Gay love is not against the law.

[Skylar]

Yeah, the murder art is where the law got involved.

But again, you're equating consensual sex between adults with murder/cannibalism. You're unable to recognize any distinction nor difference between the two.

Rational people can. See how that works?

The differences are all subjective. At one time assisted suicide was illegal and rational people agreed that it was murder. Now it's getting the protection of the law. It's part of self determination. A person has as a basic right the ability to choose the time and manner of their own death. That is now rational.

Right on. Can the age of consent for sex be lowered by society? Right now, it is 18 in most places, but could it go to 17? 16? 15?

Nature has already told us that once you reach puberty you are a sexual adult. Why do the bigots on this forum want to keep it at 18?

Mark

So sex after menopause is unnatural and against 'nature's design'?

Is prepubescent sex against natures design?

Mark

You'll have to excuse me if I don't take the advice of how much government should be in our bedrooms from a person that likely hasn't had sex since the Truman administration.

The government should get out of these men's bedroom.

Post #7 suggests you were in that bedroom, considering you claim to know exactly what happened. Were you there in person - hiding in the closet, perhaps? - peeping through the blinds, or recording it remotely? Will you be called to testify?

The facts are there for all to see. You must be a bigot so you are confused.

Then explain how sex between consenting adults is the same thing as murder/cannibalism.

You insist there is no distinction. Explain it to us. If its 'there for all to see', this should be remarkably easy for you.

 

[80zephyr]

Wrong. I explained why each exists, and with good reason. That you don't care to find it is your problem, not mine.

Mark

So your wife's mouth is 'designed by nature' for penis? Your hand is 'designed by nature' for your penis?

The teeth and fingernails tend to contradict those assumptions.

Yes to both. And it is all stated in a way that makes complete sense.

Mark

Then explain the teeth. Why would 'nature design' a mouth for a penis....and include so many sharp objects used for cutting and grinding food for digestion?

Explain how your hand was 'designed by nature' for your penis.

With evidence, please.

Nature designed foreplay. Nature also designed the need for men to release their sperm every once in a while.

But did it design the mouth and hand for this purpose? If so, explain the teeth, fingernails, gag reflex, and the litany of other complications that arise.

The body was designed to be stimulated, to ready it for sex. Procreation is the number one reason(in nature) for us to exist.

Mark

 

[Skylar]

The differences are all subjective. At one time assisted suicide was illegal and rational people agreed that it was murder. Now it's getting the protection of the law. It's part of self determination. A person has as a basic right the ability to choose the time and manner of their own death. That is now rational.

Right on. Can the age of consent for sex be lowered by society? Right now, it is 18 in most places, but could it go to 17? 16? 15?

Nature has already told us that once you reach puberty you are a sexual adult. Why do the bigots on this forum want to keep it at 18?

Mark

So sex after menopause is unnatural and against 'nature's design'?

Is prepubescent sex against natures design?

Mark

I haven't made any 'nature's design' arguments. You have. Is sex after menopause 'unnatural' and 'against nature's design'?

If not, why not.

By your questioning, you certainly are making an argument. I have answered your questions, but I will answer this one.

Sex after menopause is natural. Your body also has to release its "sex urges" even after losing the ability to have children.

So why would the release of sexual urges with no possibility for procreation be 'unnatural' and 'against nature's design' among gay men or lesbian women?

Seems a rather arbitrary distinction for you to draw. And quite illogical and irrational, given that gay sex meets *every* one of your standards of 'natural' and 'by nature's design.

 

[80zephyr]

The differences are all subjective. At one time assisted suicide was illegal and rational people agreed that it was murder. Now it's getting the protection of the law. It's part of self determination. A person has as a basic right the ability to choose the time and manner of their own death. That is now rational.

Right on. Can the age of consent for sex be lowered by society? Right now, it is 18 in most places, but could it go to 17? 16? 15?

Nature has already told us that once you reach puberty you are a sexual adult. Why do the bigots on this forum want to keep it at 18?

Mark

So sex after menopause is unnatural and against 'nature's design'?

Is prepubescent sex against natures design?

