an empty excuse to condone sex without the intention of having a child, while at the same time condemning homosexuals for doing the same thing.

It's a contradiction because both obviously can't be right. If both 'opinions' are equally correct in this case, then you have just rescinded your right to holding an opinion by giving me the right to kill you. That is why right and wrong are not completely relative. Some things are right and wrong, regardless of whether or not you think so.

Your last paragraph is a gross misinterpretation of what I said. I never said that the unitive portion was exclusive for heterosexual couples. Indeed, it could be applied to homosexual couples. Any sex act must, however, fulfill both the unitive and procreative purposes to be ethical. Sex for pleasure in and of itself is like a joyride in a car with no destination. You're polluting the environment, risking life and limb for a good time. Even if there's only a miniscule chance of a fatal accident, is pleasure worth the risk just to have a good time?

 

[Zysoclaplem]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Zysoclaplem
That's not a contradiction. It's a difference of opinion. How is that a contradiction? Right and wrong are perceptions. That is two people with two different opinions. Neither one right or wrong.
It's unacceptable because you want me to die and I don't want to die. You can try and I can defend myself.

I disagree about your statement on ethics. I believe ethics are based on morality and opinions, which are one and the same. That doesn't mean I am right, that means that is my opinion.

As for your second comment, you are correct in one way. Sex is for procreation. But homosexuals aren't all about sex. I have had a meaningful relationship with my bf for 3 years now, and it's not about sex. But to anyone who has ever had sex for pleasure, received a BJ, worn a condom, had their girl take birth control, or any other type of contraceptive device, you have no right to condemn any homosexual act. Don't give me this BS about bringing the male and female closer in their relationship and unity. That is just an empty excuse to condone sex without the intention of having a child, while at the same time condemning homosexuals for doing the same thing.

It's a contradiction because both obviously can't be right. If both 'opinions' are equally correct in this case, then you have just rescinded your right to holding an opinion by giving me the right to kill you. That is why right and wrong are not completely relative. Some things are right and wrong, regardless of whether or not you think so.

Your last paragraph is a gross misinterpretation of what I said. I never said that the unitive portion was exclusive for heterosexual couples. Indeed, it could be applied to homosexual couples. Any sex act must, however, fulfill both the unitive and procreative purposes to be ethical. Sex for pleasure in and of itself is like a joyride in a car with no destination. You're polluting the environment, risking life and limb for a good time. Even if there's only a miniscule chance of a fatal accident, is pleasure worth the risk just to have a good time?

Right and wrong are just different perceptions of the same situation. Why can't they both be right?

What's ethical is also a perception. Does it apply to men and women unable to have children? How about if you have one child, does that make it alright to have sex for pleasure, now that you have a child?
Just because someone does not want to reproduce does not mean they should not be able to have sex.
You may think that it is wrong to do so, but I disagree. If two consenting adults want to have sex to reproduce, it's none of my business. If two consenting adults want to have sex because it feels good, it's none of my business.

There is also always the chance of a fatal accident in a car, whether there is a destination or not. And having a destination does not give anyone the right to tell those who don't to get off the road.

 

[PatboyX]

Originally posted by: bozack

Originally posted by: PatboyX

1. no. tim isnt a pervert for getting a glance at another guys d. or for enjoying it. i would call that "human"
2. i was just asking if you had articles or proof of your examples. not for proof that tim was involved in it.
3. i entered the bathroom cause there were too many damn guys on line for the other one. in fact, the police did see me at belmar beach in south jersey but they didnt seem to give a damn. and i didnt go in there looking under stalls, i went in there to piss. but i did see some attractive ladies. and i had thoughts about them...which they knew nothing of.

1. Yes he is a pervert as he was looking at someone without their consent, not only was it perverted but also rude...now if he were looking at a homosexual porno or someone who openly flashed him his unit then that is a different story....

2. What articles do you want a net link, I have visited the malls, I have seen the holes in the stalls, I have heard the stories on the local news a few years back....

