No, really there isn't. Did you look out your window? You see all those men and women holding hands? Those are called heterosexuals. You can tell me all you want about the Kinsey scale, but I'm talking about how people act, not some hidden possibe tendency.
And your example about people in jail resorting to same-gender sex? Ha! You know, if you were thirsty enough, you'd probably drink your own urine. Does that mean that everyone is in reality a piss-drinker?
Quote:
September 02, 2004
Cup of urine a day keeps ailments at bay
Yahoo! News - Cup of urine a day keeps ailments at bay
BANGKOK (AFP) - Drinking urine can eliminate sinus trouble, turn grey hair black and even cure cancer, a Thai academic said, citing a study of local Buddhists who engage in the unorthodox practice.
Ratree Cheepudomwit, of the Thai Traditional and Alternative Medicine Development Department, said hundreds of urine drinkers attested that consuming a daily cup worked wonders for their overall health and helped slow the ageing process.
She said that in June she queried 250 members of Santi Asoke, a strict indigenous Buddhist movement believed to have thousands of followers, and 204 respondents said they had learned from ancient Buddhist manucripts that drinking one's urine improved health.
"Of the respondents, 87 percent confirmed that it had head-to-toe benefits for them, including for example reduction of dandruff, grey hair, sinus problems and cancer," Ratree told AFP.
The medical elixir was not easy on everyone's system, as about one in 10 urine drinkers suffered diarrhea afterwards, but the practice should not be viewed with disgust, she said.
You've got to be kiddin'me. :\
yuck!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
if you were supposed to have the "secret ingredients" of pee in your diet, doesn't it make just a little bit of good sense that your body would not eliminate it??
somebody had a little too much time on their hands...
I got tired of reading all these post around the 11th page, but did anyone ask what kind of book about homosexuality wouldn't promote homosexuality so then it would be acceptable?
Would the story have to have the hero be an obvious gay person that has a lifetime of bad luck because he/she is gay? Would that be an acceptable tax paying book?
At what point will it be ok to get hysterical? When it is too late to be able to do anything about it?
DontTreadOnMe wrote:
somebody had a little too much time on their hands...
Are you refering to me? Why do you say that? My post serves as a protest to Kicky's ridiculous disapproving remarks. Regarding that "men will turn to men in an environment that denies them women".
kickycan wrote:No, seriously. Words have definitions for a reason. Just because it would happen in jail doesn't mean it's the norm. The norm is heterosexuality. Look out your window. They're everywhere!
Does that happen only in jail? No. It happens with other animals too. We humans are no different. I've seen a lot of people talking about biological urges here on A2K. This is no different. Jail is only one good example.
kickycan wrote:No, really there isn't. Did you look out your window? You see all those men and women holding hands? Those are called heterosexuals. You can tell me all you want about the Kinsey scale, but I'm talking about how people act, not some hidden possibe tendency.
And your example about people in jail resorting to same-gender sex? Ha! You know, if you were thirsty enough, you'd probably drink your own urine. Does that mean that everyone is in reality a piss-drinker?
Here. I've showed an example in which it is obvious that there are people that drink they own urine and that there are societies groups in which such thing is clearly accepted. Now, if I do look outside the window, what am I going to see? Look, you see people holding hands for all sorts of reasons. The public eye doesn't make the homosexual feel comfortable enough to go out and about with who they really are. And that's why so many of them hide as if they are ashamed of it. Otherwise, I believe it would be rather "Conforming with, adhering to, or constituting a norm, standard, pattern, level, or type; typical" to see homosexual or bisexual partners holding hands, as you can clearly see in places like San Francisco where homosexuality is rather acceptable.
I just wasn't in the right state of mind to be clearly elaborating.
superjuly wrote:DontTreadOnMe wrote:
somebody had a little too much time on their hands...
Are you refering to me?
nope. i was referring to the people who are reintroducing to their body elements that their system has already rejected or depleted and eliminated.
oooh. I see. Sorry!
I'd say they're doing this for some twisted religious belief or motive. Probably why the study (rather stupid in my opinion) was done in that particular group (willingness to drink piss).
superjuly wrote:DontTreadOnMe wrote:
somebody had a little too much time on their hands...