Mark

You'll have to excuse me if I don't take the advice of how much government should be in our bedrooms from a person that likely hasn't had sex since the Truman administration.

The government should get out of these men's bedroom.

Post #7 suggests you were in that bedroom, considering you claim to know exactly what happened. Were you there in person - hiding in the closet, perhaps? - peeping through the blinds, or recording it remotely? Will you be called to testify?

The facts are there for all to see. You must be a bigot so you are confused.

Then explain how sex between consenting adults is the same thing as murder/cannibalism.

You insist there is no distinction. Explain it to us. If its 'there for all to see', this should be remarkably easy for you.

Like I said, you really don't understand the thought process of this thread.

Do you agree that the laws regarding murder are a human construct?

Mark

 

[Skylar]

So your wife's mouth is 'designed by nature' for penis? Your hand is 'designed by nature' for your penis?

The teeth and fingernails tend to contradict those assumptions.

Yes to both. And it is all stated in a way that makes complete sense.

Mark

Then explain the teeth. Why would 'nature design' a mouth for a penis....and include so many sharp objects used for cutting and grinding food for digestion?

Explain how your hand was 'designed by nature' for your penis.

With evidence, please.

Nature designed foreplay. Nature also designed the need for men to release their sperm every once in a while.

But did it design the mouth and hand for this purpose? If so, explain the teeth, fingernails, gag reflex, and the litany of other complications that arise.

The body was designed to be stimulated, to ready it for sex. Procreation is the number one reason(in nature) for us to exist.

Mark

But procreation isn't the only reason people have sex or release sexual urges. A fact you've already admitted to.

Are they 'unnatural' or 'irrational' for finding sexual excitement or sexual release outside of procreation?

Or is your argument just a horrid, self contradictory mess of illogical nonsense?

 

[80zephyr]

Right on. Can the age of consent for sex be lowered by society? Right now, it is 18 in most places, but could it go to 17? 16? 15?

Nature has already told us that once you reach puberty you are a sexual adult. Why do the bigots on this forum want to keep it at 18?

Mark

So sex after menopause is unnatural and against 'nature's design'?

Is prepubescent sex against natures design?

Mark

I haven't made any 'nature's design' arguments. You have. Is sex after menopause 'unnatural' and 'against nature's design'?

If not, why not.

By your questioning, you certainly are making an argument. I have answered your questions, but I will answer this one.

Sex after menopause is natural. Your body also has to release its "sex urges" even after losing the ability to have children.

So why would the release of sexual urges with no possibility for procreation be 'unnatural' and 'against nature's design' among gay men or lesbian women?

Seems a rather arbitrary distinction for you to draw. And quite illogical and irrational, given that gay sex meets *every* one of your standards of 'natural' and 'by nature's design.

Well then, so does sex with the dead, animals and children.

Your point?

BTW, since gays cannot procreate, they actually meet NONE of natures design criteria.

Mark

 

[Skylar]

Right on. Can the age of consent for sex be lowered by society? Right now, it is 18 in most places, but could it go to 17? 16? 15?

Nature has already told us that once you reach puberty you are a sexual adult. Why do the bigots on this forum want to keep it at 18?

Mark

So sex after menopause is unnatural and against 'nature's design'?

Is prepubescent sex against natures design?

Mark

You'll have to excuse me if I don't take the advice of how much government should be in our bedrooms from a person that likely hasn't had sex since the Truman administration.

The government should get out of these men's bedroom.

Post #7 suggests you were in that bedroom, considering you claim to know exactly what happened. Were you there in person - hiding in the closet, perhaps? - peeping through the blinds, or recording it remotely? Will you be called to testify?

The facts are there for all to see. You must be a bigot so you are confused.

Then explain how sex between consenting adults is the same thing as murder/cannibalism.

You insist there is no distinction. Explain it to us. If its 'there for all to see', this should be remarkably easy for you.

Like I said, you really don't understand the thought process of this thread.

I completely understand the thought process of this thread: a false equivilancy fallacy equating gay sex with murder and cannibalism to try and awkwardly justify bigotry and discrimination against gays and lesbians.

