See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design

The cry of the Religious Right.

When I say every person has a right and a responsibility to form their own views on whether or not they believe in God that does not take away my right to try to live as God wants. (I wish I were that perfect)

I think if more looked at the possibility that, man defined the day God spoke of, not god then, it is not unrealistic to believe that no great disparity exists between the two theories.

Bananaman wrote:
TLJ wrote:
LYDIA REID wrote:
I have watched this thread develop with interest.

Ok, what this thread seems to be saying is, morals have no place in our world anymore. I disagree. To prove the point I will make a moral judgement.

I don't think the thread is saying that at all but (as you show yourself in your example), what is moral to one is not to another.

The judgemental bit comes in when you condemn out of hand those who do not follow your own code. You, yourself, don't appear to do so. Sadly, others do.

Thanks TLJ I agree with you and Lydia. I won't and don't seek to impose my views BUT I am unwilling to sit back and allows those who try to so do have the playing field to themselves.

I agree with most of what Lydia says too except that I'm wary of people who talk about design in biological systems. Design is a human concept and by definition, if there is a design there is a designer and most worryingly ideas of 'proper' (aka 'natural' use. It is where these types of ideas can lead and have led that concerns me. A point I was trying to make with the inclusion of the 'women are designed for child bearing' example.

As another example:- If I use the design hypothesis it is perfectly plausible to claim that life on this planet is designed to be killed and eaten (you could even back this up with scientific data on population explosions and crashes).

Thus as long as I eat what I kill then I am ok as I was merely following the design parameters. It doesn't specify how I kill or which animals are off-limits so to speak. In fact the idea that any animals are to be off-limits implies a 'special case' scenario which implies a human viewpoint intruding into the 'natural design process' does it not?

To go back something Clare accused me of I'm most certainly not a member of the 'if it feels good do it camp' nor do I believe that anything goes. But societal norms are to be achieved by debate and consensus not by imposition in my opinion. Hence I will argue the case as I see it and everyone can agree or not that's our right.

As for the idea that some member of the public has to witness something to make a complaint that the police will enforce this is not necessarily the case. Malicious complaints are made frequently. And complaints may be based on hearsay and anecdotal evidence and often will only be acted upon if the complainant knows ranking police officers or is a minister of the church, local bigwig or similarly well-connected or vocal individual.

I suspect in this case that the complainant may well fall into these categories as getting premises raided for a range of illegal behaviours is hardly straightforward as the number of pubs and clubs where drug taking and drug dealing are common place testifies.

The designer may be nature it may be God but are you seriously telling me that men were designed to have babies....no. Then it surely follows that woman were. You cannot change that fact unless we talk of the asexual creatures within our ken then the female of any species is "designed� to have babies.

1. vti create detailed plan of something: to make a detailed plan of the form or structure of something, emphasizing features such as its appearance, convenience, and efficient functioning
a well-designed car interior
2. vti plan and make something: to plan and make something in a skilful or artistic way
3. vt intend something for particular use: to intend something for a particular purpose
The scholarship was designed to aid foreign students.
4. vt invent something: to contrive, devise, or plan something
They designed a scheme to get rich quick.
n (plural designs)
1. picture of something's form and structure: a drawing or other graphical representation of something that shows how it is to function or be made
2. way something is made: the way in which something is planned and made
the elegant design of the aircraft's wings
3. decorative pattern: a pattern or shape, sometimes repeated, used for decoration
a geometric design
4. process of designing: the process, techniques, or art of designing things
studied architecture and design
5. intention: an underlying sense of purpose or planning (formal)
or designs, npl
selfish or dishonest plan: a secretive plan undertaken for selfish or dishonest motives
[14th century. < Latin designare (see designate)]
by design intentionally or on purpose
Encarta ® World English Dictionary © & (P) 1998-2005 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

I think there are times when too much intrusion into the use of a word can be unhelpful.

If you cannot admit that the Anus and the bowels were “designed� to be used to process the waste of the body then you are in a poor state. That is exactly what the body uses them for. The fact that some humans have found another use for them does not take away the fact that whether God or nature that is what they were “designed� for.

Neither can you assume that the complaints received were malicious it could be many gays object to this open display of sex in a nightclub. If this is a purely gay nightclub that would lead me to believe that, the complaints came from mostly gay people. Just because a person is gay does not preclude them from a moralistic belief or attitude. Nor does this separate the gay person from a belief that group sex is something they need not witness if they do not want to.

