Is your question, and statement, based on fact or opinion?
I would argue that if homosexuals wanted the life of heterosexuals, they would be heterosexual.
Did ‘God’ create man and woman or was it a matter of a long process of alteration of life through time - evolution?
If your answer is ‘God’, then try to find an example of life with ‘irreducible complexity’, I’d love to hear about it.
In jurisdictions which don’t explicity prevent it, yes.
There have been cases in the US where rapists have sought access to the child conceived by their rape of the mother. http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/family_law/20141.authcheckdam.pdf Possibly here, but a quick bit of research didn’t find any, although I have a vague recollection that the issue came before one of our courts.
In Australia, I would expect that the dominant principle of the welfare of the child would militate against access being granted in most, but not necessarily all, cases.
For an example of a case where access might be possible, rape in my state is defined to include digital penetration of the vagina. A child could be conceived by consensual sexual intercourse between the parents but the father could be guilty of digital rape on another, or even the same, occasion as conception and therefore be guilty of raping the mother. Add in youth, drugs, rehabilitation and various other factors and the father might later be a candidate for access.
Among the many problems in this area is the distinction between civil and criminal proceedings, with respective standards of proof of “on the balance of probabilities (i.e. more likely than not)” and the much higher criminal standard of “beyond reasonable doubt”. In custody and access proceedings, which are civil, it is possible for a court to find on the balance of probabilities that the father raped the mother without any criminal proceedings having been launched against the father, and on evidence which would not meet the criminal standard for a conviction.
As a layperson I think I understand most of that. I find the definition of rape quite interesting. Presumably, male-rape isn’t considered rape as bottoms are clearly not vaginas? Although when under the influence, the distinction might become somewhat blurred to some.
I think the gays bigger percentage can’t fit to bring up a child, usually they have other outlook on life
Male-male rape is covered by the definition of sexual penetration in Section 35 of our Crimes Act, as rape is sexual penetration without consent.
sexual penetration means—
(a) the introduction (to any extent) by a person of his penis into the vagina, anus or mouth of another person, whether or not there is emission of semen; or
(b) the introduction (to any extent) by a person of an object or a part of his or her body (other than the penis) into the vagina or anus of another person, other than in the course of a procedure carried out in good faith for medical or hygienic purposes;
http://www.legislation.vic.gov.au/domino/Web_Notes/LDMS/LTObject_Store/ltobjst9.nsf/DDE300B846EED9C7CA257616000A3571/CA8FD480447A9990CA257E49001AEBD4/$FILE/58-6231aa249B%20authorised.pdf
Notwithstanding the recent victory for tolerance in Ireland, and the abolition here several decades age of homosexual offences between consenting adults, it is still possible to be prosecuted in my state for the abominable crime of buggery. It routinely happens in cases which pre-date the abolition of those offences as they are prosecuted under the law which was in force at the time of the offence. It is a standard charge in prosecutions brought against offenders in ancient child sexual abuse cases, notably but by no means exclusively involving Catholic priests and brothers. Strictly, there seems to be no reason in law why the same charges couldn’t be brought against consenting adults who engaged in homosexual acts while the law was in force, although prosecution policy would undoubtedly be against such charges. Still, there is a degree of double standards in using the old offence selectively, if admirably, to catch ancient child sex offenders.
In the past,With gays on the side line -the outer, it kept the gays in check. I never believed in murdering people because of their sexuality like the nazis had done, but prior to Hitler, my beliefs gays should be treated as such like how they were back then (not including nazi treatment of gays)
Both islam and Africa has banned homosexuality for good reasons. In the past , The gays had it great in the west ( apart from the nazi era) so why pushing for marriage when marriage represents man and woman and their offspring to bond all of them in one family unit. Homosexuals can never be biological parents, so why the push for marriage? Homosexuals want to take over heterosexuals lives , have same rules as us , be like us, act like mother nature intended homosexuality as normal. 
You mean like Ernst Roehm and his band of rampantly gay Nazis?
If Hitler hadn’t had Roehm murdered as a potential challenger to Hitler, the Nazis could have been run by gays. Well, at least more gays than actually ran the Nazis after Roehm was dispatched, not to mention that sexually dysfunctional piece of pathology known as Hitler.
Then that will undoubtedly stop homosexuality in such cultures.
This would require, among other things, the long established Afghan custom of men f***ing boys up the arse to be abandoned.
Old Pashtun lament:
There is a boy across the river
With a bottom like a peach.
Alas, I cannot swim
See also, for example, http://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-02-22/the-warlords-tune-afghanistans-war-on-children/338920
Really?