Its just a shit argument, based on a fallacy. As gay sex isn't murder/cannibalism anymore than gay sex is fucking an infant.

Your argument is completely fucked, as it requires that we recognize *no* relevant distinctions between consenusal sex between adults and fucking a toddler. Or consensual sex between adults and murder/cannibalism.

A rational person could recognize such a distinction. You can't. And that's irrational.

 

[80zephyr]

Yes to both. And it is all stated in a way that makes complete sense.

Mark

Then explain the teeth. Why would 'nature design' a mouth for a penis....and include so many sharp objects used for cutting and grinding food for digestion?

Explain how your hand was 'designed by nature' for your penis.

With evidence, please.

Nature designed foreplay. Nature also designed the need for men to release their sperm every once in a while.

But did it design the mouth and hand for this purpose? If so, explain the teeth, fingernails, gag reflex, and the litany of other complications that arise.

The body was designed to be stimulated, to ready it for sex. Procreation is the number one reason(in nature) for us to exist.

Mark

But procreation isn't the only reason people have sex or release sexual urges. A fact you've already admitted to.

Are they 'unnatural' or 'irrational' for finding sexual excitement or sexual release outside of procreation?

Or is your argument just a horrid, self contradictory mess of illogical nonsense?

People have sex to continue shaping their sexual lives together. Nature "hopes" that by finding excitement, procreation will ensue.

You do realize that people "getting horny" is the bodies natural inclination to reproduce, do you not?

Mark

 

[Skylar]

So sex after menopause is unnatural and against 'nature's design'?

Is prepubescent sex against natures design?

Mark

I haven't made any 'nature's design' arguments. You have. Is sex after menopause 'unnatural' and 'against nature's design'?

If not, why not.

By your questioning, you certainly are making an argument. I have answered your questions, but I will answer this one.

Sex after menopause is natural. Your body also has to release its "sex urges" even after losing the ability to have children.

So why would the release of sexual urges with no possibility for procreation be 'unnatural' and 'against nature's design' among gay men or lesbian women?

Seems a rather arbitrary distinction for you to draw. And quite illogical and irrational, given that gay sex meets *every* one of your standards of 'natural' and 'by nature's design.

Well then, so does sex with the dead, animals and children.

Notice you didn't actually answer my question.

So why would the release of sexual urges with no possibility for procreation be 'unnatural' and 'against nature's design' among gay men or lesbian women?

 

[80zephyr]

So sex after menopause is unnatural and against 'nature's design'?

Is prepubescent sex against natures design?

Mark

The government should get out of these men's bedroom.

Post #7 suggests you were in that bedroom, considering you claim to know exactly what happened. Were you there in person - hiding in the closet, perhaps? - peeping through the blinds, or recording it remotely? Will you be called to testify?

The facts are there for all to see. You must be a bigot so you are confused.

Then explain how sex between consenting adults is the same thing as murder/cannibalism.

You insist there is no distinction. Explain it to us. If its 'there for all to see', this should be remarkably easy for you.

Like I said, you really don't understand the thought process of this thread.

I completely understand the thought process of this thread: a false equivilancy fallacy equating gay sex with murder and cannibalism to try and awkwardly justify bigotry and discrimination against gays and lesbians.

Its just a shit argument, based on a fallacy. As gay sex isn't murder/cannibalism anymore than gay sex is fucking an infant.

Your argument is completely fucked, as it requires that we recognize *no* relevant distinctions between consenusal sex between adults and fucking a toddler. Or consensual sex between adults and murder/cannibalism.

A rational person could recognize such a distinction. You can't. And that's irrational.

Since all morals are human constructs, the ONLY difference is what we allow as a society.

Using your "consenting adults" rule is bullshit, since there really are no rules, except for those we choose.

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

Is prepubescent sex against natures design?

Mark

I haven't made any 'nature's design' arguments. You have. Is sex after menopause 'unnatural' and 'against nature's design'?

If not, why not.

By your questioning, you certainly are making an argument. I have answered your questions, but I will answer this one.

Sex after menopause is natural. Your body also has to release its "sex urges" even after losing the ability to have children.