3. did you see the ladies naked? did you see them pulling down their panties? did you go out of your way to check out their goods as Tim seems to have?? also if there were all stalls for men as well then this might not be as easily accomplished...and as said before if a woman in there did make a stink about it you can bet your ass that a cop would have been all over you like white on rice.

1. i look at people without their consent all the time. that dont make me a permit.
2. that is absurd evidence for anything.
3. this was a joke based on the absurd evidence produced for your second point. it did happen and no one cared. who said he went out of his way. he snuck a glance. tons of non-homosexuals do it to "compare"

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: conjur
What if a straight guy checks you out just because he's curious? Are you going to start interrogating everyone that takes a piss next to you? Make them fill out a questionnaire before they can unzip their fly?

WTF...because he is curious?? about what exactly conjur and just because they are curious does that make it OK...sorry but if I am pissing I DON'T want to have people checking out my wanker plain and simple and it is highly rude of people if they would do so, if I noticed someone doing it then I would tell them to back the eff up and if they kept it up I would either get the authorities or give them a nice smack in the head and then got the authorities.

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: PatboyX
1. i look at people without their consent all the time. that dont make me a permit.
2. that is absurd evidence for anything.
3. this was a joke based on the absurd evidence produced for your second point. it did happen and no one cared. who said he went out of his way. he snuck a glance. tons of non-homosexuals do it to "compare"

1. You are admitting you look at people's privates all of the time without their consent?? ....again see where I point out that there is a BIG DIFFERENCE between checking someone out who is clothed and presenting themselves to society vs. someone who believes they are in private or that no one is looking at them in a provocative way when they are exposed.

2. as are many of your points....

3. don't know where you get your info from but I want to see a link or proof that "tons of non-homosexuals do it to compare"....one would think that a grown man or even a teenager wouldn't have to compare any longer, and even still if someone is comparing it is a different mindset than what that pervert Philly Tim mentioned about being aroused by the sight of a guy taking a leak.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Zysoclaplem
Right and wrong are just different perceptions of the same situation. Why can't they both be right?

What's ethical is also a perception. Does it apply to men and women unable to have children? How about if you have one child, does that make it alright to have sex for pleasure, now that you have a child?
Just because someone does not want to reproduce does not mean they should not be able to have sex.
You may think that it is wrong to do so, but I disagree. If two consenting adults want to have sex to reproduce, it's none of my business. If two consenting adults want to have sex because it feels good, it's none of my business.

There is also always the chance of a fatal accident in a car, whether there is a destination or not. And having a destination does not give anyone the right to tell those who don't to get off the road.

If we're solving an equation y=5x and you say x=y/5, I say it's 5, I'm wrong. It's not a matter of my being wrong because I contradict you - I'm wrong because I'm not right. Is this a matter of perception?

I'll ask again: do you disagree that the purpose of our sexual faculties are both unitive and procreative in nature?

The purpose of a car is also twofold: to transport people/things from one point to the next. If it just goes from A to B and no one gets in or out at point B, then the trip was wasted. If people pile in and start the car but don't go anywhere, then the car is wasted. In both cases, the actions have negative impacts: increased pollution, traffic, risk of harm or even death - and for what end?

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: conjur
Very simple. It's moral if the two parties are engaging in consensual sex. If not, then it's rape and, therefore, immoral.

Any other qualifications you want to place on it are based upon bigoted notions (most likely drawn from fundamental views of the Bible.)

No, I believe you're confusing 'moral' with 'legal'.

What is 'moral' is in the eye of the beholder, so it can't really be argued. What is ethical, on the other hand, can be argued. As I mentioned in an OT thread, sexuality has two purposes: creating unity in a relationship and procreation. If a sex act violates either of these, then it's unethical. You can try to dismiss this as bigotry if you want, but your qualification to do so would be based on your own ignorance.