You think it was great to be imprisoned for having sex with someone you love?
And then get raped repeatedly by the sex starved and supposedly heterosexual other male prisoners, because you’re a poofter?
Or get bashed in the street just for being what you were born to be?
If it’s so much better now than when it was great in the past, why do homosexual teenagers have a much higher rate of suicide than heterosexual teenagers?
Exactly.
They want the same rights the rest of us have.
If they want to get married and have their union cemented by the state, then I can’t think of any reason why they shouldn’t.
I can think of a lot more reasons why some heterosexuals shouldn’t get married and why even more heterosexuals shouldn’t be allowed to breed. That very large heterosexual crew does a lot more damage to society than homosexuals could ever do.
Would this be the same sort of good reasons which allowed ISIS to promulgate this sort of disgusting Islamic ruling on dealing with female captives?
"Question 4: Is it permissible to have intercourse with a female captive?
“It is permissible to have sexual intercourse with the female captive. Allah the almighty said: ‘[Successful are the believers] who guard their chastity, except from their wives or (the captives and slaves) that their right hands possess, for then they are free from blame [Koran 23:5-6]’…”"Question 5: Is it permissible to have intercourse with a female captive immediately after taking possession [of her]?
“If she is a virgin, he [her master] can have intercourse with her immediately after taking possession of her. However, is she isn’t, her uterus must be purified [first]…”
"Question 13: Is it permissible to have intercourse with a female slave who has not reached puberty?
“It is permissible to have intercourse with the female slave who hasn’t reached puberty if she is fit for intercourse; however if she is not fit for intercourse, then it is enough to enjoy her without intercourse.”
There’s more repulsive religious idiocy from this pamphlet at http://www.memrijttm.org/islamic-state-isis-releases-pamphlet-on-female-slaves.html
And then there’s this http://aina.org/news/20140905031714.htm bit of alleged (the source has its own reasons for putting out propaganda) homosexual rape by the heroes at ISIS (the first two letters of which stand for Islamic State, being according to it the modern flowering of a pure Islamic state / caliphate) which tends to undermine your assertion that Islam has banned homosexuality. Well, strictly, it doesn’t undermine your assertion. It just shows that ISIL is as hypocritical as the Nazis and many others, notably various Christian churches, in opposing homosexuality when it doesn’t practice what it preaches.
Do you know of any cases where consenting heterosexuals have been charged with beggery?
Consenting heterosexuals ? Nothing occurs at this time. However, in considering how this offence worked, it is worth considering a case rather close to home in terms of this Forum. The late Alan Turing, wartime super-boffin and major contributor to the breaking of the German Enigma code and a father of modern electronic computing was, through a series of mischances, prosecuted for “gross indecency” under section 11 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1885 (now repealed) which governed this offence at the time (1952). Victorian legislation, it will be noted, declined to define the act by name, a fact often put down to Victorian prudery. There was no problem, however, with allowing the judges to “fill out” this omission in common law. Earlier British legal references to the act stress its character as an “abomination” and suchlike. The flavor of such comments suggests a tendency to regard it as something close to an offence of strict liability; if the act could be proved to have taken place, mental considerations of intent and culpability do not seem to have received their usual weight in deciding such cases. Also, consent was not a defence to a charge of “gross indecency”. Two males - or indeed a male and a female - could be prosecuted, even if the act was consensual.
One might ask - were Victorian policemen in the habit of breaking into a … well, bugger’s bedroom with a cry of “Gotcha !” ? Well, not generally. However, circumstances could arise in which a case could come to their attention, and these (presumably at the discretion of the Officer in Charge and/or the Attorney General) could be prosecuted. In poor Turing’s case, he had formed a sexual relationship - purely consensual - with a young man, who informed him that a burglary at his house was down to an acquaintance of the young man. Turing reported the crime to the Coppers who, in the course of their enquiries, uncovered the relationship, leading to both Turing and the young man being charged under section 11. Both Turing and the youth eventually pleaded guilty to the charge, presumably seeing little chance of successfully defending the charge.