Are you refering to me? Why do you say that? My post serves as a protest to Kicky's ridiculous disapproving remarks. Regarding that "men will turn to men in an environment that denies them women".
kickycan wrote:No, seriously. Words have definitions for a reason. Just because it would happen in jail doesn't mean it's the norm. The norm is heterosexuality. Look out your window. They're everywhere!
Does that happen only in jail? No. It happens with other animals too. We humans are no different. I've seen a lot of people talking about biological urges here on A2K. This is no different. Jail is only one good example.
kickycan wrote:No, really there isn't. Did you look out your window? You see all those men and women holding hands? Those are called heterosexuals. You can tell me all you want about the Kinsey scale, but I'm talking about how people act, not some hidden possibe tendency.
And your example about people in jail resorting to same-gender sex? Ha! You know, if you were thirsty enough, you'd probably drink your own urine. Does that mean that everyone is in reality a piss-drinker?
Here. I've showed an example in which it is obvious that there are people that drink they own urine and that there are societies groups in which such thing is clearly accepted. Now, if I do look outside the window, what am I going to see? Look, you see people holding hands for all sorts of reasons. The public eye doesn't make the homosexual feel comfortable enough to go out and about with who they really are. And that's why so many of them hide as if they are ashamed of it. Otherwise, I believe it would be rather "Conforming with, adhering to, or constituting a norm, standard, pattern, level, or type; typical" to see homosexual or bisexual partners holding hands, as you can clearly see in places like San Francisco where homosexuality is rather acceptable.
I just wasn't in the right state of mind to be clearly elaborating.
You have stretched the definition of normal to the point of absurdity. Of course there are "some" places where bisexuality is "more" normal than others, but is it typical of most places? Please, answer honestly, and don't tell me it would be, or it could be, or it might be, etc., because the potential for something being true doesn't make it true, no matter how you slice it.
And it doesn't matter why people do what they do, when you're defining "normal" behavior. If someone has a homosexual or bisexual urge, but they prefer to live in a heterosexual way, for whatever reason, then for all intents and purposes, that person is heterosexual!
Okay, now go ahead, try to rip my logic apart on that one. I'll be back for more of this fun later.
"normal" is what I do. "abnormal" is what other people do. "Typical" is what most people do.
I suppose there are people who drink their own piss, even when other beverages are available. I'm sure there are those who drink other's urine. There are those who are sexually stimulated by that very thing.
Now with that said, I think we all ought to be able to agree that said behaviors are not "normal"?
Kicky's very salient point seems to be that just because one resorts to a certain behavior under duress does not make that behavior "normal."
kickycan wrote:
Okay, now go ahead, try to rip my logic apart on that one. I'll be back for more of this fun later.
Nope. It sounds like a very deep, dark and scary hole to be digging into.
I'd rather to just sit back..............and relax. :wink:
The bottom line is that is not the government's place to decide what is normal and what is not.
Can it be that Revel is moving toward the center?! Moving away from the idea that the Federal Government should be in the business of promoting liberal social causes? Probably just a slip.
That is the very thing that most of the conservative posters here have advocated. Keep the Federal Government out of people's private lives. Not only should the Federal Government not subsidize media promoting homosexuality, it shouldn't subsidize media promoting heterosexuality. These things are far beyond what the Founding Fathers wanted the Federal government to be. It was to prevent governmental interference in private lives and liberties that the Constitution was formed in the first place.
No matter what a person's private sexual preferences are, they are not the business of the Federal government. Natural or un-natural should be of little concern to society, unless the private clearly endangers the public. Even then laws regulating private behavior will have to pass judicial review.
superjuly wrote:kickycan wrote:
Okay, now go ahead, try to rip my logic apart on that one. I'll be back for more of this fun later.
Nope. It sounds like a very deep, dark and scary hole to be digging into.
I'd rather to just sit back..............and relax. :wink:
Are you calling me a piss drinker!?