From an evolutionary perspective, sex has many more than 2 purposes. From our subjective, psychological perspective, sex serves many roles, including providing pleasure, relieving stress, strengthening romantic and social bonds, passing time, and so on. On rare occasions, sex will lead to procreation. (Of course, the vast majority of sex among humans that takes place does not result in the birth of a child).

Your requirements for ethical sex are arbitrary, and make no sense to me. In fact, your requirements for ethical sex are religious-based. (Altho a fvck-wit like you no doubt would argue they stem from natural law.) According to your criteria, someone masturbating at home, alone, is engaging in an unethical act. I find that to be silly.

My own, primary criteria for morally acceptable or ethical sex would be whether on not the sex is consensual.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain
nope, the question in the end is:
Is homosexual sex moral.

if you've come to this believing that it's not, then you'll realize that there are a lot of genetic predispositions for immoral activities

If you don?t' think it's immoral then you must wonder what all the fuss is about.

In the end it's not about 2 guys or girls, it's about the reestablishment and support of traditional sexual morality. Extramarital sex, along with homosexual sex, are both wrongs that society shouldn't glorify or encourage in any way.

You offer no convincing argument here that homosexual sex is immoral. Also, you offer no convincing argument as to why "re-establishing traditional sexual morality" would be a desirable thing. (What exactly is traditional sexual morality, anyway? How far back in time are you traveling to get your traditions?)

I think society should encourage gay men to engage in safer sex practices like using condoms. This is justifiable on public health grounds, & there is plenty of data indicating you can get communities of gay men to change their sexual behaviors towards safer sexual practices with highly targeted public health messages (advertising campqigns, etc.)

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: bozack

Originally posted by: Zysoclaplem
We seperate men and women because of their physical differences, not sexual preferences. Not all societies do.
If you don't like the way things are, go into the stall, or wait until you get home.
I personally will not use a urinal without a divider. I don't want people checking me out either. It's not that big of a deal, I will just go to a stall or hold it. You need to learn that once you walk out of the safety of your home, you are putting yourself in societies view. Whether that view is good intentioned or bad, that's a risk you take. That is life. Don't feel so ashamed to have someone see your goods. It's not that big of a deal.

I personally think it has a little more to do with sexual differences and "urges" than simply physical differences...if it were simply a case of physical differences then we could simply have communal bathrooms and use all stalls.

I am somewhat like you in that I prefer to use the divider however if the urge is great enough then I will make due with what is available...I also am not ashamed of having anyone see my goods but preferably I would only want that to happen when it is invited not when someone sneaks a peak, especially somoene I don't want to.

SO you have never (even if only accidently) taken a downward glance at another guy in the locker room, gym changing rooms, etc.?

 

[PatboyX]

Originally posted by: bozack

Originally posted by: PatboyX
1. i look at people without their consent all the time. that dont make me a permit.
2. that is absurd evidence for anything.
3. this was a joke based on the absurd evidence produced for your second point. it did happen and no one cared. who said he went out of his way. he snuck a glance. tons of non-homosexuals do it to "compare"

1. You are admitting you look at people's privates all of the time without their consent?? ....again see where I point out that there is a BIG DIFFERENCE between checking someone out who is clothed and presenting themselves to society vs. someone who believes they are in private or that no one is looking at them in a provocative way when they are exposed.

2. as are many of your points....

3. don't know where you get your info from but I want to see a link or proof that "tons of non-homosexuals do it to compare"....one would think that a grown man or even a teenager wouldn't have to compare any longer, and even still if someone is comparing it is a different mindset than what that pervert Philly Tim mentioned about being aroused by the sight of a guy taking a leak.

first off, lets remove tim from this. it has gone on long enough with him being called a pervert.

no. i dont. but i dont think a glance in a shower situation or bathroom situation is worth loosing any sleep over.

i dont see how saying someone isnt a pervert for looking is absurd evidence. it wasnt presented as such. and my other anecdotal "evidence" was a parody of the point you made about homosexuals drilling holes in the mall bathroom walls.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: bozack

Originally posted by: PatboyX

1. no. tim isnt a pervert for getting a glance at another guys d. or for enjoying it. i would call that "human"
2. i was just asking if you had articles or proof of your examples. not for proof that tim was involved in it.
3. i entered the bathroom cause there were too many damn guys on line for the other one. in fact, the police did see me at belmar beach in south jersey but they didnt seem to give a damn. and i didnt go in there looking under stalls, i went in there to piss. but i did see some attractive ladies. and i had thoughts about them...which they knew nothing of.