It could be they also were saying get a room and preferably a private one and do not intrude on the lives of other people.

Hi Lydia,
I noticed in your last post that you were wondering if the Arches was a gay nightclub. The Arches is an arts venue. Most of the people who attend events there (without wanting to stereotype anyone!) are middle aged heterosexual couples. It was started a few years ago and is a charity. It has a very up market cafe/bar (with prices for food and drink that reflect this). Most of the events it puts on are to support the arts in many different areas - music, dance, theatre etc and it supports many young and established artists. It also runs an educational programme open to children and adults and has many link ups with schools and other arts organisations.
The club nights are run as night club type nights. They cater for a great many different types of audience. It is one night a month that this event takes (took?) place. I am not trying to imply that it is acceptable to have sex taking place on the premises. I have previously stated that I don't agree with this. However as the majority of the events that the Arches puts on are seen as positive and beneficial to the arts then I wonder if there is a way to deal with this without closing the whole venue for six weeks.

LYDIA REID wrote:
If you cannot admit that the Anus and the bowels were “designed� to be used to process the waste of the body then you are in a poor state. That is exactly what the body uses them for. The fact that some humans have found another use for them does not take away the fact that whether God or nature that is what they were “designed� for.

Neither can you assume that the complaints received were malicious it could be many gays object to this open display of sex in a nightclub. If this is a purely gay nightclub that would lead me to believe that, the complaints came from mostly gay people. Just because a person is gay does not preclude them from a moralistic belief or attitude. Nor does this separate the gay person from a belief that group sex is something they need not witness if they do not want to.

It could be they also were saying get a room and preferably a private one and do not intrude on the lives of other people.

So now because I disagree with your ascientific viewpoint concerning "design" in biological systems I'm fair game for a personal attack Lydia? How very tolerant.

If I cannot assume that the complaints were malicious how can it be acceptable for you to assume that they were not? Double standards!!

At no time have I inferred any level of morality or otherwise on gay people or any others for that matter. Quite the reverse I'm arguing as I am against a perceived moralising tone to the condemnation of those mentioned in the original posting.

I too would not wish to witness such behaviour, or many other forms of behaviour, but provided it is not 'on display' and between consenting adults then it is, I believe, none of my business.

I may (and do) have views on whether or not I believe such behaviour is conducive to life, love or happiness but unless I am asked by someone for my advice then in line with my personal philosophical views I'll keep them to myself and live my life by standards I find suitable for me and which allow me to live in peace with myself and the world around me.

Dearie me, I go away for a while and look what happens. As has been said, no poor unsuspecting soul is going to stumble upon a gay orgy, but then that's not really the problem here is it. The real problem is that you don't have a clue about sex and sexuality in general. You are angry that your views are challeged and your ignorance is exposed. In order to justify your anger you need to see yourselves as victims, even if you have to invent things to feel victimised about.

Funny how it always ends up as a discussion of penile-anal sex. Why are you people obsessed with bottoms? Gay men are not gay because we're obsessed with anuses. (You can trust me on that one. I've actually had gay sex and know these things.) Some 45% of gay men do not have anal sex at all. Anal sex is not the most common form of sexual activity even amongst gay men who have anal sex. And you may not have noticed, but you don't find any sort of penile penetration in lesbian sex, never mind penile-anal sex. Your fixation on anal sex just illustrates yet again how you don't know what you're talking about.

I shall pretend not to have noticed the ridiculous comments about anal sex requiring gay men to have colostomies. They're too pathetically laughable even to make me feel insulted.

It's not just an understanding of basic biology or sexuality that's in short supply here. Despite the valiant attempts of Bananaman to explain, some people also have problems understanding what normal means.

I'll be as clear as I can - NORMAL IS NOT THE SAME AS MAJORITY. That's why we have two different words, "normal" and "majority" - there's a wee clue for you right there. A 100% heterosexual society would be abnormal. No such society exists or has ever existed. Being heterosexual does not make you normal, it just makes you more common. The fact 90% of people are right handed doesn't mean that the 10% who are left handed are abnormal. The fact that some 95% of the world's population have brown eyes doesn't make people with blue eyes abnormal. They're just less common. Got that? It's not a difficult concept.

Abnormal implies a pathology. However blue eyes work just as well as brown eyes and gay people function socially and sexually just as well as straight people do. And if you try and claim "oh no they don't function the same because gay people can't make babies" then yet again you're just showing your ignorance of what human sex is for. (Here's another clue, what's special about human sexuality is that we've evolved physiological adaptations which separate sex from reproduction.) If you believe homosexuality is pathological, you are a bigot, pure and simple.

