Gay love is not against the law.

[80zephyr]

Lol. I knew you couldn't answer my question. Then you would be a...

wait for it...


bigot.

Mak

Laughing.....because I won't accept that looking at a pretty girl is the same thing as cutting off an eating your own penis?

You really can't see any distinction? No difference whatsoever?

Um, wow.

You really don't understand the point of this thread, do you?

Sad.

Mark

A false equivalency fallacy of equating murder and cannibalism as an awkward attempt to justify bigotry and discrimination toward gays. I totally get it.

Its just a bullshit argument. As consensual sex between adults isn't the same thing as murder/cannibalism. Nor is fucking a baby the same thing as fucking a consenting adult.

Yet your argument *requires* that we can recognize no differences nor distinction. That's irrational.

My argument is as rational as your own.

Then apply it. Explain to us how there is no distinction between looking at a pretty girl.....and cutting off and eating your own penis.

I can think of several relevant distinctions. As could any rational person. But you can't.

Lets apply your argument again. Explain how there is no distinction between consensual sex between adults and fucking an infant. Say, a 6 month old.

I can think of several relevant distinctions. As could any rational person. You can't.

Lets apply your argument again. Explain how there is no distinction between consensual sex between adults and murder/cannibalism.

I can think of several relevant distinctions. As could any rational person. You can't.

If our arguments are equally rational, this should be child's play for you. If they're not equally rational, you may have a slightly more difficult time making your argument.

Hmm. I can think of several relevant distinctions when a man has sex with a man. Yet, you can't.

Mark

 

[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.

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?

Um, wow. Now you're arguing that transgender surgery is an act of consensual sex?

 

[80zephyr]

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?

Yes, they still can conceive a child. No matter what. They are consistent.

Mark

 

[Skylar]

Laughing.....because I won't accept that looking at a pretty girl is the same thing as cutting off an eating your own penis?

You really can't see any distinction? No difference whatsoever?

Um, wow.

You really don't understand the point of this thread, do you?

Sad.

Mark

A false equivalency fallacy of equating murder and cannibalism as an awkward attempt to justify bigotry and discrimination toward gays. I totally get it.

Its just a bullshit argument. As consensual sex between adults isn't the same thing as murder/cannibalism. Nor is fucking a baby the same thing as fucking a consenting adult.

Yet your argument *requires* that we can recognize no differences nor distinction. That's irrational.

My argument is as rational as your own.

Then apply it. Explain to us how there is no distinction between looking at a pretty girl.....and cutting off and eating your own penis.

I can think of several relevant distinctions. As could any rational person. But you can't.

Lets apply your argument again. Explain how there is no distinction between consensual sex between adults and fucking an infant. Say, a 6 month old.

I can think of several relevant distinctions. As could any rational person. You can't.

Lets apply your argument again. Explain how there is no distinction between consensual sex between adults and murder/cannibalism.

I can think of several relevant distinctions. As could any rational person. You can't.

If our arguments are equally rational, this should be child's play for you. If they're not equally rational, you may have a slightly more difficult time making your argument.

Hmm. I can think of several relevant distinctions when a man has sex with a man. Yet, you can't.

Mark

Men with men are satisfying sexual urges with no possibility of procreation. Which you indicated was okay.

Men with men are using body parts that weren't designed by nature for sex. Which you indicated was okay.

They are both of sexual maturity, which you indicated was okay.

Where then is the problem?

And of course, if your argument is as rational as mine, lets apply your argument:

Explain to us how there is no distinction between looking at a pretty girl.....and cutting off and eating your own penis.

I can think of several relevant distinctions. As could any rational person. But you can't.

Lets apply your argument again. Explain how there is no distinction between consensual sex between adults and fucking an infant. Say, a 6 month old.

I can think of several relevant distinctions. As could any rational person. You can't.

Lets apply your argument again. Explain how there is no distinction between consensual sex between adults and murder/cannibalism.

I can think of several relevant distinctions. As could any rational person. You can't.

This would be the .....what? Third time I've asked you to apply your argument. And yet you can't apply your argument to make any of those false equivalencies work.

Probably because they aren't equivalent.

 

[Skylar]

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?

Yes, they still can conceive a child. No matter what. They are consistent.

Mark

A post menopausal women can't conceive a child. Yet you're perfectly cool with them having sex to 'satisfy sexual urges' with no possibility of procreation.