So why would the release of sexual urges with no possibility for procreation be 'unnatural' and 'against nature's design' among gay men or lesbian women?

Seems a rather arbitrary distinction for you to draw. And quite illogical and irrational, given that gay sex meets *every* one of your standards of 'natural' and 'by nature's design.

Well then, so does sex with the dead, animals and children.

Notice you didn't actually answer my question.

So why would the release of sexual urges with no possibility for procreation be 'unnatural' and 'against nature's design' among gay men or lesbian women?

Because gays cannot reproduce.

Can't get any simpler than that.

Mark

 

[Skylar]

Then explain the teeth. Why would 'nature design' a mouth for a penis....and include so many sharp objects used for cutting and grinding food for digestion?

Explain how your hand was 'designed by nature' for your penis.

With evidence, please.

Nature designed foreplay. Nature also designed the need for men to release their sperm every once in a while.

But did it design the mouth and hand for this purpose? If so, explain the teeth, fingernails, gag reflex, and the litany of other complications that arise.

The body was designed to be stimulated, to ready it for sex. Procreation is the number one reason(in nature) for us to exist.

Mark

But procreation isn't the only reason people have sex or release sexual urges. A fact you've already admitted to.

Are they 'unnatural' or 'irrational' for finding sexual excitement or sexual release outside of procreation?

Or is your argument just a horrid, self contradictory mess of illogical nonsense?

People have sex to continue shaping their sexual lives together. Nature "hopes" that by finding excitement, procreation will ensue.

Laughing.....so now your argument encomapsses natures *feelings*.

You recognize that there is no possibility of procreation in masterbation. You recognize that there is no possibility of procreation in oral sex. You recognize that there is no possibiity of procreation in sex after menopause.

But you insist that these are all 'natural'.

Yet can't explain why seeking sexual release with no possibility of procreation is suddenly unnatural for gay men or lesbian women.

That's utterly arbitrary. Even you don't buy your bullshit. Surely you can understand why I don't see it as amounting to much.

 

[Skylar]

Is prepubescent sex against natures design?

Mark

Post #7 suggests you were in that bedroom, considering you claim to know exactly what happened. Were you there in person - hiding in the closet, perhaps? - peeping through the blinds, or recording it remotely? Will you be called to testify?

The facts are there for all to see. You must be a bigot so you are confused.

Then explain how sex between consenting adults is the same thing as murder/cannibalism.

You insist there is no distinction. Explain it to us. If its 'there for all to see', this should be remarkably easy for you.

Like I said, you really don't understand the thought process of this thread.

I completely understand the thought process of this thread: a false equivilancy fallacy equating gay sex with murder and cannibalism to try and awkwardly justify bigotry and discrimination against gays and lesbians.

Its just a shit argument, based on a fallacy. As gay sex isn't murder/cannibalism anymore than gay sex is fucking an infant.

Your argument is completely fucked, as it requires that we recognize *no* relevant distinctions between consenusal sex between adults and fucking a toddler. Or consensual sex between adults and murder/cannibalism.

A rational person could recognize such a distinction. You can't. And that's irrational.

Since all morals are human constructs, the ONLY difference is what we allow as a society.

So there's no distinction between say, eating a sandwich and genocide then? And if we recognize any distinction, we're ''hypocrites'?

This you call 'logic'? Really?

 

[Skylar]

I haven't made any 'nature's design' arguments. You have. Is sex after menopause 'unnatural' and 'against nature's design'?

If not, why not.

By your questioning, you certainly are making an argument. I have answered your questions, but I will answer this one.

Sex after menopause is natural. Your body also has to release its "sex urges" even after losing the ability to have children.

So why would the release of sexual urges with no possibility for procreation be 'unnatural' and 'against nature's design' among gay men or lesbian women?

Seems a rather arbitrary distinction for you to draw. And quite illogical and irrational, given that gay sex meets *every* one of your standards of 'natural' and 'by nature's design.

Well then, so does sex with the dead, animals and children.

Notice you didn't actually answer my question.

So why would the release of sexual urges with no possibility for procreation be 'unnatural' and 'against nature's design' among gay men or lesbian women?

