The Homosexual Dilemma

[NYcarbineer]

You said "Children are part of what a marriage is. At least a real marriage.".

I asked about states that required different-sex couples to show they are INFERTILE prior to being allowed to marry.

Are such Civil Marriages not "real marriages"?


Seems pretty easy to follow the question based on what you said.

>>>>

First, I didn't say that...

But since ya brought it up:

Children are the natural consequence of coitus.... it's what such was designed for.

Did you want to contest that?

LOL! No WAIT!

ROFL!

You're one of those who 'feel' that because coitus is pleasurable, that such was designed to provide pleasure?

LMAO!

Before ya answer... you should know, that sexual intercourse is purposed for conception... part and parcel of promoting the likelihood of such, the human body is designed to trigger specific hormonal responses when the brain recognizes the potential for such, the genitals are designed around a phalanx of sensors which induce a sense of pleasure, which ... AGAIN ... sets a pattern of pleasure, so as to promote the likelihood of recurrence, thus increasing the potential for procreation, toward the biological imperative OKA: The Propagation of the Species.

A process which rests deep within the base instincts of the mammal... thus is animalistic... and which, provides very real 'danger' to the individual human female, as it sharply reduces her means to sustain herself thus REDUCING the likelihood of procreation, which is balanced through MARRIAGE, wherein the male provides for the safety and sustenance of the female and subsequent progeny... which requires nearly two decades of constant nurturing and training before it is a viable individual.

Now... having been educated on the issue.

Go ahead and tell the board what you feel 'sex' is for... .

Don't be shy now... go ahead.

State for the record and swear on the lives of your loved ones that you have never engaged in sexual intercourse for any other reason than reproduction.

ROFLMNAO! And we have ANOTHER of the "Sex is Pleasurable... therefore Sex was designed to give pleasure" idiots.

Folks, you cannot make this crap UP!

And that is how we can "KNOW" that the would-be 'People', are truly, what in greater nature is that which is known as: FOOD!

The repeated question that you refuse to answer is,

do you only engage in sexual intercourse for the purpose of reproduction?

OH! You 'feel' your little query wasn't answered... LOL! Now isn't that PRECIOUS?

Here's a clue scamp... "Why" one engages in sex, has no bearing on "WHAT NATURE DESIGNED SEX FOR".

But it DOES, however, demonstrate the efficacy of nature's design.

Nature made human females receptive to sex at any time, in stark contrast to almost every other species.

Why was that?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

So State laws that require that a couple be assumed infertile or provide proof of infertility between a man and a woman are not "real marriages"?


>>>>

Can ya try to revise that sentence into something closer to lucid?

You said "Children are part of what a marriage is. At least a real marriage.".

I asked about states that required different-sex couples to show they are INFERTILE prior to being allowed to marry.

Are such Civil Marriages not "real marriages"?


Seems pretty easy to follow the question based on what you said.

>>>>

First, I didn't say that...

But since ya brought it up:

Children are the natural consequence of coitus.... it's what such was designed for.

Did you want to contest that?

LOL! No WAIT!

ROFL!

You're one of those who 'feel' that because coitus is pleasurable, that such was designed to provide pleasure?

LMAO!

Before ya answer... you should know, that sexual intercourse is purposed for conception... part and parcel of promoting the likelihood of such, the human body is designed to trigger specific hormonal responses when the brain recognizes the potential for such, the genitals are designed around a phalanx of sensors which induce a sense of pleasure, which ... AGAIN ... sets a pattern of pleasure, so as to promote the likelihood of recurrence, thus increasing the potential for procreation, toward the biological imperative OKA: The Propagation of the Species.

A process which rests deep within the base instincts of the mammal... thus is animalistic... and which, provides very real 'danger' to the individual human female, as it sharply reduces her means to sustain herself thus REDUCING the likelihood of procreation, which is balanced through MARRIAGE, wherein the male provides for the safety and sustenance of the female and subsequent progeny... which requires nearly two decades of constant nurturing and training before it is a viable individual.

Now... having been educated on the issue.

Go ahead and tell the board what you feel 'sex' is for... .

Don't be shy now... go ahead.

Then the natural age for females to begin to have intercourse is when they've become sexually mature? Capable of reproducing?

Is it?

Based upon what? The natural age for reproduction is the age wherein the female is sufficiently emotionally mature to nurture and raise her child; which would, of course, reqire that she be sufficiently mature to have secured a husband, to sustain her through gestation and the years where caring for her child requires nearly constant attention.

This is all FUNDAMENTAL STUFF... yet it appears that you're absolutely ignorant of ALL OF IT!

How old are you?

 

[NYcarbineer]

You said "Children are part of what a marriage is. At least a real marriage.".

I asked about states that required different-sex couples to show they are INFERTILE prior to being allowed to marry.

Are such Civil Marriages not "real marriages"?


Seems pretty easy to follow the question based on what you said.

>>>>

First, I didn't say that...

But since ya brought it up:

Children are the natural consequence of coitus.... it's what such was designed for.

Did you want to contest that?

LOL! No WAIT!

ROFL!

You're one of those who 'feel' that because coitus is pleasurable, that such was designed to provide pleasure?

LMAO!

