UK Politics Thread IX: The Masses Against the Classes

[Vassenor]

Letting gay people have families was the first step towards getting rid of families all together. Gotta make more families in order to destroy all families.

It undermined what it meant to be a family and also normalises such behaviour to future generations.

What's wrong with that?

[MERIZoC]

Genuinely curious, is there anyone that supports TIG/CUK as their first choice? As in you like them, would vote for them over the Libdems, all other things equal. Have never seen a single real supporter.

[The New California Republic]

Letting gay people have families was the first step towards getting rid of families all together. Gotta make more families in order to destroy all families.

It undermined what it meant to be a family and also normalises such behaviour to future generations.

I fail to see how, and I fail to see how the latter is a bad thing.

[Greater Loegria]

It undermined what it meant to be a family and also normalises such behaviour to future generations.

What's wrong with that?

What's wrong with undermining the traditional understanding of a family? Or what's wrong with normalising sexual behaviour not conducive to procreation and placing people at high risk to mental and physical health?

[The New California Republic]

Or what's wrong with normalising sexual behaviour not conducive to procreation and placing people at high risk to mental and physical health?

They would already be gay though, so what is the issue? The only way you could make that out to be a problem is if people could be turned gay. You aren't making that kind of bullshit argument, are you?

[Ifreann]

And families.

Letting gay people have families was the first step towards getting rid of families all together. Gotta make more families in order to destroy all families.

Entryism. Get the gays in so they can take families down from the inside.

[Greater Loegria]

Or what's wrong with normalising sexual behaviour not conducive to procreation and placing people at high risk to mental and physical health?

They would already be gay though, so what is the issue? The only way you could make that out to be a problem is if people could be turned gay. You aren't making that kind of bullshit argument, are you?

No. I am not of the school of thought that people can change their sexual inclinations really. Merely I just don't think it is behaviour that ought to be encouraged or normalised.

[Ifreann]

What's wrong with that?

What's wrong with undermining the traditional understanding of a family? Or what's wrong with normalising sexual behaviour not conducive to procreation and placing people at high risk to mental and physical health?

"Non-procreative sex is wrong and harmful to mental and physical health" he says of a Tuesday afternoon on the internets.
"Pack of Durex as well, please, mate" he says of a Friday evening heading out to a nightclub.

[Greater Loegria]

What's wrong with undermining the traditional understanding of a family? Or what's wrong with normalising sexual behaviour not conducive to procreation and placing people at high risk to mental and physical health?

"Non-procreative sex is wrong and harmful to mental and physical health" he says of a Tuesday afternoon on the internets.
"Pack of Durex as well, please, mate" he says of a Friday evening heading out to a nightclub.

Ho ho, we are all sinners. In reference to me personally I have a girlfriend so that would land me in a bit of trouble elsewhere. Nonetheless, a quick wee shag with the odd bird after a night out is just one of those things that can happen, but it is still hetero normative. The other sort is not and thus has deeper ramifications, if you'll excuse the pun.

[The New California Republic]

They would already be gay though, so what is the issue? The only way you could make that out to be a problem is if people could be turned gay. You aren't making that kind of bullshit argument, are you?

No. I am not of the school of thought that people can change their sexual inclinations really. Merely I just don't think it is behaviour that ought to be encouraged or normalised.

"Encouraging" it won't change anything as the person will still be gay regardless, and why should gay people be forced into the closet?

And you are grossly misusing the word "merely" here, as you have put it in front of a description regarding oppressing a part of the populace. You have used it in an underhanded manner to make what you are saying seem less shitty. Didn't work though, saw right through it.

[The New California Republic]

"Non-procreative sex is wrong and harmful to mental and physical health" he says of a Tuesday afternoon on the internets.
"Pack of Durex as well, please, mate" he says of a Friday evening heading out to a nightclub.

Ho ho, we are all sinners. In reference to me personally I have a girlfriend so that would land me in a bit of trouble elsewhere. Nonetheless, a quick wee shag with the odd bird after a night out is just one of those things that can happen, but it is still hetero normative. The other sort is not and thus has deeper ramifications, if you'll excuse the pun.

So all gay sex is bad because it is non-reproductive and supposedly has mental and physical health risks according to you, but you can go casually fuck a random girl on the side if it suits you? There is some really fucked up morality at work here, and blatant hypocrisy. You have completely lost any supposed moral high ground that you may have had.