An example of a more obvious way in which such a charge could come to court is that of persons involved with male prostitutes. The most spectacular example I can think of is that of Oscar Wilde. Oscar was a pretty obviously bisexual in late Victorian society, and his proclivities were probably pretty well-known in aristocratic and artistic circles. However, it is unlikely that this would ever have led to a charge, had it not been for the disastrous sequence of events initiated by the Marquis of Queensberry, father of his (consensual) lover, Lord Alfred Douglas, when he left a card at Oscar’s club suggesting that he was a “somdomite” (sic). This prompted Wilde to launch a prosecution for criminal libel against Queensberry - “the Tower has been assailed by the Vile Thing”. This proved very ill-advised. Queensberry, a very wealthy man, engaged a top-class legal team, headed by Edward Carson, QC. Carson concentrated his withering defence on the standard defamation defence of “justification” - meaning that Queensberry’s assertion was true. The hard core of this defence rested on the discovery by Carson’s investigators of liaisons between Wilde and male prostitutes. Following the collapse of the case of Wilde v. Queensberry, the authorities felt they had little alternative but to prosecute Wilde for gross indecency - Regina v. Wilde. They were clearly unenthusiastic about the prosecution, but the notoriety of the preceding criminal libel case left them, politically, little choice. Oscar did not help himself by his rather inept defence, which tended to confirm rather than disprove the fact that he had engaged in (consensual) sex acts with males. Oscar went to prison. Much more mundane cases, involving public toilets and so on, would also have been prosecuted. In this connection, it is worth noting that “gross indecency” was defined (insofar as it was defined) effectively to include any sex acts between males.
This does not completely answer your question, 32Bravo - I do not know of any case of a “gross indecency” case brought in relation to the activities of consenting heterosexuals. It should be clear, however, that it was indeed possible in view of the scope of the offence, the degree of disapprobation attaching to it, and the manner in which such cases were tried in male-on-male, consensual cases. Best regards, JR.
No, or even buggery. 
Various social and evidentiary (e.g. policeman hanging around male public toilets looking for homosexuals were unlikely to detect heterosexual encounters) factors probably militated against a prosecution for heterosexual buggery, but it seems to have been within the ambit of our Crimes Act which prohibited buggery (anal intercourse) with ‘mankind’ and animals. Don’t know if there was any judicial interpretation of ‘mankind’ in relation to that offence, but normal English usage would include women in ‘mankind’.
Also, the underlying intent of the legislation was to deal with the abominable crime of buggery, which was generally understood to mean sexual acts between men.
I don’t know of any either, but here it’s likely that heterosexual acts of gross indecency, like most if not all consenting homosexual offence prosecutions, would be in the lower courts which don’t figure in the law reports. In some of our lower courts there was a frequent sad parade of defendants charged with homosexual offences, but there is no record of it in the law reports which report only the higher court cases.
I’d be pretty confident that in some American jurisdictions their curiously puritanical public order / sexual regulation laws would have seen plenty of prosecutions up to about the 1960s / 1970s, but again they might also be lower courts which went unreported.
:lol:Speaking of Victorians, the point I am about to make is denied here: http://www.theguardian.com/notesandqueries/query/0,5753,-19315,00.html
To continue:
As I was taught and understand. Disraeli tried to have a bill passed by the queen banning homosexual practice by either of the sexes. However, when the queen came to sign and seal it she wouldn’t accept that it was possible between women due to lack of penetration. Disraeli asked the queen’s lady-in-waiting to explain to the queen, which she did. The queen’s response was, supposedly: “We are not convinced!” and so the bill had to be changed to excluded women. Apparently that was the last occasion on which a British monarch exercised the Royal Prerogative in British Law. If it’s incorrect, well, it makes a good story, but there are also a lot of misinformed students out there. :lol:
As we digress, it is probably worth considering that the support for Gay marriage, is about liberal thinking and the right to expect to be equal in the law. Peoples’ personal opinions on homosexuals and/or homosexual activities is only relevant to those that have/had the right to vote ‘yes’ or ‘no’, and even then it shouldn’t be the deciding factor. The principles of equality should be held higher than any personal distaste, religious sentiments etc.
A wise man once said: “God created man in his own image and likeness, and man has been returning the compliment ever since!”
The fun one might have with that thought. :lol:
Exactly.
Like probably most people, my original reaction some years ago to demands for gay marriage was to regard it as farcical.
I’ve come to accept that if two people of the same sex (NOT gender - that’s a grammatical term) love each other, and want to have that love recognised formally by the state, then they are as much entitled to it as heterosexual couples because state marriage should be open to everyone in, say, the same way that superannuation benefits should be treated equally rather than homosexual partners being denied the same rights as heterosexual partners as has long been the case here.
Religious marriage is up to each church. I don’t have a problem with that. I do have a huge problem with religions which try to force a secular state to make its laws conform with their religious beliefs, whether it’s Catholics on abortion or Muslims on Sharia law or all of them on marriage, divorce, and everything else. The state laws don’t stop them practising their religions and, indeed, give them protections I don’t think they deserve from being exempt from taxes and having state enacted religious tolerance laws to protect their quaint beliefs and practices while they get exemptions from anti-discrimination laws to protect their quaint beliefs and practices on employment and other matters. It’s just a continuing part of their religious arrogance for them to think the state should be stopped from making laws which offend them, when they’ve done nothing to accommodate the state but expect and get many protections and exemptions from the state.