Still, not having a clue what they're on about doesn't stop the McTaliban passing judgement on the rest of us and telling us how to live our lives. To quote Tom Nairn - "Scotland will never be free until the last minister is strangled with the last copy of the Sunday Post."

And Lydia - you said this -

"We only have your word for the fact that you have not caught STDs"

Casting doubt on a person's honesty because what they say goes against your preconceived notions, is the very definition of prejudice.

InfrequentAllele wrote:
Dearie me, I go away for a while and look what happens. As has been said, no poor unsuspecting soul is going to stumble upon a gay orgy, but then that's not really the problem here is it. The real problem is that you don't have a clue about sex and sexuality in general. You are angry that your views are challeged and your ignorance is exposed. In order to justify your anger you need to see yourselves as victims, even if you have to invent things to feel victimised about.

Funny how it always ends up as a discussion of penile-anal sex. Why are you people obsessed with bottoms? Gay men are not gay because we're obsessed with anuses. (You can trust me on that one. I've actually had gay sex and know these things.) Some 45% of gay men do not have anal sex at all. Anal sex is not the most common form of sexual activity even amongst gay men who have anal sex. And you may not have noticed, but you don't find any sort of penile penetration in lesbian sex, never mind penile-anal sex. Your fixation on anal sex just illustrates yet again how you don't know what you're talking about.

I shall pretend not to have noticed the ridiculous comments about anal sex requiring gay men to have colostomies. They're too pathetically laughable even to make me feel insulted.

It's not just an understanding of basic biology or sexuality that's in short supply here. Despite the valiant attempts of Bananaman to explain, some people also have problems understanding what normal means.

I'll be as clear as I can - NORMAL IS NOT THE SAME AS MAJORITY. That's why we have two different words, "normal" and "majority" - there's a wee clue for you right there. A 100% heterosexual society would be abnormal. No such society exists or has ever existed. Being heterosexual does not make you normal, it just makes you more common. The fact 90% of people are right handed doesn't mean that the 10% who are left handed are abnormal. The fact that some 95% of the world's population have brown eyes doesn't make people with blue eyes abnormal. They're just less common. Got that? It's not a difficult concept.

Abnormal implies a pathology. However blue eyes work just as well as brown eyes and gay people function socially and sexually just as well as straight people do. And if you try and claim "oh no they don't function the same because gay people can't make babies" then yet again you're just showing your ignorance of what human sex is for. (Here's another clue, what's special about human sexuality is that we've evolved physiological adaptations which separate sex from reproduction.) If you believe homosexuality is pathological, you are a bigot, pure and simple.

Still, not having a clue what they're on about doesn't stop the McTaliban passing judgement on the rest of us and telling us how to live our lives. To quote Tom Nairn - "Scotland will never be free until the last minister is strangled with the last copy of the Sunday Post."

And Lydia - you said this -

"We only have your word for the fact that you have not caught STDs"

Casting doubt on a person's honesty because what they say goes against your preconceived notions, is the very definition of prejudice.

Well said IA.
Can I add that as a blue eyed, left handed person, you have made me feel quite special.

Meg remarked: Well said IA.
Seconded, I think you just said it all!

InfrequentAllele wrote:
Dearie me, I go away for a while and look what happens. As has been said, no poor unsuspecting soul is going to stumble upon a gay orgy, but then that's not really the problem here is it. The real problem is that you don't have a clue about sex and sexuality in general. You are angry that your views are challeged and your ignorance is exposed. In order to justify your anger you need to see yourselves as victims, even if you have to invent things to feel victimised about.

Funny how it always ends up as a discussion of penile-anal sex. Why are you people obsessed with bottoms? Gay men are not gay because we're obsessed with anuses. (You can trust me on that one. I've actually had gay sex and know these things.) Some 45% of gay men do not have anal sex at all. Anal sex is not the most common form of sexual activity even amongst gay men who have anal sex. And you may not have noticed, but you don't find any sort of penile penetration in lesbian sex, never mind penile-anal sex. Your fixation on anal sex just illustrates yet again how you don't know what you're talking about.

I shall pretend not to have noticed the ridiculous comments about anal sex requiring gay men to have colostomies. They're too pathetically laughable even to make me feel insulted.

It's not just an understanding of basic biology or sexuality that's in short supply here. Despite the valiant attempts of Bananaman to explain, some people also have problems understanding what normal means.