[Vilhelumea]

There is naught left to do these days but watch it burn.

Or, you know, put the fire out? Maybe?

Put how should it be put out? We need to have a vote on that!

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

"Non-procreative sex is wrong and harmful to mental and physical health" he says of a Tuesday afternoon on the internets.
"Pack of Durex as well, please, mate" he says of a Friday evening heading out to a nightclub.

Ho ho, we are all sinners. In reference to me personally I have a girlfriend so that would land me in a bit of trouble elsewhere. Nonetheless, a quick wee shag with the odd bird after a night out is just one of those things that can happen, but it is still hetero normative. The other sort is not and thus has deeper ramifications, if you'll excuse the pun.

???

Your argument was 'gay sex is bad because it's not about procreation'

Followed by

'Casual sex without view towards procreation is okay because it isn't gay'

What even is your argument?

[Greater Loegria]

No. I am not of the school of thought that people can change their sexual inclinations really. Merely I just don't think it is behaviour that ought to be encouraged or normalised.

"Encouraging" it won't change anything as the person will still be gay regardless, and why should gay people be forced into the closet?

And you are grossly misusing the word "merely" here, as you have put it in front of a description regarding oppressing a part of the populace. You have used it in an underhanded manner to make what you are saying seem less shitty. Didn't work though, saw right through it.

There was no attempt at deception on my part. The person might still be attracted to members of his own gender but he will keep such behaviour out of the public sphere and perhaps instead devote his life to chastity instead. It is much the same way society deals with the poor souls born with high levels of autism: it is not their fault and it cannot be reversed. But they can be helped to behave properly, we do not however say that just because they are born with such a mindset that it is acceptable to be flagrantly anti-social when in the company of others nor is any of their other condition related behaviour to be given a pass. They ought to be told fairly but firmly 'no' and then shown what to do instead.

[Andsed]

Ho ho, we are all sinners. In reference to me personally I have a girlfriend so that would land me in a bit of trouble elsewhere. Nonetheless, a quick wee shag with the odd bird after a night out is just one of those things that can happen, but it is still hetero normative. The other sort is not and thus has deeper ramifications, if you'll excuse the pun.

???

Your argument was 'gay sex is bad because it's not about procreation'

Followed by

'Casual sex without view towards procreation is okay because it isn't gay'

What even is your argument?

Like all other anti gay arguments nothing reasonable.

[The Huskar Social Union]

???

Your argument was 'gay sex is bad because it's not about procreation'

Followed by

'Casual sex without view towards procreation is okay because it isn't gay'

What even is your argument?

Like all other anti gay arguments nothing reasonable.

Its nothing other than pure hypocrisy.

I can fuck people and its no biggie, but noooooo your not allowed to because reasons.

[Ifreann]

"Non-procreative sex is wrong and harmful to mental and physical health" he says of a Tuesday afternoon on the internets.
"Pack of Durex as well, please, mate" he says of a Friday evening heading out to a nightclub.

Ho ho, we are all sinners. In reference to me personally I have a girlfriend so that would land me in a bit of trouble elsewhere. Nonetheless, a quick wee shag with the odd bird after a night out is just one of those things that can happen, but it is still hetero normative. The other sort is not and thus has deeper ramifications, if you'll excuse the pun.

Ah, so it's fine to normalise heterosexual non-procreative sex outside the bonds of holy matrimony, but homosexual sex, oh no, couldn't be seen to permit that. Fascinating how the sins you want to commit are waved off, but the essentially equivalent sins that other people commit are the doom of society.

[Hirota]

Or, you know, put the fire out? Maybe?

Put how should it be put out? We need to have a vote on that!

Of which we will fail to reach a consensus on which type of fire extinguisher to use.

[Greater Loegria]

Ho ho, we are all sinners. In reference to me personally I have a girlfriend so that would land me in a bit of trouble elsewhere. Nonetheless, a quick wee shag with the odd bird after a night out is just one of those things that can happen, but it is still hetero normative. The other sort is not and thus has deeper ramifications, if you'll excuse the pun.

So all gay sex is bad because it is non-reproductive and supposedly has mental and physical health risks according to you, but you can go casually fuck a random girl on the side if it suits you? There is some really fucked up morality at work here, and blatant hypocrisy. You have completely lost any supposed moral high ground that you may have had.