Before ya answer... you should know, that sexual intercourse is purposed for conception... part and parcel of promoting the likelihood of such, the human body is designed to trigger specific hormonal responses when the brain recognizes the potential for such, the genitals are designed around a phalanx of sensors which induce a sense of pleasure, which ... AGAIN ... sets a pattern of pleasure, so as to promote the likelihood of recurrence, thus increasing the potential for procreation, toward the biological imperative OKA: The Propagation of the Species.

A process which rests deep within the base instincts of the mammal... thus is animalistic... and which, provides very real 'danger' to the individual human female, as it sharply reduces her means to sustain herself thus REDUCING the likelihood of procreation, which is balanced through MARRIAGE, wherein the male provides for the safety and sustenance of the female and subsequent progeny... which requires nearly two decades of constant nurturing and training before it is a viable individual.

Now... having been educated on the issue.

Go ahead and tell the board what you feel 'sex' is for... .

Don't be shy now... go ahead.

State for the record and swear on the lives of your loved ones that you have never engaged in sexual intercourse for any other reason than reproduction.

ROFLMNAO! And we have ANOTHER of the "Sex is Pleasurable... therefore Sex was designed to give pleasure" idiots.

Folks, you cannot make this crap UP!

And that is how we can "KNOW" that the would-be 'People', are truly, what in greater nature is that which is known as: FOOD!

The repeated question that you refuse to answer is,

do you only engage in sexual intercourse for the purpose of reproduction?

OH! You 'feel' your little query wasn't answered... LOL! Now isn't that PRECIOUS?

Here's a clue scamp... "Why" one engages in sex, has no bearing on "WHAT NATURE DESIGNED SEX FOR".

But it DOES, however, demonstrate the efficacy of nature's design.

Kissing is non-reproductive, does that make it unnatural and perverted?

And again, to the question.

Will you state for the record that you never engage in sex for purposes other than reproduction, because you consider that unnatural?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Yes because that is what all of your kind eventually refer too.
This world is about adversity and diversity and acceptance.
No one group and govern implicitly. If that happens then it goes against all the laws of real nature.
Not the selective group you decided to live in.
It does strike odd that the ones that profess faith the most seem to have the least grasp of what they believe.
They want it to fit into their microcosm world. It become deplorable.

Yes! In that religion. But once again your "kind" step over the boundaries of pushing an agenda onto those that have not allegiance to your faith.

Faith?

We're talking the physical laws of nature... human physiology. Inees and outees... Round Pegs designed to go into round wholes which are DESIGNED TO RECEIVE THEM... for biologically essential purposes, critical to the viability of THE SPECIES.

You need 'faith' to accept THAT WHICH IS NOT EVEN REMOTELY DEBATABLE?

If that is true... you're truly helpless and nature will most likely cull you from the herd quite soon.

Go to bed Karl... you're drunk.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So State laws that require that a couple be assumed infertile or provide proof of infertility between a man and a woman are not "real marriages"?


>>>>

Can ya try to revise that sentence into something closer to lucid?

You said "Children are part of what a marriage is. At least a real marriage.".

I asked about states that required different-sex couples to show they are INFERTILE prior to being allowed to marry.

Are such Civil Marriages not "real marriages"?


Seems pretty easy to follow the question based on what you said.

>>>>

First, I didn't say that...

But since ya brought it up:

Children are the natural consequence of coitus.... it's what such was designed for.

Did you want to contest that?

LOL! No WAIT!

ROFL!

You're one of those who 'feel' that because coitus is pleasurable, that such was designed to provide pleasure?

LMAO!

Before ya answer... you should know, that sexual intercourse is purposed for conception... part and parcel of promoting the likelihood of such, the human body is designed to trigger specific hormonal responses when the brain recognizes the potential for such, the genitals are designed around a phalanx of sensors which induce a sense of pleasure, which ... AGAIN ... sets a pattern of pleasure, so as to promote the likelihood of recurrence, thus increasing the potential for procreation, toward the biological imperative OKA: The Propagation of the Species.

A process which rests deep within the base instincts of the mammal... thus is animalistic... and which, provides very real 'danger' to the individual human female, as it sharply reduces her means to sustain herself thus REDUCING the likelihood of procreation, which is balanced through MARRIAGE, wherein the male provides for the safety and sustenance of the female and subsequent progeny... which requires nearly two decades of constant nurturing and training before it is a viable individual.

Now... having been educated on the issue.

Go ahead and tell the board what you feel 'sex' is for... .

Don't be shy now... go ahead.

Then the natural age for females to begin to have intercourse is when they've become sexually mature? Capable of reproducing?

Is it?

Based upon what? The natural age for reproduction is the age wherein the female is sufficiently emotionally mature to nurture and raise her child; which would, of course, reqire that she be sufficiently mature to have secured a husband, to sustain her through gestation and the years where caring for her child requires nearly constant attention.

This is all FUNDAMENTAL STUFF... yet it appears that you're absolutely ignorant of ALL OF IT!

How old are you?

So 13 year olds should be allowed to consent to sex.

 

[Carib Gyal]

Yes because that is what all of your kind eventually refer too.
This world is about adversity and diversity and acceptance.
No one group and govern implicitly. If that happens then it goes against all the laws of real nature.
Not the selective group you decided to live in.
It does strike odd that the ones that profess faith the most seem to have the least grasp of what they believe.
They want it to fit into their microcosm world. It become deplorable.

Yes! In that religion. But once again your "kind" step over the boundaries of pushing an agenda onto those that have not allegiance to your faith.

