Marinus

"Berliner" is a noun, "Danish" is not. I don't know if "Ich bin ein Berliner" is correct, but it's on par with "I'm an American".

I think that would be the use of nuclear warheads as sex toys.

I think that in general strict religious parents tend to have more unwanted children than non-religious and moderate religious parents. The non-religious and moderate religious tend to be more often pro-choice and pro-anti-conception, so they will be more likely to end or prevent unwanted pregnancies. There's enough men that are good nurturers and teachers, and I expect that part to be even higher in gay males. And those are the gay males that will want kids. The main difference between women and gay males is, that in gay males the Non-nurteres and unteachers (like me for example) don't get knocked up by accident. Besides that: we life in a society in which even the most unfit people are allowed to get children. Gays males that really want kids are your least problem. Single fathers would be a bigger problem and those are usually (and this is of course often completely reasonable) not seen as a big problem group in a world were even disease ridden homeless junkies have babies. As in all cases, I think adopting a child in a world that's full of orphans is more desirable than making one, but I understand why people want their own child. After all it's the most natural thing in the world.

I don't especially care for gay-sex being portrayed in movies, but it exist in reality, so when it fits the plot. As for it being a genetic flaw: it looks more and more that it's a by-product of a huge genetic advantage, namely a higher reproduction in women. In my case this is completely true, the women in my family have on average much more children then average women. While evolutionary seen my life is an exercise in futility because I poke around in al the wrong places, my genes are EXTREMELY successfully. Don't forget that my family shares part of my genome, and my family is HUGE. (my late grannies have a combined off-spring of 1000+ people, could be as high as 1500 even) So while I don't reproduce myself, parts of my genome are reproduced by others. That the case for everyone, including breeders, but since my family is extremely big, my genes are probably out-competing everyone else's genes as we speak. I'm glad we agree you're quote mining here. 99,5% didn't make a phone-call. I question the motive of everyone with nipplephobia. And there's plenty of Americans that bitch and moan and get historical about Europe, At least we bitch about a country that we're able to find on the world map. That's true, I matched the level of you argument that's in short that Americans are generally hysterical about sex to make money.

Unlike Witness Houston, I will always love you, Sweety.

I see, you're having your period. I'll get back at you tomorrow.

Yes, I'm known as a pro-gay extremist on these boards. I'm the feared swaffler of homophobes on a mission to root out heterosexuality Christian homophobia. Well, in reality I'm just curious. That type of opinion is at best rare over here (as in: never encountered it) . I just want to know how he thinks. Yes I know, how Anthropologist of me.....

But sex does enhance the plot. Not for the erotic value, but because it's an activity that's very important to humans. This doesn't mean that every flick should have sex-scenes, but when sex is important to the plot, and it often is, why not portray it in a proper way. Why can't you just be more European (Who am I kidding, 'mericans and Euros just love to bitch about each other, why should we want to spoil that.) So the economic side is important after all. I personally think teens should be reasonably comfortable with the subject sex as soon as they hit puberty around 13-14 or so. Heaven forbid they get adventurous too soon, 16 is early enough in my book, but if they do (and some always will) it's better if they know a thing or two. The first thing would be how to use a condom. Gaping vaginas are cool enough, but not before the twenties pretty please. around 0,5% of the US population was offended enough to file an official complaint. That's a staggering reaction to a nipple in my book. We do to, but we need something better than a nipple to cause one. No, I don't think that, it's more about pushing certain puritan values I suspect. I think that's damn scary. I would feel very uncomfortable if our media were controlled by the state. The same way you make big bucks of drugs by keeping it hidden/illegal? I don't think so. unless "premium prices" is newspeak for teen pregnancies or something.

That's remarkable. First you paint a picture of gays as a group that's going to destroy American society, and then you claim they should have equal rights.

I mean in the legal sense. What should their rights etcetera be according to you? I mean the group that doesn't respond Ex-gay counselling, or whatever that cure for gayness is called. @ Coreece: good one!

Just curious, Ron, in your ideal American society, what would be the position of homosexuals in society? Apart for "in the closet" of course.

Since those Corinthians were Greeks there's little chance they weren't.

