Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Again with the strawman. I never said it was against you. I successfully argued homosexuality was natural against Frankenstein.That's my point you said nothing. I said nothing about homosexuality not being natural, I said it doesn't lead to children.
I wasn't arguing against the notion that oral sex doesn't lead to pregnancy. Who was?You've been squawking and kicking up shit but not refuting anything I said. Which is why I pointed out you have words and words and words that say nothing regarding the discussion
Can you point them out?
How about a natural variation of human sexuality?What is it then? A birth defect?
You aren't real smart if you haven't figured that it is unnatural... but then again, we already knew that.Fine. Which Bingo institution taught you homosexuality was unnatural?
No. You haven't figured out what natural means.You aren't real smart if you haven't figured that it is unnatural... but then again, we already knew that.
Animals don't seem to be nearly as confused as you and other liberals on this subject, then again, they are likely smarter too.What natural order? Is nature speaking to you? Are you hearing voices?
Either way I think you're referring to the Bible's order. At least your version of it.
What is in a things nature encompasses everything we can observe that thing doing. The observation of a thing doing something is all that's required to prove objectively that it's with in the nature of that thing to do what its doing. You will never observe an thing doing something that is beyond its nature to do because by definition it would be incapable of doing it.
Displays of your own ignorance don't bother me much.Birth defects are what make pale white boys into Curried Goats
I know what it means and no you are not born with it.No. You haven't figured out what natural means.
Homo sapiens aren't animals? When's the last time you took a biology class?Animals don't seem to be nearly as confused as you and other liberals on this subject, then again, they are likely smarter too.
You don't know what it means by your own demonstration of ignorance.I know what it means and no you are not born with it.
You said nothing. You beat up a target of your own creation by your own admission.
Why don't we let the author speak:Anything involving showing sexual acts to six year olds is porn, pervert
How about a natural variation of human sexuality?
The idea that the only natural form of sex is sex in service of procreation must rely on the logical assumption that sex outside the purposes of sexual reproduction is unnatural. Does that logically follow? Are horny young men thinking about being fathers when they're staring at girls in their class?You haven't even defined what that means. Natural sex is for procreation. I don't care about gay sex, that isn't the point. But how is sex that doesn't solve the reason for sex natural? That makes no sense
Displays of your own ignorance don't bother me much.
Only in your sick fantasies, Marvin.
Well slightly different in that homosexuality involves two consenting people.No different than than someone being attracted to animals, right? That would just be a natural variation wouldn't it?
Why don't we let the author speak:
Q: The way protesters have described the book online — they make it sound like it’s marketed to 6-year-olds.
A: It keeps being called a children’s book. Senator Kennedy implied it was a children’s book. But I think that’s coming from a misreading of the comic-book form. “Gender Queer” is a comic, and in full color, but that doesn’t mean it’s for children. I originally wrote it for my parents, and then for older teens who were already asking these questions about themselves. I don’t recommend this book for kids!
Q: Having read it, I definitely wouldn’t give it to a grade-schooler in my life. But I could see recommending it to my kid if they were 17. If they were looking into chest binding, for example — I’d rather they learn about how to do it safely, as you discuss in the book, instead of winging it.
A: Many books that are being challenged often wrestle with a difficult topic, like historical atrocities, or experiences of racism, or something dealing with sexual health. In my opinion, books are one of the safest places to encounter that information for the first time. It’s less visceral than watching a movie or documentary. And you can go at your own pace. If something feels overwhelming, you can set the book down and walk away from it. I would rather young readers encounter information in books than in random unstructured Googling.
Q: Back to Senator Kennedy and the one page he read out loud. If he’d kept reading, we would have learned that the following page shows you and your partner beginning to have sex, and then you deciding you don’t actually want to have sex.
A: Right. The whole scene is really about consent. It’s about one character saying, “Hey, what we’re doing right now isn’t going the way I thought it would. It isn’t giving me the feelings I thought it was going to give me. Can we stop what we’re doing and do something else?”
This is the page that most conservatives cite when they say my book is too explicit. But it’s a scene about showing the reader that it’s okay, even mid-sexual experience, to stop and check in with your partner and say, “This isn’t working for me, and I need to back off.” I think that’s a message that’s important to share, and it’s not one that I heard often when I was a teenager.
Well slightly different in that homosexuality involves two consenting people.
Your obsessive fantasies are more amusing than bothersome. Who am I to stop your artistic expression?Does it bother you, boy?
Write all the fan fiction you like.