Faith?

We're talking the physical laws of nature... human physiology. Inees and outees... Round Pegs designed to go into round wholes which are DESIGNED TO RECEIVE THEM... for biologically essential purposes, critical to the viability of THE SPECIES.

You need 'faith' to accept THAT WHICH IS NOT EVEN REMOTELY DEBATABLE?

If that is true... you're truly helpless and nature will most likely cull you from the herd quite soon.

The problem with this reasoning is that you do the same yourself. If marriage is to be redefined, why not define it as between 20, 30, 500, or 2,000 people? The purpose of marriage isn't love, or sex, or even being between humans. Why can't a man marry a cow? Marriage will be redefined and mean something completely different than it does now.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

First, I didn't say that...

But since ya brought it up:

Children are the natural consequence of coitus.... it's what such was designed for.

Did you want to contest that?

LOL! No WAIT!

ROFL!

You're one of those who 'feel' that because coitus is pleasurable, that such was designed to provide pleasure?

LMAO!

Before ya answer... you should know, that sexual intercourse is purposed for conception... part and parcel of promoting the likelihood of such, the human body is designed to trigger specific hormonal responses when the brain recognizes the potential for such, the genitals are designed around a phalanx of sensors which induce a sense of pleasure, which ... AGAIN ... sets a pattern of pleasure, so as to promote the likelihood of recurrence, thus increasing the potential for procreation, toward the biological imperative OKA: The Propagation of the Species.

A process which rests deep within the base instincts of the mammal... thus is animalistic... and which, provides very real 'danger' to the individual human female, as it sharply reduces her means to sustain herself thus REDUCING the likelihood of procreation, which is balanced through MARRIAGE, wherein the male provides for the safety and sustenance of the female and subsequent progeny... which requires nearly two decades of constant nurturing and training before it is a viable individual.

Now... having been educated on the issue.

Go ahead and tell the board what you feel 'sex' is for... .

Don't be shy now... go ahead.

State for the record and swear on the lives of your loved ones that you have never engaged in sexual intercourse for any other reason than reproduction.

ROFLMNAO! And we have ANOTHER of the "Sex is Pleasurable... therefore Sex was designed to give pleasure" idiots.

Folks, you cannot make this crap UP!

And that is how we can "KNOW" that the would-be 'People', are truly, what in greater nature is that which is known as: FOOD!

The repeated question that you refuse to answer is,

do you only engage in sexual intercourse for the purpose of reproduction?

OH! You 'feel' your little query wasn't answered... LOL! Now isn't that PRECIOUS?

Here's a clue scamp... "Why" one engages in sex, has no bearing on "WHAT NATURE DESIGNED SEX FOR".

But it DOES, however, demonstrate the efficacy of nature's design.

Kissing is non-reproductive, does that make it unnatural and perverted? ...

Again... how old are you?

I believe this site requires a person to be at least 18 to participate. Please get off the computer and tell your mother to get out from underneath Uncle Lately and put you to BED!

(Folks, if that is not a child of 10 years or less... then it's an imbecile. )

 

[NYcarbineer]

So State laws that require that a couple be assumed infertile or provide proof of infertility between a man and a woman are not "real marriages"?


>>>>

Can ya try to revise that sentence into something closer to lucid?

You said "Children are part of what a marriage is. At least a real marriage.".

I asked about states that required different-sex couples to show they are INFERTILE prior to being allowed to marry.

Are such Civil Marriages not "real marriages"?


Seems pretty easy to follow the question based on what you said.

>>>>

First, I didn't say that...

But since ya brought it up:

Children are the natural consequence of coitus.... it's what such was designed for.

Did you want to contest that?

LOL! No WAIT!

ROFL!

You're one of those who 'feel' that because coitus is pleasurable, that such was designed to provide pleasure?

LMAO!

Before ya answer... you should know, that sexual intercourse is purposed for conception... part and parcel of promoting the likelihood of such, the human body is designed to trigger specific hormonal responses when the brain recognizes the potential for such, the genitals are designed around a phalanx of sensors which induce a sense of pleasure, which ... AGAIN ... sets a pattern of pleasure, so as to promote the likelihood of recurrence, thus increasing the potential for procreation, toward the biological imperative OKA: The Propagation of the Species.

A process which rests deep within the base instincts of the mammal... thus is animalistic... and which, provides very real 'danger' to the individual human female, as it sharply reduces her means to sustain herself thus REDUCING the likelihood of procreation, which is balanced through MARRIAGE, wherein the male provides for the safety and sustenance of the female and subsequent progeny... which requires nearly two decades of constant nurturing and training before it is a viable individual.

Now... having been educated on the issue.

Go ahead and tell the board what you feel 'sex' is for... .

Don't be shy now... go ahead.

Then the natural age for females to begin to have intercourse is when they've become sexually mature? Capable of reproducing?

Is it?

Based upon what? The natural age for reproduction is the age wherein the female is sufficiently emotionally mature to nurture and raise her child; which would, of course, reqire that she be sufficiently mature to have secured a husband, to sustain her through gestation and the years where caring for her child requires nearly constant attention.

This is all FUNDAMENTAL STUFF... yet it appears that you're absolutely ignorant of ALL OF IT!

How old are you?

Rushing from one side of the boat to the other trying to defend your asinine opinions is going to wear you out, Cubby.

