Freddie Mercury party banned

[Whaleboy]

Hmm, it's been a while since the last FM rumble on here, but I'll restrict my comment to the observation that not everyone experiences happiness when listening to his music. Some of us experience acute discomfort, in fact.

Then I would strongly recommend you seek help.

Simply when You limit the possibilities of sex, or even any contact, with a girl (outside the family), bah, when young men may see no faces but male ones, it de facto drags them to homosexual experiences. And being oversexed as well.

Reference? Where is your argument and evidence for that absurd proposition. By your logic, you would expect to see a high incidence of homosexuality among men who attended single-sex schools (for instance), or a higher incidence of homosexuality among monks. If you have any evidence for this I would be very interested in seeing it.

[Heresson]

Not homosexualitx, but homosexual behaviour. And it seems prettz obvious to me. Take prisons, for example. Inmates turn to the same sex out of lack of opposite sex.

[Whaleboy]

Not homosexualitx, but homosexual behaviour.

And it seems prettz obvious to me. Take prisons, for example. Inmates turn to the same sex out of lack of opposite sex.

How would you know this? Where is your study comparing incidence of homosexual behaviour inside prisons to outside? Or are you merely speculating with no evidence whatsoever... pulling ill-thought out truisms from thin air to support your appallingly shaky arguments?

[Heresson]

it¹s something widelz agreed upon... I¹ve read lost of articles that suggested it. Please, prove me wrong if Zou will.

[Spiffor]

Heresson, please remember that the letter Y and the letter Z aren't the same

[Ecthy]

Very "Provost Harrison typing at Ecthy's keyboard" there

[Whaleboy]

it¹s something widelz agreed upon... I¹ve read lost of articles that suggested it. Please, prove me wrong if Zou will.

Since you are the person making the proposition, the burden is upon you to provide the evidence to back up your arguments. It's 11.30pm, I have to be at work at 7am, and I'm not particularly in the mood to fabricate your intellectual integrity at the moment.

[Heresson]

you started the arguement.

No-one but You claims my opinion is wrong. I have no time to prove the obvious.
I don't understand your emotions, as well.

[Whaleboy]

you started the arguement.

Well why don't we just return to the playground! You made the proposition that being in an all-male environment encourages homosexual behaviour. I called you out on it, and I am still waiting for you to find some evidence or references for your assertion.

And for the record, you started your own little debate by saying that "it is pretty obvious he is not a model for a pius muslim, or any other religion adherent."

No-one but You claims my opinion is wrong. I have no time to prove the obvious.

You see, I don't believe it is obvious. It is something that is highly difficult to prove, which is why I would like to see what evidence you have to support your assertions, particularly in light of my pointing out the strange predictions your theory makes.

You have little understanding of homosexuality beyond that which you have been told by anti-gay religious institutions, you pluck weird and illogical truisms out of the air to support your spurious assertions, and when asked to provide evidence you run and hide, apparently unaware of the burden of proof .

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by Heresson
Not homosexualitx, but homosexual behaviour.

If I had a signature, that would go in it

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Whaleboy

Reference? Where is your argument and evidence for that absurd proposition. By your logic, you would expect to see a high incidence of homosexuality among men who attended single-sex schools (for instance), or a higher incidence of homosexuality among monks. If you have any evidence for this I would be very interested in seeing it.

I thought this was true?

I thought that was the whole point of the prison and seaman and monk and school boy jokes..

JM

[Elok]

Alternately, you two could spend the next ten pages and five days arguing over who has the burden of proof, in order to make absolutely certain that you don't waste any time looking up information first.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Whaleboy


You have little understanding of homosexuality beyond that which you have been told by anti-gay religious institutions, you pluck weird and illogical truisms out of the air to support your spurious assertions, and when asked to provide evidence you run and hide, apparently unaware of the burden of proof .

What are you talking about?

Herresson is saying that many males in the islamic world have sex with other males if only for the lack of females. He is not making a statement on homosecuality, but on homosexual experiences, which is NOT the same thing. I think his prison comparison is apt.

They had a program on AIDS in the US (excellent frotline episode) and were speaking about condom programs in India, and one of the issues was that many truckers in India had a lot of sex, not only with prostitutes, but other male drivers, and yet those truckers would not consider themselves homosexual for a second, and as far as I know, Hindu society is no more permissive of homosexuality than any other conservative society.

[Heresson]

And for the record, you started your own little debate by saying that "it is pretty obvious he is not a model for a pius muslim, or any other religion adherent."

which is pretty obvious considering that homosexual behaviour is considered sin by these religions.
Also, one has little to do with the other.
You probably, not for the first time, made some delusional interpretation of my posts and thus started your gay crusade...

You see, I don't believe it is obvious. It is something that is highly difficult to prove, which is why I would like to see what evidence you have to support your assertions, particularly in light of my pointing out the strange predictions your theory makes.

As You've said, it is hard to prove, as well it's hard to prove the opposite. That's I don't bother to do it. Not enough gain for me if I do.

You have little understanding of homosexuality beyond that which you have been told by anti-gay religious institutions

You know little of me, don't You?
Anyway, that post shows how prejudiced towards me, and unable to mantain a discussion, You are.
Just because I defend the church when it is right, and its right to have its own opinion, You think I'm somekind of fundamentalist. just because I defend Poland against unfair treatment by some posters, some of You think I am nationalistic right-winger.
The truth is, however, that
1) I'm agnostic, though I'd like very much to believe in God, and I pray
2) I'm liberal/left-wing
3) I am homosexual, not even bi.
I hope no polish poster sees that post, though.

, you pluck weird and illogical truisms out of the air to support your spurious assertions, and when asked to provide evidence you run and hide, apparently unaware of the burden of proof .

No. I just don't want to start proving something I find obvious, for the benefit of a single person, who offends me and won't believe me anyway, probably.
I see no reason to waste my time on you.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Elok
Alternately, you two could spend the next ten pages and five days arguing over who has the burden of proof, in order to make absolutely certain that you don't waste any time looking up information first.

It's our tradition that things are done this way. Without it there would only be one or two threads on the page.