Because gays cannot reproduce.

Neither can post menopausal women.

Yet their 'sexual releases' with no possibility of procreation is perfectly natural, per you. Once again you contradict yourself.

Do you ever tire of wiping your ass with your own standards? I'm just curious.

 

[Katzndogz]

You are trying to force a moral distinction. It is moral for consenting adults to have whatever kind of sex they want except when it violates your standards of morality.

There are no children or animals involved. Nothing but two men who expressed their love for one another in a way that you find morally reprehensible. You certainly want to force your morality down the throats of men whose sex practices have nothing to do with you. How are you harmed by a man wishing to be eaten finding a soul mate?

 

[Skylar]

You are trying to force a moral distinction. It is moral for consenting adults to have whatever kind of sex they want except when it violates your standards of morality.

My basis of distinction is quite factual: the bodies and the mutilation. Its pretty much where any rational person would draw their lines.

 

[Katzndogz]

By your questioning, you certainly are making an argument. I have answered your questions, but I will answer this one.

Sex after menopause is natural. Your body also has to release its "sex urges" even after losing the ability to have children.

So why would the release of sexual urges with no possibility for procreation be 'unnatural' and 'against nature's design' among gay men or lesbian women?

Seems a rather arbitrary distinction for you to draw. And quite illogical and irrational, given that gay sex meets *every* one of your standards of 'natural' and 'by nature's design.

Well then, so does sex with the dead, animals and children.

Notice you didn't actually answer my question.

So why would the release of sexual urges with no possibility for procreation be 'unnatural' and 'against nature's design' among gay men or lesbian women?

Because gays cannot reproduce.

Neither can post menopausal women.

Yet their 'sexual releases' with no possibility of procreation is perfectly natural, per you. Once again you contradict yourself.

Do you ever tire of wiping your ass with your own standards? I'm just curious.

Post menopausal women are still women. They have not changed into a separate species.

 

[Skylar]

So why would the release of sexual urges with no possibility for procreation be 'unnatural' and 'against nature's design' among gay men or lesbian women?

Seems a rather arbitrary distinction for you to draw. And quite illogical and irrational, given that gay sex meets *every* one of your standards of 'natural' and 'by nature's design.

Well then, so does sex with the dead, animals and children.

Notice you didn't actually answer my question.

So why would the release of sexual urges with no possibility for procreation be 'unnatural' and 'against nature's design' among gay men or lesbian women?

Because gays cannot reproduce.

Neither can post menopausal women.

Yet their 'sexual releases' with no possibility of procreation is perfectly natural, per you. Once again you contradict yourself.

Do you ever tire of wiping your ass with your own standards? I'm just curious.

Post menopausal women are still women. They have not changed into a separate species.

Lesbian women are still women. Gay men are still men.

They haven't changed to a separate species.

Sigh.....consistency. Ain't it a bitch?

 

[Katzndogz]

You are trying to force a moral distinction. It is moral for consenting adults to have whatever kind of sex they want except when it violates your standards of morality.

My basis of distinction is quite factual: the bodies and the mutilation. Its pretty much where any rational person would draw their lines.

Yet you do support mutilation! You celebrate mutilation don't you? You might give it a fancy name like transgendered but it's the same thing. If a man who sees himself as a woman gets to be mutilated because that's how he sees himself, who are you to say that a man who sees himself as on the menu should be denied that same freedom?

 

[Katzndogz]

Well then, so does sex with the dead, animals and children.

Notice you didn't actually answer my question.

So why would the release of sexual urges with no possibility for procreation be 'unnatural' and 'against nature's design' among gay men or lesbian women?

Because gays cannot reproduce.

Neither can post menopausal women.

Yet their 'sexual releases' with no possibility of procreation is perfectly natural, per you. Once again you contradict yourself.

Do you ever tire of wiping your ass with your own standards? I'm just curious.

Post menopausal women are still women. They have not changed into a separate species.

Lesbian women are still women. Gay men are still men.

They haven't changed to a separate species.

Sigh.....consistency. Ain't it a bitch?

The only one wanting to deny these gay men the right to enjoy sex the way they want to is you.