Take a break and come back when your brain has matured.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Yes because that is what all of your kind eventually refer too.
This world is about adversity and diversity and acceptance.
No one group and govern implicitly. If that happens then it goes against all the laws of real nature.
Not the selective group you decided to live in.
It does strike odd that the ones that profess faith the most seem to have the least grasp of what they believe.
They want it to fit into their microcosm world. It become deplorable.

Yes! In that religion. But once again your "kind" step over the boundaries of pushing an agenda onto those that have not allegiance to your faith.

Faith?

We're talking the physical laws of nature... human physiology. Inees and outees... Round Pegs designed to go into round wholes which are DESIGNED TO RECEIVE THEM... for biologically essential purposes, critical to the viability of THE SPECIES.

You need 'faith' to accept THAT WHICH IS NOT EVEN REMOTELY DEBATABLE?

If that is true... you're truly helpless and nature will most likely cull you from the herd quite soon.

The problem with this reasoning is that you do the same yourself. If marriage is to be redefined, why not define it as between 20, 30, 500, or 2,000 people? The purpose of marriage isn't love, or sex, or even being between humans. Why can't a man marry a cow? Marriage will be redefined and mean something completely different than it does now.

Why can two senior citizens marry? Why can men or women who cannot reproduce marry?

 

[Carib Gyal]

Yes because that is what all of your kind eventually refer too.
This world is about adversity and diversity and acceptance.
No one group and govern implicitly. If that happens then it goes against all the laws of real nature.
Not the selective group you decided to live in.
It does strike odd that the ones that profess faith the most seem to have the least grasp of what they believe.
They want it to fit into their microcosm world. It become deplorable.

Yes! In that religion. But once again your "kind" step over the boundaries of pushing an agenda onto those that have not allegiance to your faith.

Faith?

We're talking the physical laws of nature... human physiology. Inees and outees... Round Pegs designed to go into round wholes which are DESIGNED TO RECEIVE THEM... for biologically essential purposes, critical to the viability of THE SPECIES.

You need 'faith' to accept THAT WHICH IS NOT EVEN REMOTELY DEBATABLE?

If that is true... you're truly helpless and nature will most likely cull you from the herd quite soon.

The problem with this reasoning is that you do the same yourself. If marriage is to be redefined, why not define it as between 20, 30, 500, or 2,000 people? The purpose of marriage isn't love, or sex, or even being between humans. Why can't a man marry a cow? Marriage will be redefined and mean something completely different than it does now.

Why can two senior citizens marry? Why can men or women who cannot reproduce marry?

They can, but that's not my question. Your position is that marriage can occur regardless of love, or sex, or any other reason. What is the objection to marriage between a mouse and a woman, or 10,000 men and women and birds, or anything else?

 

[Coyote]

You said "Children are part of what a marriage is. At least a real marriage.".

I asked about states that required different-sex couples to show they are INFERTILE prior to being allowed to marry.

Are such Civil Marriages not "real marriages"?


Seems pretty easy to follow the question based on what you said.

>>>>

First, I didn't say that...

But since ya brought it up:

Children are the natural consequence of coitus.... it's what such was designed for.

Did you want to contest that?

LOL! No WAIT!

ROFL!

You're one of those who 'feel' that because coitus is pleasurable, that such was designed to provide pleasure?

LMAO!

Before ya answer... you should know, that sexual intercourse is purposed for conception... part and parcel of promoting the likelihood of such, the human body is designed to trigger specific hormonal responses when the brain recognizes the potential for such, the genitals are designed around a phalanx of sensors which induce a sense of pleasure, which ... AGAIN ... sets a pattern of pleasure, so as to promote the likelihood of recurrence, thus increasing the potential for procreation, toward the biological imperative OKA: The Propagation of the Species.

A process which rests deep within the base instincts of the mammal... thus is animalistic... and which, provides very real 'danger' to the individual human female, as it sharply reduces her means to sustain herself thus REDUCING the likelihood of procreation, which is balanced through MARRIAGE, wherein the male provides for the safety and sustenance of the female and subsequent progeny... which requires nearly two decades of constant nurturing and training before it is a viable individual.

Now... having been educated on the issue.

Go ahead and tell the board what you feel 'sex' is for... .

Don't be shy now... go ahead.

State for the record and swear on the lives of your loved ones that you have never engaged in sexual intercourse for any other reason than reproduction.

ROFLMNAO! And we have ANOTHER of the "Sex is Pleasurable... therefore Sex was designed to give pleasure" idiots.

Folks, you cannot make this crap UP!

And that is how we can "KNOW" that the would-be 'People', are truly, what in greater nature is that which is known as: FOOD!

The repeated question that you refuse to answer is,

do you only engage in sexual intercourse for the purpose of reproduction?

OH! You 'feel' your little query wasn't answered... LOL! Now isn't that PRECIOUS?

Here's a clue scamp... "Why" one engages in sex, has no bearing on "WHAT NATURE DESIGNED SEX FOR".

But it DOES, however, demonstrate the efficacy of nature's design.

Pubes, hon....nature is remarkably creative. Sex may have at one time been designed soley for procreation way back when we were primative amphibious slimewads - but it is not just procreative anymore. Ever read about Bonobos?

 

[Antares]

First, I didn't say that...