We’ve come a long way from my ancient youth when it was regarded by many as manly to bash a poofter in a, by today’s standards, brutal era when there was little understanding and less tolerance for people who were different. I think back to kids I went to school with who clearly had Asperger’s Syndrome, ADHD, dyslexia, and were guilty of lesser offences such as being left handed. The solution by almost all teachers to these sorts of problems was to bash the kids into conformity and improvement. That didn’t work any better than bashing poofters into heterosexuality. All it did was just make people more miserable about things they were born with and couldn’t help.
Ireland’s recent approval of gay marriage seems to me to envision a more tolerant and much better world than the world of my ancient youth, or the world desired by some religions which, at the ISIS extreme, offers only Hobbesian lives which are poor, nasty, brutish and short.
Very nicely put, R.S.- all of what you say, that is, not just the quoted bit. Back in the ancient times of our youth, we too were victims, but we were victims of those who would control our thoughts and emotions for their own ends.
Human and civil rights seems to get a bit of a hiding in general as they too are manipulated and abused by those who would, under other circumstances, ban them. I quite often hear myself explaining to people that they are not “Their” human rights, they’re “Our” human rights. Our rights have been hard won and they should be extended to everyone, in principle. For me, Gay Marriage is just another milestone in the fight for individual freedom and the right of the individual to choose.
Unfortunately, a lot of the protection and privileges that religions enjoy in the UK appear to be the dregs of the days of the three estates. However, people ought to be able to practice their form of worship if they so wish, providing they don’t try to force it upon the rest of us or cause us arm.
Well, you do have the problem in the UK that your monarch is also the head of your state Church. (So do we, thanks to our status under your monarch.) Not that anybody much cares about or practises that state religion any more.
Apart from the tiny Vatican state and sundry much larger Muslim nations where religion and state are more or less unified, I can’t think of any moderately modern or important nation which unifies the head of state, or the state, with a given religion.
Against that is the not very subtle presence of religions underpinning other governments and nations, such as Christianity in America (the official motto of which was changed in the 1950s to “In God we trust”, and the modern decline of which nation suggests that that trust might be misplaced) and less direct links such as Shinto in Japan and its Yasukuni Shrine to, among others, WWII Japanese war criminals who are periodically revered by conservative Japanese politicians.
And against all that, in Australia we have a Catholic Prime Minister who trained to be a Catholic priest but, fortunately for the Catholic Church which already had enough problems but unfortunately for Australia did not complete his training. He is commissioned to run our government by your / our Queen as head of the Protestant Church of England. He is an arch monarchist. Seems to make sense to him. Which probably helps to explain why my national government is so woefully confused, conflicted and incompetent.
I’m starting to find a lot to support in the French and their resolute determination to enforce secularism upon their state. Much of it is undoubtedly a reaction to current Muslim problems peculiar to France (which in large part is a case of lots of chickens coming home to roost from France’s former exploitation of its North African colonies), but there is also a strong ideologically libertarian and anti-clerical thread going back to the French Revolution which supports current government actions.
In my opinion, the French Revolution of 1789 tried to do too much in too short a period of time which, opened the gate for Napoleon Bonaparte. I think that during the time of the French Third Republic, during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, they really began to shake out and make a serious attempt to form a secular state. As we know, Catholicism can be very ingrained and not so easy to overcome, not unlike Islamism. However, they do appear to have the political will to persevere.
In his essay On Liberty (1859), John Stuart Mill suggested that Liberty once meant protection of the weaker members of the community against the political rulers who preyed upon them like vultures. He continues to explain that there is also ‘the tyranny of the majority’. So, for Mill, Liberty not only meant protection from the tyrannical despot, but also protection against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion. He stated that the overriding principle is “the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection.” In other words, interference with the rights of the individual can only be exercised where it is to prevent harm to others.
Mill offers three instances in which the overriding principle of liberty of the individual over society are non-negotiable, the second of which, in my opinion, is the most pertinent to the current discussion (although in effect all three are probably inseparable): “Secondly, the principle requires liberty of tastes and pursuits; of framing the plan of our life to suit our own character; of doing as we like, subject to such consequences as may follow; without impediment from our fellow creatures, so long as what we do does not harm them, even though they should think our conduct foolish, perverse or wrong.”
Obviously, this is an extract from the much broader explanation found in his essay and should be read in context with the whole to get a thorough understanding of Mills thoughts.