1. Yes he is a pervert as he was looking at someone without their consent, not only was it perverted but also rude...now if he were looking at a homosexual porno or someone who openly flashed him his unit then that is a different story....

It's not clear that the guy Tim was looking at wasn't reciprocating. Tim did mention wanting to have some kind of sexual encounter with the guy, so it is quite possible the guy was also gay.

Originally posted by: bozack
2. What articles do you want a net link, I have visited the malls, I have seen the holes in the stalls, I have heard the stories on the local news a few years back....

There are men who meet other men for sex in public rest rooms. My belief is that they are homosexually oriented people (possibly from ethnic or working class cultural backgrounds where it isn't acceptable to be gay) who are in the closet, and have no other means of meeting men for sex. Their behavior might disturb you, but frankly, it is not going to have a negative effect on your life. This phenomenon of "public sex" is entirely different to what is being discussed in this thread, which is the paranoid (neurotic?) modesty of some heterosexual men.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Zysoclaplem
Ethics are based on morality and opinions. So both are in the eye of the beholder.

Ethical relativism is false. This is readily demonstrated by a simple contradiction. If you believe murder is wrong but I think it's just fine and dandy, I can now kill you and you have no recourse to tell me differently. Obviously, this is unacceptable, so ethics are not relative. Further, morals may be based on ethics, but general ethical principles are independent of morals.

Originally posted by: conjur
No. You're trying to project your version of morality (again, likely based on religious views) onto others.

So, are you saying that the two purposes of our sexual faculties that I set forth are incorrect? Or are you just going to try to wave your hands and hope I drop it? If they're incorrect, for what purpose(s) do our sexual faculties exist?

There is no necessary reason why sex must be limited to your two "acceptable" roles of procreation and (wanker alert) "unity" in a relationship. From our subjective human perspective sex can be for fun, pleasure, profit, stress relief, a way to pass the time, it can strengthen bonds of romance, deepen a relationship, enhance intimacy between people, and so on. I see no convincing arguments that sex for the simple pleasure of it is morally unacceptable.

From an evolutionary perspective, it is possible that one of the more important roles for sex is to enhance social allegiances. This appears to be particularly true of homosexual sex within the primates.

 

[LordMagnusKain]

You offer no convincing argument here that homosexual sex is immoral.

didn't know that it was my job to argue morality, i figure we've all got our convictions from the Lord how we act on them is a personal thing.

What exactly is traditional sexual morality, anyway?

sex as blessed by God in the covenant of marriage.

This is justifiable on public health grounds, & there is plenty of data indicating you can get communities of gay men to change their sexual behaviors towards safer sexual practices with highly targeted public health messages

I think the truth about the higher likelihood of breakage and disease transmission is something that we should make publicly available.

?if I could choose this why would I? people chose to be counter to the culture there in and often fight with all they are simply to hold on to the self-image they?ve created.

Greeks didn?t have any gays, but the men had sex with boys, it?s not a matter of ?gentics? but how those in a society react to weakness of flesh.

do you think that just because you can prove that the flesh is week that it means that you shouldn?t rise above that?

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: Zysoclaplem

Originally posted by: Proletariat

Originally posted by: Zysoclaplem

Originally posted by: Proletariat

Originally posted by: Zysoclaplem

Originally posted by: bozack

Originally posted by: PatboyX

1. no. tim isnt a pervert for getting a glance at another guys d. or for enjoying it. i would call that "human"
2. i was just asking if you had articles or proof of your examples. not for proof that tim was involved in it.
3. i entered the bathroom cause there were too many damn guys on line for the other one. in fact, the police did see me at belmar beach in south jersey but they didnt seem to give a damn. and i didnt go in there looking under stalls, i went in there to piss. but i did see some attractive ladies. and i had thoughts about them...which they knew nothing of.