I'll be as clear as I can - NORMAL IS NOT THE SAME AS MAJORITY. That's why we have two different words, "normal" and "majority" - there's a wee clue for you right there. A 100% heterosexual society would be abnormal. No such society exists or has ever existed. Being heterosexual does not make you normal, it just makes you more common. The fact 90% of people are right handed doesn't mean that the 10% who are left handed are abnormal. The fact that some 95% of the world's population have brown eyes doesn't make people with blue eyes abnormal. They're just less common. Got that? It's not a difficult concept.

Abnormal implies a pathology. However blue eyes work just as well as brown eyes and gay people function socially and sexually just as well as straight people do. And if you try and claim "oh no they don't function the same because gay people can't make babies" then yet again you're just showing your ignorance of what human sex is for. (Here's another clue, what's special about human sexuality is that we've evolved physiological adaptations which separate sex from reproduction.) If you believe homosexuality is pathological, you are a bigot, pure and simple.

Still, not having a clue what they're on about doesn't stop the McTaliban passing judgement on the rest of us and telling us how to live our lives. To quote Tom Nairn - "Scotland will never be free until the last minister is strangled with the last copy of the Sunday Post."

And Lydia - you said this -

"We only have your word for the fact that you have not caught STDs"

Casting doubt on a person's honesty because what they say goes against your ,preconceived notions is the very definition of prejudice.


My comment was just an observation IA you seem to be feeling a little English and a little worked up.

McTaliban
Preconceived notions
Not having a clue what they're on about
Pathological,
Funny how it always ends up as a discussion of penile-anal sex.

It seems to me we had a fairly good and reasonable conversation while you were away. It seems to me that you are the one with a problem with your sexuality it does not seem to bother any other person on Scotsgait as far as I can see.
It seems to me you also have a problem with the Scottish people; there is nothing I or any other person on Scotsgait can do to help you with that. However, if I can I will. Mostly I think you need to start thinking that it is ok for others to have rights and opinions.

What absolute and utter drivel. "Only making an observation" Don't try and wriggle out of it. You were casting doubt on my honesty and implying I am a liar.

You keep repeating your anti-Scottish slurs against me. "Feeling a little English"? What exactly is that remark supposed to mean? I only have your word for it you're not a racist. I'm just making an observation.

Of course you're entitled to your opinions. You are entitled to believe that 2 plus 2 makes 5, and that the moon is made out of green cheese. But don't expect those of us who are better informed to pay much heed to your opinions, particularly when you express them in an ignorant and insulting manner.

It seems to me that the local God botherers have rather more of a problem than InfrequentAllele. As Desmond Tutu has correctly observed, their obsession with, and ignorance of, other people's sexuality must make God weep.

Thank you Robin.

It concerns me greatly that Scots who are not sure about independence, or people from elsewhere in the world, stumble across threads like this one and go away believing that Scottish nationalists are reactionary and backwards looking. If you disagree with their limited vision of Scotland, you're "anti-Scottish". They play right into the hands of the Labour party and other Unionists who regularly characterise the SNP as homophobic.

That's why the kind of remarks made by some people here need to be challenged. I'm heartened that others have spoken out on this thread.

What does "feeling a little English" actually mean Lydia? Is it some arcane practice that few of us know about yet?

But dear me IA, even I've not come across anybody from the Scottish Branch of the Labour Party calling the SNP homophobic and there aren't enough Tories out there to know what they think. In fact, does Annabel Goldie even know what a homosexualist is?
There's the Tartan Tory thing too. OK I know that's a hoary old chestnut but it was proclaimed by my local SSP councillor the other day as an insult after the SNP ruling group sorted the equal pay fiasco that Labour created. The SNP is of course a broad church and some of us do have views that are a little to the right of centre.
And how about anti-Catholic? This, despite Mr Salmond expressing his support for segregated education for RCs.
The fact is of course that the SNP has just as many members who play for the other side as any other party. I don't think they need to be proud about it or have a special section for trouser browsers or a dyke division.
It's just a fact of life.

Lev, the language you use to discuss your gay and lesbian fellow citizens is not acceptable on the centre right of politics and has not been for a considerable time. Your comments are not a sign of wit, they're a sign of adolescent insecurity.

The fact you are unable to mention lesbian and gay people without resorting to childish terms of abuse has nothing to do with centre right politics, and everything to do with immaturity, ignorance, and bigotry.

And yes, Annabelle Goldie knows what a gay person is. She voted in favour of same-sex couples having the right to adopt.