And so do I, by pointing out that I'm from a country where gays have been given full rights and are fully integrated in society. The doom and gloom that should be the consequence of it, predicted by the likes of you, never happened. The total disruption of sexual morals never happened. The only thing that changed is that gays now have the option to marry. I'll also point out it's not only a couple of Americans that have identified gays as the harbingers of the apocalypse. Actually, we Europeans have a long tradition of blaming gays (and Jews, and Gypsies and so on) for all kinds of societal problems. [attention Godwin imminent] There were all kinds of Solutions (many of them Final) to the Gayish Question: from ordinary correctional beatings to the anal insertion of red hot pokers. Surprisingly it turned out that it didn't help society at all and didn't even get rid of the gays. I think you're above all scared that at one point or another I'll start making sense and that's why you ignore me.

Wait, wait, Let me get this straight: You're saying homosexuals are to blame that homophobes are picketing military funerals? Wow, just wow.

I've no reason to believe that God, if She exists, has the slightest interest in what I and mister Marinus are doing in the bedroom. If she has a problem with it, She knows where my house lives, and She can tell me personally that she doesn't like it. Until then it's up to me how I live my life. My morality is based around the principle "Do not harm". I've yet to find proof of any harm that is done by me being a homosexual. Repressing my homosexuality OTOH would probably harm me, and even worse, might harm others if I for example marry a woman and have kids with her. That would almost inevitably lead to large problems later on, like a broken family.

I sort of wonder what some people think same-sex marriage is all about. Once the novelty of seeing two men in a white wedding-dress wears of, same-sex marriage turns out to be exactly as boring as regular wedding.

Bump: I added a bit to that post to show you what I think about your view on decency and responsibility.

It's called sarcasm, Ron. I'm actually mocking your views on homosexuality. We've "responsible" Christian homers in the Netherlands. They marry women and have children but of course that doesn't make their homosexuality go away. This results in cruising behaviour, in other words the closet cases start to fuck each other in public, most popularly, on parking lots. The irony of it all is that decent people like me, who experience their sexuality in the privacy of their homes without bothering anyone with it, are held accountable for the behaviour of the "responsible" family values scum that lacks basic decency. Of course people who are stupid enough to think that pretending to be straight makes you straight are also too stupid to use condoms, so their wives are in danger of being infected with STD's like HIV. And when the assholes finally find out the hard way that sexuality cant be changed, they usually leave their women and kids for a man. Yeah that really sounds responsible to me. If you don't mind I'd rather not make my sexuality someone else's problem, though.

It was late and stuff, so yes, I was running out of steam. Westerners other than Americans portray sex in their movies because sex is part of life, not as a marketing strategy. If we want to see sex to get off, there's plenty of porn available, so why, exactly, would we need to watch feature films for the sexual content? It's just you projecting your immature attitude towards sex on the rest of the Western world. Boobs and penises are sex? really? A couple of days ago there was an television program on testicle cancer, and because we can handle it, it featured non-sexual frontal male nudity. We all know what half a second of nipple does in the States, and we can only speculate what would happen if someone showed a penis on television. The hysteria would be all-encompassing, I guess.

Darling, you're shitting with the wrong hole. You've absolutely no experience whatsoever with European attitudes towards sex. You might have heard a thing or two on FOX news, but Bill O'reilly is a demented retard, so you might want to turn to another source.

I personally chose homosexuality to avoid vaginas not marriage. In normal modern societies, same-sex marriage is regular marriage, btw.

I think it needs a reference to boobies. (I'm not sure though, I'm a resident of the netherworld of this forum)

You might want to avoid the rest of the Western World then if you've got kids. Like I said, we're discrete enough, but (for example) on many Western beaches, the top is optional for women, and no one is going to ask you for permission over that.

Well, darling, now you're twisting my words. American cinema doesn't demonize sex (OTOH the "easy" girl in a horror flick usually dies a violent death moments after being a so called slut) American cinema blushes and stutters when it handles the subject sex. But American cinema (we're not talking about US culture in general here) does glorify violence. Not in every flick, and not all violence is an ode to violence, but violence is often glorified. Mind you that violence, and even glorified violence aren't necessarily a bad thing. For example "Saving Private Ryan" is a very graphic and violent and brilliant movie.

I'm all for keeping sex away from children, but I can't imagine a child will be harmed by the sight of a boob, or any other part of the body for that matter. (except for vaginas of course, vaginas scarred me for life) It doesn't look like children of nudists are damaged by seeing naked people a lot. If anything they're probably more comfortable with their body than others. It's not like we Euros run around flashing our boobs and dicks, or something, in fact we're probably just as boring as Americans when it comes to sex and stuff. But a non-sexual portrayal of boobs or dicks is no big deal.