But since ya brought it up:

Children are the natural consequence of coitus.... it's what such was designed for.

Did you want to contest that?

LOL! No WAIT!

ROFL!

You're one of those who 'feel' that because coitus is pleasurable, that such was designed to provide pleasure?

LMAO!

Before ya answer... you should know, that sexual intercourse is purposed for conception... part and parcel of promoting the likelihood of such, the human body is designed to trigger specific hormonal responses when the brain recognizes the potential for such, the genitals are designed around a phalanx of sensors which induce a sense of pleasure, which ... AGAIN ... sets a pattern of pleasure, so as to promote the likelihood of recurrence, thus increasing the potential for procreation, toward the biological imperative OKA: The Propagation of the Species.

A process which rests deep within the base instincts of the mammal... thus is animalistic... and which, provides very real 'danger' to the individual human female, as it sharply reduces her means to sustain herself thus REDUCING the likelihood of procreation, which is balanced through MARRIAGE, wherein the male provides for the safety and sustenance of the female and subsequent progeny... which requires nearly two decades of constant nurturing and training before it is a viable individual.

Now... having been educated on the issue.

Go ahead and tell the board what you feel 'sex' is for... .

Don't be shy now... go ahead.

State for the record and swear on the lives of your loved ones that you have never engaged in sexual intercourse for any other reason than reproduction.

ROFLMNAO! And we have ANOTHER of the "Sex is Pleasurable... therefore Sex was designed to give pleasure" idiots.

Folks, you cannot make this crap UP!

And that is how we can "KNOW" that the would-be 'People', are truly, what in greater nature is that which is known as: FOOD!

The repeated question that you refuse to answer is,

do you only engage in sexual intercourse for the purpose of reproduction?

OH! You 'feel' your little query wasn't answered... LOL! Now isn't that PRECIOUS?

Here's a clue scamp... "Why" one engages in sex, has no bearing on "WHAT NATURE DESIGNED SEX FOR".

But it DOES, however, demonstrate the efficacy of nature's design.

Nature made human females receptive to sex at any time, in stark contrast to almost every other species.

Why was that?

It did?

Wait you mean those that get paid for it?

 

[80zephyr]

Can ya try to revise that sentence into something closer to lucid?

You said "Children are part of what a marriage is. At least a real marriage.".

I asked about states that required different-sex couples to show they are INFERTILE prior to being allowed to marry.

Are such Civil Marriages not "real marriages"?


Seems pretty easy to follow the question based on what you said.

>>>>

Children as the natural consequence of coitus.... it's what such was designed for.

That is incorrect. Sex is for pleasure, and bonding, and reproduction hitches a ride now and then. It's why you can jerk off, and why nearly all sex that is had wasn't meant to produce children. My favorite sex could never produce a child but the wife does usually brush her teeth afterwards while I pour her a drink as a reward.

So the sex drive in humans is there to "have fun", and not for procreation?

Again. Wow.

Mark

why would the two be mutually exclusive?

Like "keys" stated, pleasure was built into sex to "force" humans to engage in it for procreation. In evolutionary terms, there is no other reason.

Whether you can have sex for fun is not he question. The question was whether fun was the driver. Fun is not the driver. Procreation is the driver. Fun is the impetus.

Mark

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

First, I didn't say that...

But since ya brought it up:

Children are the natural consequence of coitus.... it's what such was designed for.

Did you want to contest that?

LOL! No WAIT!

ROFL!

You're one of those who 'feel' that because coitus is pleasurable, that such was designed to provide pleasure?

LMAO!

Before ya answer... you should know, that sexual intercourse is purposed for conception... part and parcel of promoting the likelihood of such, the human body is designed to trigger specific hormonal responses when the brain recognizes the potential for such, the genitals are designed around a phalanx of sensors which induce a sense of pleasure, which ... AGAIN ... sets a pattern of pleasure, so as to promote the likelihood of recurrence, thus increasing the potential for procreation, toward the biological imperative OKA: The Propagation of the Species.

A process which rests deep within the base instincts of the mammal... thus is animalistic... and which, provides very real 'danger' to the individual human female, as it sharply reduces her means to sustain herself thus REDUCING the likelihood of procreation, which is balanced through MARRIAGE, wherein the male provides for the safety and sustenance of the female and subsequent progeny... which requires nearly two decades of constant nurturing and training before it is a viable individual.

Now... having been educated on the issue.

Go ahead and tell the board what you feel 'sex' is for... .

Don't be shy now... go ahead.

State for the record and swear on the lives of your loved ones that you have never engaged in sexual intercourse for any other reason than reproduction.

ROFLMNAO! And we have ANOTHER of the "Sex is Pleasurable... therefore Sex was designed to give pleasure" idiots.

Folks, you cannot make this crap UP!

And that is how we can "KNOW" that the would-be 'People', are truly, what in greater nature is that which is known as: FOOD!

The repeated question that you refuse to answer is,

do you only engage in sexual intercourse for the purpose of reproduction?

OH! You 'feel' your little query wasn't answered... LOL! Now isn't that PRECIOUS?

Here's a clue scamp... "Why" one engages in sex, has no bearing on "WHAT NATURE DESIGNED SEX FOR".

But it DOES, however, demonstrate the efficacy of nature's design.

Nature made human females receptive to sex at any time, in stark contrast to almost every other species.

Why was that?