I didn't say it was fine. It's still a sin.

Ho ho, we are all sinners. In reference to me personally I have a girlfriend so that would land me in a bit of trouble elsewhere. Nonetheless, a quick wee shag with the odd bird after a night out is just one of those things that can happen, but it is still hetero normative. The other sort is not and thus has deeper ramifications, if you'll excuse the pun.

???

Your argument was 'gay sex is bad because it's not about procreation'

Followed by

'Casual sex without view towards procreation is okay because it isn't gay'

What even is your argument?

Because one is normal sexual behaviour just without intention to procreate, which is wrong still, but the other is not normal sexual behaviour with no chance of procreation and therefore is just lust. They're both pretty bad but doing a quick jolly roger is one of those accidents that can happen and there are rarely deeper consequences.

[Uan aa Boa]

Or what's wrong with normalising sexual behaviour not conducive to procreation and placing people at high risk to mental and physical health?

No. I am not of the school of thought that people can change their sexual inclinations really. Merely I just don't think it is behaviour that ought to be encouraged or normalised.

Don't you think that telling a large proportion of the population that their sexual inclinations, over which you realise they have no control, should not be encouraged or normalised might be somewhat detrimental to physical and mental health? Actually what is your evidence that gay sexual behaviour is linked to health risks? Are you sure it doesn't actually show that being stigmatised and discriminated against is bad for your health?

[Ifreann]

Or, you know, put the fire out? Maybe?

Put how should it be put out? We need to have a vote on that!

Well first there should be an indicative vote on some different fire fighting options.

[Andsed]

So all gay sex is bad because it is non-reproductive and supposedly has mental and physical health risks according to you, but you can go casually fuck a random girl on the side if it suits you? There is some really fucked up morality at work here, and blatant hypocrisy. You have completely lost any supposed moral high ground that you may have had.

I didn't say it was fine. It's still a sin.

???

Your argument was 'gay sex is bad because it's not about procreation'

Followed by

'Casual sex without view towards procreation is okay because it isn't gay'

What even is your argument?

Because one is normal sexual behaviour just without intention to procreate, which is wrong still, but the other is not normal sexual behaviour with no chance of procreation and therefore is just lust. They're both pretty bad but doing a quick jolly roger is one of those accidents that can happen and there are rarely deeper consequences.

Sex without the purpose of recreation is not wrong though. There is nothing supporting that abursrd suggestion aside I guess from some outdated religious bullshit

[Platypus Bureaucracy]

Ho ho, we are all sinners. In reference to me personally I have a girlfriend so that would land me in a bit of trouble elsewhere. Nonetheless, a quick wee shag with the odd bird after a night out is just one of those things that can happen, but it is still hetero normative. The other sort is not and thus has deeper ramifications, if you'll excuse the pun.

???

Your argument was 'gay sex is bad because it's not about procreation'

Followed by

'Casual sex without view towards procreation is okay because it isn't gay'

What even is your argument?

Gay bad.

[The Huskar Social Union]

???

Your argument was 'gay sex is bad because it's not about procreation'

Followed by

'Casual sex without view towards procreation is okay because it isn't gay'

What even is your argument?

Gay bad.

Probably watches lesbian porn every friday night.

[Greater Loegria]

Or what's wrong with normalising sexual behaviour not conducive to procreation and placing people at high risk to mental and physical health?

No. I am not of the school of thought that people can change their sexual inclinations really. Merely I just don't think it is behaviour that ought to be encouraged or normalised.

Don't you think that telling a large proportion of the population that their sexual inclinations, over which you realise they have no control, should not be encouraged or normalised might be somewhat detrimental to physical and mental health? Actually what is your evidence that gay sexual behaviour is linked to health risks? Are you sure it doesn't actually show that being stigmatised and discriminated against is bad for your health?

Being stigmatised probably does play a certain part aye. Homosexual sex lead to the AIDS pandemic and all sorts of other nasty things like that not to mention certain conditions up a certain back passage since large objects aren't really supposed to go in that way. Not that such behaviour is limited to homosexual relationships but ho hum. But you can find all sorts of studies, even on progressive publications like the guardian that don't just chalk the mental health issues down to social stigma.