Yet if its a lesbian woman satisfying her sexual urges with no possibility of procreation....suddenly there's a problem?

Inconsistent much?

 

[Arianrhod]

Yes, they still can conceive a child. No matter what.

Not every woman can conceive a child. Do you need someone to explain that to you?

 

[Skylar]

Yes, they still can conceive a child. No matter what.

Not every woman can conceive a child. Do you need someone to explain that to you?

They still haven't figured out that procreation isn't the only reason people have sex.

 

[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?

Um, wow. Now you're arguing that transgender surgery is an act of consensual sex?

No. It is an act of consensual mutilation. An act that you celebrate.

You are nothing more than a moralizing bigoted old busy body telling people what kind of sex you find acceptable.

 

[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.

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?

Um, wow. Now you're arguing that transgender surgery is an act of consensual sex?

No. It is an act of consensual mutilation. An act that you celebrate.

So your gay sex equals murder/cannibalism nonsense has been completely abandoned?

 

[80zephyr]

You really don't understand the point of this thread, do you?

Sad.

Mark

A false equivalency fallacy of equating murder and cannibalism as an awkward attempt to justify bigotry and discrimination toward gays. I totally get it.

Its just a bullshit argument. As consensual sex between adults isn't the same thing as murder/cannibalism. Nor is fucking a baby the same thing as fucking a consenting adult.

Yet your argument *requires* that we can recognize no differences nor distinction. That's irrational.

My argument is as rational as your own.

Then apply it. Explain to us how there is no distinction between looking at a pretty girl.....and cutting off and eating your own penis.

I can think of several relevant distinctions. As could any rational person. But you can't.

Lets apply your argument again. Explain how there is no distinction between consensual sex between adults and fucking an infant. Say, a 6 month old.

I can think of several relevant distinctions. As could any rational person. You can't.

Lets apply your argument again. Explain how there is no distinction between consensual sex between adults and murder/cannibalism.

I can think of several relevant distinctions. As could any rational person. You can't.

If our arguments are equally rational, this should be child's play for you. If they're not equally rational, you may have a slightly more difficult time making your argument.

Hmm. I can think of several relevant distinctions when a man has sex with a man. Yet, you can't.

Mark

Men with men are satisfying sexual urges with no possibility of procreation. Which you indicated was okay.

Men with men are using body parts that weren't designed by nature for sex. Which you indicated was okay.

They are both of sexual maturity, which you indicated was okay.

Where then is the problem?

And of course, if your argument is as rational as mine, lets apply your argument:

Explain to us how there is no distinction between looking at a pretty girl.....and cutting off and eating your own penis.

I can think of several relevant distinctions. As could any rational person. But you can't.

Lets apply your argument again. Explain how there is no distinction between consensual sex between adults and fucking an infant. Say, a 6 month old.

I can think of several relevant distinctions. As could any rational person. You can't.

Lets apply your argument again. Explain how there is no distinction between consensual sex between adults and murder/cannibalism.

I can think of several relevant distinctions. As could any rational person. You can't.

This would be the .....what? Third time I've asked you to apply your argument. And yet you can't apply your argument to make any of those false equivalencies work.

Probably because they aren't equivalent.

Of course they are. That you reject them doesn't make your argument relevant. Nature designed every sex act it could to get us ready to reproduce. Sex is the strongest urge we have other than self preservation. Do you know why is urge is so strong?

Reproduction.

Without reproduction, you cease to exist. Certainly you can see why nature "pulled out all the stops" to get us to copulate.

And guess what? Nature needs us to reproduce. Anything that doesn't end up there is unnatural.

Thats just the way it is.

Mark

 

[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?

Um, wow. Now you're arguing that transgender surgery is an act of consensual sex?

No. It is an act of consensual mutilation. An act that you celebrate.

So your gay sex equals murder/cannibalism nonsense has been completely abandoned?

You are the one telling gay men what kind of sex they should have. You are the one telling gay men they have no right of privacy. You are the one who wants to break down the doors of men in a loving and mutually rewarding relationship.

 

[80zephyr]

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?

Yes, they still can conceive a child. No matter what. They are consistent.

Mark

A post menopausal women can't conceive a child. Yet you're perfectly cool with them having sex to 'satisfy sexual urges' with no possibility of procreation.