Because Nature gave humans the means to reason.

 

[Coyote]

So State laws that require that a couple be assumed infertile or provide proof of infertility between a man and a woman are not "real marriages"?


>>>>

Can ya try to revise that sentence into something closer to lucid?

You said "Children are part of what a marriage is. At least a real marriage.".

I asked about states that required different-sex couples to show they are INFERTILE prior to being allowed to marry.

Are such Civil Marriages not "real marriages"?


Seems pretty easy to follow the question based on what you said.

>>>>

First, I didn't say that...

But since ya brought it up:

Children are the natural consequence of coitus.... it's what such was designed for.

Did you want to contest that?

LOL! No WAIT!

ROFL!

You're one of those who 'feel' that because coitus is pleasurable, that such was designed to provide pleasure?

LMAO!

Before ya answer... you should know, that sexual intercourse is purposed for conception... part and parcel of promoting the likelihood of such, the human body is designed to trigger specific hormonal responses when the brain recognizes the potential for such, the genitals are designed around a phalanx of sensors which induce a sense of pleasure, which ... AGAIN ... sets a pattern of pleasure, so as to promote the likelihood of recurrence, thus increasing the potential for procreation, toward the biological imperative OKA: The Propagation of the Species.

A process which rests deep within the base instincts of the mammal... thus is animalistic... and which, provides very real 'danger' to the individual human female, as it sharply reduces her means to sustain herself thus REDUCING the likelihood of procreation, which is balanced through MARRIAGE, wherein the male provides for the safety and sustenance of the female and subsequent progeny... which requires nearly two decades of constant nurturing and training before it is a viable individual.

Now... having been educated on the issue.

Go ahead and tell the board what you feel 'sex' is for... .

Don't be shy now... go ahead.

Then the natural age for females to begin to have intercourse is when they've become sexually mature? Capable of reproducing?

Is it?

Based upon what? The natural age for reproduction is the age wherein the female is sufficiently emotionally mature to nurture and raise her child; which would, of course, reqire that she be sufficiently mature to have secured a husband, to sustain her through gestation and the years where caring for her child requires nearly constant attention.

This is all FUNDAMENTAL STUFF... yet it appears that you're absolutely ignorant of ALL OF IT!

How old are you?

Lord do you need some tutoring here. Sweetcheeks - reproduction is strictly biology. As soon as a female reaches puberty (in humans)...estrus in other species - she is ready and able to be impregnated. Emotional maturity has zip to do with it. All that is the overlay of culture.

That is FUNDAMENTAL STUFF dude

 

[80zephyr]

So State laws that require that a couple be assumed infertile or provide proof of infertility between a man and a woman are not "real marriages"?


>>>>

Can ya try to revise that sentence into something closer to lucid?

You said "Children are part of what a marriage is. At least a real marriage.".

I asked about states that required different-sex couples to show they are INFERTILE prior to being allowed to marry.

Are such Civil Marriages not "real marriages"?


Seems pretty easy to follow the question based on what you said.

>>>>

First, I didn't say that...

But since ya brought it up:

Children are the natural consequence of coitus.... it's what such was designed for.

Did you want to contest that?

LOL! No WAIT!

ROFL!

You're one of those who 'feel' that because coitus is pleasurable, that such was designed to provide pleasure?

LMAO!

Before ya answer... you should know, that sexual intercourse is purposed for conception... part and parcel of promoting the likelihood of such, the human body is designed to trigger specific hormonal responses when the brain recognizes the potential for such, the genitals are designed around a phalanx of sensors which induce a sense of pleasure, which ... AGAIN ... sets a pattern of pleasure, so as to promote the likelihood of recurrence, thus increasing the potential for procreation, toward the biological imperative OKA: The Propagation of the Species.

A process which rests deep within the base instincts of the mammal... thus is animalistic... and which, provides very real 'danger' to the individual human female, as it sharply reduces her means to sustain herself thus REDUCING the likelihood of procreation, which is balanced through MARRIAGE, wherein the male provides for the safety and sustenance of the female and subsequent progeny... which requires nearly two decades of constant nurturing and training before it is a viable individual.

Now... having been educated on the issue.

Go ahead and tell the board what you feel 'sex' is for... .

Don't be shy now... go ahead.

Then the natural age for females to begin to have intercourse is when they've become sexually mature? Capable of reproducing?

In a "natural" world, absolutely. Why do you think they were designed that way?

Mark

 

[Conservative65]

You ask many people, perhaps even most, they'll tell you that they don't care what people do in the privacy of their bedroom, they just don't want it rubbed in their face.

So what has the homosexual movement been doing for the past several years?

Yeah, you got it.

Consider how pervasive the gay agenda has become.

1. The forcing of gay marriage not by persuasion and winning hearts and minds, but through judicial activism. Never in U.S. history has there ever been an overturning of the will of the people that didn't lead to war.

Forcing? Who's forcing you to marry a gay guy?

Also, do you honestly think civil rights should be determined by popular opinion?

2. Workplaces have become a nightmare as gays and transgenders are given special rights and considerations and political correctness is enforced so that everyone is forced to walk on eggshells

What special rights are they given that are not given to others?

3. Schools. Now parents have to wonder if their teenage daughter has to share the girls restroom with a boy who thinks he's a girl. The homosexual and transgender agenda is pushed unabashed onto young minds.