1. Yes he is a pervert as he was looking at someone without their consent, not only was it perverted but also rude...now if he were looking at a homosexual porno or someone who openly flashed him his unit then that is a different story....

2. What articles do you want a net link, I have visited the malls, I have seen the holes in the stalls, I have heard the stories on the local news a few years back....

3. did you see the ladies naked? did you see them pulling down their panties? did you go out of your way to check out their goods as Tim seems to have?? also if there were all stalls for men as well then this might not be as easily accomplished...and as said before if a woman in there did make a stink about it you can bet your ass that a cop would have been all over you like white on rice.

For every one person who looks you have many who don't.
Imagine knowing there is a attractive naked female right beside you, but trying not to look at her. I can imagine it would be hard. No pun intended.

What is hard for you to understand? That is why we have seperate bathrooms and showers.

I don't understand why all the straight guys are getting so much flak for being concerned about it. I don't like the idea of gays checking me out and/or touching me and have in the past hit people for doing it. Even women would do that if you were staring at their pussy/boobs.

That's some type of insecurity within yourself. I won't try to venture into that. But you shouldn't hit people for looking at you. That is the worst type of overcompensation.

God I like being intellectual but you are going overboard dude. Some dude grabs your john area and you aren't going to hit him? Is what I did really that bad to you? Even women said it wasn't that bad.

I don't understand the overcompensation part either. Believe me, I am not closet gay. I respect gay rights and marriage but I find what PhillyTim is doing annoying. It seems as if gays want to have their cake and eat it too. "I want to stay in men's locker rooms and check out their cocks and bodys and faces while they shower". DUDE I want to be able to do that in womens locker rooms. Can I? No.

[n] excessive compensation
[n] (psychiatry) an attempt to overcome a real or imagined defect or unwanted trait by overly exaggerating its opposite

How am I doing that?

Look either u get ur own locker room. Or I get to go to the womens one

I didn't know the guy grabbed your crotch. If a guy grabs your crotch, well be my guest and hit him. I thought you meant you hit him because he looked at you funny.

I have been in locker rooms with naked guys. And I have seen some attractive guys naked. But I never talked to them nor did I try to touch them, nor did I give them a second look. Most gay guys won't. There are good gay people who aren't interested in getting into your pants. Chances are you know a few but are unaware. Then there are the gays that give homosexuality a bad image. You've seen them. The sun pails in comparison to those guys.

"good gays" and "bad gays"?

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Any sex act must, however, fulfill both the unitive and procreative purposes to be ethical.

According to who? You? Lol.

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Sex for pleasure in and of itself is like a joyride in a car with no destination. You're polluting the environment, risking life and limb for a good time. Even if there's only a miniscule chance of a fatal accident, is pleasure worth the risk just to have a good time?

Yes, there are times when it is worth the risk, "just" to have a good time. As porn star Annabel Chong once said, "I believe sex is good enough to die for".

IN FACT, as with all endeavours in life (including crossing the road, or eating a chicken sandwich) the risks associated with sex can be managed. For example, a gay couple will get tested for stds, and then choose not to use condopms within the relationship. Or, a gay person will choose to use a condom, or avoid engaging in certain of the more risky sexual practices, sticking instead to less risky sexual practices. The statistical odds of contracting HIV/AIDS from sex are small, even if you are a gay man having sex without condoms. Using condoms, establishing monogamous relationships, and so on, make homosexual sex a relatively safe activity to engage in.

And by the way, because something has a risk attached to it, does not make that thing morally or ethically unacceptable. Sky diving is more risky than lawn bowls; does this mean sky diving is an immoral or unethical recreational activity? Is sky diving somehow more unethical or more immoral than playing at lawn bowls? I don't believe so.