<stands up, unholsters six-shooter>
REVEL SAID; "The bottom line is that is not the government's place to decide what is normal and what is not"
Asherman wrote:Can it be that Revel is moving toward the center?! Moving away from the idea that the Federal Government should be in the business of promoting liberal social causes? Probably just a slip.
That is the very thing that most of the conservative posters here have advocated. Keep the Federal Government out of people's private lives...
hi asherman.
now revel's statements are pretty consisitant. and when she gets more information she has been willing to say either, " still think the same thing" or " okay, didn't see that before".
but i disagree with a blanket statement that "conservatives want to keep government out of people's personal lives".
most of the conservatives posting do want the government to step into people's private lives on the issues that
they feel strongly about. just like the liberals do on
their issues.
but i do agree with you that the government needs to not promote or discourage the way people live their private lives.
the government's job is to provide for the common defense so that americans can pursue life, liberty and happiness.
Asherman,
This is about supporting the arts though, not promoting homosexuality. Where will this idea end that we give money for some arts and not for other arts? (based on what is normal and what is not normal according to the government)
What about all those naked greek art pictures that have been around forever in schools and libraries? Is that next? Couldn't that be said to promote sexual immorality? Those naked cupid baby angels could be said to promote child molestation?
thanks don't tread on me.
The Federal Government should not provide support for the arts. No Federal tax dollars for sculpture, paintings, photographs, television, plays, or fictional books and films. The Federal government does from time to time need to produce informational media, but the number of such works should be strictly limited.
The only regulation that may be warranted is in policing the public airwaves, radio/television. Private "publishers" are privileged to utilize the commons by licensing, and thereby gains entry into virtually every citizen's life. Some have apparently so abused the privilege by broadcasting sexual material offensive to significant parts of the citizenry. The risk of hefty fines and loss of licenses may curb the more offensive. Personally I am offended by much of what is broadcast, but I just don't watch/listen (that from a deaf man) to material in bad taste. I think if more citizens used their controllers more, then the FCC would have less to do, and that would be my preference.
So long as there are publishers, producers, and gallery owners who perceive a market for salacious materials, artists will supply the material. What is the market? If a lot of people want porn of any sort short of snuff films, they are entitled to buy whatever is available. Apparently a lot of people do like that sort of material and film/DVD/tape porn for every taste sells well. The big(ger) budget "Hollywood" films can be as raunchy or cloying as they wish, and the box office will determine what gets produced. The same goes for plays and other performing arts. The government should not be a buyer, or distributer.
The freedom to publish books, pamphlets and periodicals without government interference is even more sacred. The government has stayed pretty away from censorship of printed matter, and off hand I don't know of any cases where the Federal Government published and promoted either a book of fiction, one advocating any religion or political party.
Aesthetic arts like painting, sculpture, and photography are a projection of the artist's creativity and skill. Sometimes there is a "message", but most often this sort of art work is primarily aesthetic. Art work ranges from "magnificent" to "eeechech", but that is a judgement for the individual not the government to make. Its alright if the content of the art work is intended to shock or even repulse the viewer, if the artist can find a venue willing to display the work ... without the help of Federal dollars.
Art is an important part of our culture and one of its glories. The nation does not need for the Federal government to "encourage" or subsidize art. There are probably more fine artists working today than at any other time in our history. There are so many in fact, that its difficult to stand out from the pack. Neither the television nor the film industry needs Federal support to exist, and public donations to PBS properly should make up the bulk of its budget.
BTW, in case you didn't know, I'm a pretty serious painter.
Asherman,
more often than not I feel at a disadvantage when trying to talk to most of the posters in this forums and talking to you is no different. (mean that in a good way)
I admire artist of any form as I think the world would be an uninteresting world at best without it. I don't have any talent but I admire those that do.
The problem as I see it though about not supporting the arts in the context of this thread is that this guy is wanting to censor free art that is in public schools and libraries. A lot of the times that is the only times poorer people can be exposed to good classic art. If we start censoring what the public gets for free in those places then we are short changing once again the poorer folks in the United States.
Besides if these guys could get away with it they would censor everything not just stuff in public schools and libraries and other free places for poor people to be exposed to good art. [IMO]