Is that really such an issue and why exactly?

4. Football. Players seek fame not the old fashioned way, through athletic accomplishment, but by "coming out". Since when is being homosexual an accomplishment?

Neither is Teebowing but some are going to do it. In the end, it's a 24 hour moment of attention and then how they play becomes more important - gay or straight or Christian.

5. Homosexuality pervades our media, our television, and virtually all facets of American life. Why do these people think they're so important? What if Christians or Jews acted like this?

It only pervades if you obsess over it and look for it everywhere. I hardly notice it.

But I haven't even gotten to the dilemma. Gay activists have noted a rise in anger toward homosexuals and point to it as proof that the nation is riddled with homophobia. They fail to notice that the rise in anti homosexual sentiment happened in direct proportion and timing to the belligerence of the gay movement. When people said they don't want homosexuals' lifestyle shoved in their faces, they meant it.

Yes. How DARE those damn homos be open about what they are! OMG. They need to stay in the closet where they belong.

Now....can we do something about those annoying hetero's shoving their lifestyles in our faces?

Conservatives don't hate homosexuals, we just don't care as long as it's kept private. But here the aggressive homosexual lobby has made sure that it's our business. So now we're noticing you and now we're pissed.

Can you keep your heterosexuality private?

If you homos had any inkling what unrelenting instigating assholes you've become, you'd blush in embarrassment. But instead, you take the reaction of people who are sick of hearing about you as proof that you have more work to do. Talk about a destructive circular paradox!


So I have something to say to you on behalf of America. F*** you.

...and you say you don't hate homosexuals? Want to rethink that?

BTW, Notice the picture? Even Kenyans don't like things being shoved in their faces.

Ugandans (under the guidance of American megachurches) tried to institute the death penalty for homosexuality. Now it's just prison time, publishing their names so they can be lynched and imprisoning anyone who knowingly withholds information about known homosexuals. Maybe that's what we should be doing, yessiree bubby!

You ask many people, perhaps even most, they'll tell you that they don't care what people do in the privacy of their bedroom, they just don't want it rubbed in their face.

So what has the homosexual movement been doing for the past several years?

Yeah, you got it.

Consider how pervasive the gay agenda has become.

1. The forcing of gay marriage not by persuasion and winning hearts and minds, but through judicial activism. Never in U.S. history has there ever been an overturning of the will of the people that didn't lead to war.

Forcing? Who's forcing you to marry a gay guy?

Also, do you honestly think civil rights should be determined by popular opinion?

2. Workplaces have become a nightmare as gays and transgenders are given special rights and considerations and political correctness is enforced so that everyone is forced to walk on eggshells

What special rights are they given that are not given to others?

3. Schools. Now parents have to wonder if their teenage daughter has to share the girls restroom with a boy who thinks he's a girl. The homosexual and transgender agenda is pushed unabashed onto young minds.

Is that really such an issue and why exactly?

4. Football. Players seek fame not the old fashioned way, through athletic accomplishment, but by "coming out". Since when is being homosexual an accomplishment?

Neither is Teebowing but some are going to do it. In the end, it's a 24 hour moment of attention and then how they play becomes more important - gay or straight or Christian.

5. Homosexuality pervades our media, our television, and virtually all facets of American life. Why do these people think they're so important? What if Christians or Jews acted like this?

It only pervades if you obsess over it and look for it everywhere. I hardly notice it.

But I haven't even gotten to the dilemma. Gay activists have noted a rise in anger toward homosexuals and point to it as proof that the nation is riddled with homophobia. They fail to notice that the rise in anti homosexual sentiment happened in direct proportion and timing to the belligerence of the gay movement. When people said they don't want homosexuals' lifestyle shoved in their faces, they meant it.

Yes. How DARE those damn homos be open about what they are! OMG. They need to stay in the closet where they belong.

Now....can we do something about those annoying hetero's shoving their lifestyles in our faces?

Conservatives don't hate homosexuals, we just don't care as long as it's kept private. But here the aggressive homosexual lobby has made sure that it's our business. So now we're noticing you and now we're pissed.

Can you keep your heterosexuality private?

If you homos had any inkling what unrelenting instigating assholes you've become, you'd blush in embarrassment. But instead, you take the reaction of people who are sick of hearing about you as proof that you have more work to do. Talk about a destructive circular paradox!


So I have something to say to you on behalf of America. F*** you.

...and you say you don't hate homosexuals? Want to rethink that?

BTW, Notice the picture? Even Kenyans don't like things being shoved in their faces.

Ugandans (under the guidance of American megachurches) tried to institute the death penalty for homosexuality. Now it's just prison time, publishing their names so they can be lynched and imprisoning anyone who knowingly withholds information about known homosexuals. Maybe that's what we should be doing, yessiree bubby!

1. The homos are damn sure demanding the rest of us not just acknowledge their choice but that we agree with it and don't say anything other than you agree with it.

2. You have to watch every word in order that those freaks don't get their panties in a wad.

3. It would be for the freak of nature that thought HE was a girl and approached my daughter.

4. Teebowing happens when someone actually accomplishes something.

5. You think being a freak is normal. When daily new stories put those abnormal freaks on the screen, you don't have to look.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So State laws that require that a couple be assumed infertile or provide proof of infertility between a man and a woman are not "real marriages"?


>>>>

Can ya try to revise that sentence into something closer to lucid?