Yet if its a lesbian woman satisfying her sexual urges with no possibility of procreation....suddenly there's a problem?

Inconsistent much?

Not at all. A woman is built with sexual urges, even if her body will not produce a baby, those urges don't go away whether she can conceive or not.

Nature, being nature, "believes" that any chance for conception must be explored.

Maybe it should talk to the body more, but it really changes nothing.

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

Yes, they still can conceive a child. No matter what.

Not every woman can conceive a child. Do you need someone to explain that to you?

They still haven't figured out that procreation isn't the only reason people have sex.

Why do people have sex? Because its enjoyable. Why is it enjoyable? Because nature designed it to be so, so that preservation of the species would go on.

Now, you can state there are different reasons, but you would be wrong.

Mark

 

[Skylar]

Yes, they still can conceive a child. No matter what.

Not every woman can conceive a child. Do you need someone to explain that to you?

They still haven't figured out that procreation isn't the only reason people have sex.

Why do people have sex? Because its enjoyable. Why is it enjoyable? Because nature designed it to be so, so that preservation of the species would go on.

And yet people masterbate, for no procreative purpose. They have oral sex, for non procreative purpose. They have sex after menopause, for no procreative purpose.They satisfy sexual urges for no procreative purpose.

And you're cool with all of that.

But if a lesbian satisfies sexual urges for no procreative purpose.....suddenly there's a problem?

Laughing...I don't think 'logic' means what you think it means. As your argument is a train wreck of irrational, arbitrary, illogical self contradiction.

 

[Skylar]

Not at all. A woman is built with sexual urges, even if her body will not produce a baby, those urges don't go away whether she can conceive or not.

Then why would a lesbian woman be any different?

Your argument makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

 

[Skylar]

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?

Um, wow. Now you're arguing that transgender surgery is an act of consensual sex?

No. It is an act of consensual mutilation. An act that you celebrate.

So your gay sex equals murder/cannibalism nonsense has been completely abandoned?

You are the one telling gay men what kind of sex they should have.

I'm the one recognizing a distinction between gay sex.....a murder/cannibalism.

You're incapable of recognizing such a distinction, concluding they are the exact same thing.

A rational person could tell the difference.

 

[Katzndogz]

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?

Um, wow. Now you're arguing that transgender surgery is an act of consensual sex?

No. It is an act of consensual mutilation. An act that you celebrate.

So your gay sex equals murder/cannibalism nonsense has been completely abandoned?

You are the one telling gay men what kind of sex they should have.

I'm the one recognizing a distinction between gay sex.....a murder/cannibalism.

You're incapable of recognizing such a distinction, concluding they are the exact same thing.

A rational person could tell the difference.

You are making a moral distinction. What gives you the right to impose your morals on someone else?

 

[Skylar]

Um, wow. Now you're arguing that transgender surgery is an act of consensual sex?

No. It is an act of consensual mutilation. An act that you celebrate.

So your gay sex equals murder/cannibalism nonsense has been completely abandoned?

You are the one telling gay men what kind of sex they should have.

I'm the one recognizing a distinction between gay sex.....a murder/cannibalism.

You're incapable of recognizing such a distinction, concluding they are the exact same thing.

A rational person could tell the difference.

You are making a moral distinction. What gives you the right to impose your morals on someone else?

I'm making a factual distinction. Consensual sex between adults *isn't* the same thing as murder/cannibalism.

To you, they are. To rational people, they aren't.

 

[Arianrhod]

Um, wow. Now you're arguing that transgender surgery is an act of consensual sex?

No. It is an act of consensual mutilation. An act that you celebrate.

So your gay sex equals murder/cannibalism nonsense has been completely abandoned?

You are the one telling gay men what kind of sex they should have.

I'm the one recognizing a distinction between gay sex.....a murder/cannibalism.

You're incapable of recognizing such a distinction, concluding they are the exact same thing.

A rational person could tell the difference.

You are making a moral distinction. What gives you the right to impose your morals on someone else?

Is cannibalism all right with you if it involves a straight couple?

 

[bodecea]

Yes, they still can conceive a child. No matter what.

Not every woman can conceive a child. Do you need someone to explain that to you?

They still haven't figured out that procreation isn't the only reason people have sex.

That does seem to be a sticking point with many of them....wonder where that comes from.