You said "Children are part of what a marriage is. At least a real marriage.".

I asked about states that required different-sex couples to show they are INFERTILE prior to being allowed to marry.

Are such Civil Marriages not "real marriages"?


Seems pretty easy to follow the question based on what you said.

>>>>

First, I didn't say that...

But since ya brought it up:

Children are the natural consequence of coitus.... it's what such was designed for.

Did you want to contest that?

LOL! No WAIT!

ROFL!

You're one of those who 'feel' that because coitus is pleasurable, that such was designed to provide pleasure?

LMAO!

Before ya answer... you should know, that sexual intercourse is purposed for conception... part and parcel of promoting the likelihood of such, the human body is designed to trigger specific hormonal responses when the brain recognizes the potential for such, the genitals are designed around a phalanx of sensors which induce a sense of pleasure, which ... AGAIN ... sets a pattern of pleasure, so as to promote the likelihood of recurrence, thus increasing the potential for procreation, toward the biological imperative OKA: The Propagation of the Species.

A process which rests deep within the base instincts of the mammal... thus is animalistic... and which, provides very real 'danger' to the individual human female, as it sharply reduces her means to sustain herself thus REDUCING the likelihood of procreation, which is balanced through MARRIAGE, wherein the male provides for the safety and sustenance of the female and subsequent progeny... which requires nearly two decades of constant nurturing and training before it is a viable individual.

Now... having been educated on the issue.

Go ahead and tell the board what you feel 'sex' is for... .

Don't be shy now... go ahead.

Then the natural age for females to begin to have intercourse is when they've become sexually mature? Capable of reproducing?

In a "natural" world, absolutely. Why do you think they were designed that way?

Mark

Tell that to the idiot who's trying to song and dance the facts.

 

[80zephyr]

First, I didn't say that...

But since ya brought it up:

Children are the natural consequence of coitus.... it's what such was designed for.

Did you want to contest that?

LOL! No WAIT!

ROFL!

You're one of those who 'feel' that because coitus is pleasurable, that such was designed to provide pleasure?

LMAO!

Before ya answer... you should know, that sexual intercourse is purposed for conception... part and parcel of promoting the likelihood of such, the human body is designed to trigger specific hormonal responses when the brain recognizes the potential for such, the genitals are designed around a phalanx of sensors which induce a sense of pleasure, which ... AGAIN ... sets a pattern of pleasure, so as to promote the likelihood of recurrence, thus increasing the potential for procreation, toward the biological imperative OKA: The Propagation of the Species.

A process which rests deep within the base instincts of the mammal... thus is animalistic... and which, provides very real 'danger' to the individual human female, as it sharply reduces her means to sustain herself thus REDUCING the likelihood of procreation, which is balanced through MARRIAGE, wherein the male provides for the safety and sustenance of the female and subsequent progeny... which requires nearly two decades of constant nurturing and training before it is a viable individual.

Now... having been educated on the issue.

Go ahead and tell the board what you feel 'sex' is for... .

Don't be shy now... go ahead.

State for the record and swear on the lives of your loved ones that you have never engaged in sexual intercourse for any other reason than reproduction.

ROFLMNAO! And we have ANOTHER of the "Sex is Pleasurable... therefore Sex was designed to give pleasure" idiots.

Folks, you cannot make this crap UP!

And that is how we can "KNOW" that the would-be 'People', are truly, what in greater nature is that which is known as: FOOD!

The repeated question that you refuse to answer is,

do you only engage in sexual intercourse for the purpose of reproduction?

OH! You 'feel' your little query wasn't answered... LOL! Now isn't that PRECIOUS?

Here's a clue scamp... "Why" one engages in sex, has no bearing on "WHAT NATURE DESIGNED SEX FOR".

But it DOES, however, demonstrate the efficacy of nature's design.

Pubes, hon....nature is remarkably creative. Sex may have at one time been designed soley for procreation way back when we were primative amphibious slimewads - but it is not just procreative anymore. Ever read about Bonobos?

Wrong. The sex drive is deeply ingrained in us, even today. It is so powerful that we do it a lot. The way nature intended to propagate the species. You have fun doing it because nature requires you to do it.

Why do you think young girls get knocked up by young boys? Because the "fun" of having sex does what it was intended to do.

Mark

 

[NYcarbineer]

State for the record and swear on the lives of your loved ones that you have never engaged in sexual intercourse for any other reason than reproduction.

ROFLMNAO! And we have ANOTHER of the "Sex is Pleasurable... therefore Sex was designed to give pleasure" idiots.

Folks, you cannot make this crap UP!

And that is how we can "KNOW" that the would-be 'People', are truly, what in greater nature is that which is known as: FOOD!

The repeated question that you refuse to answer is,

do you only engage in sexual intercourse for the purpose of reproduction?

OH! You 'feel' your little query wasn't answered... LOL! Now isn't that PRECIOUS?

Here's a clue scamp... "Why" one engages in sex, has no bearing on "WHAT NATURE DESIGNED SEX FOR".

But it DOES, however, demonstrate the efficacy of nature's design.

Nature made human females receptive to sex at any time, in stark contrast to almost every other species.

Why was that?

Because Nature gave humans the means to reason.

And since almost all human beings have concluded that there is nothing wrong with sex for non-reproductive reasons,

you've just proven my point.