The Homosexual Dilemma

[Conservative65]

Why is it homophobic heteros like to talk about something being "shoved down their throat"?

Why is it that homos use that phrase when someone, because of their religious beliefs, says homosexuality is wrong?

Don't worry about me freak. NOTHING about fags scares me. You disgust me but don't think I have any fear of you abnormal freaks.

 

[Conservative65]

Only combat veterans kill themselves more often than gay men. And gay men kill themselves 5 times as often as the general populous. Somebody isn't happy, wouldn't you say?

I'd kill myself if I chose to be gay.

 

[Antares]

I could never be a Catholic...too much work and guilt.

 

[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.

>>>>

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

You don't know that. Sex is clearly a act for humans that is both for reproduction and for pleasure without reproduction.

 

[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.

>>>>

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.

What facts did he deny? Like me, he acknowledges "natural" law, but also stated that because of the humans ability to reason, things change.

Mark

 

[Carib Gyal]

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

You don't know that. Sex is clearly a act for humans that is both for reproduction and for pleasure without reproduction.

I asked you about marriage, not sex. Why are you so old fashioned and bigoted to insist marriage be restricted to mean between only two humans?

 

[Coyote]

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.

Really now? No one is saying you have to agree with it or even acknowledge it. Hyperbole much?

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

No. You can say what you want. However there is such a thing as manners. You may lack them.

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

Seriously dude - if a transgender person felt he was a female he's hardly likely to approach your daughter.

4. Teebowing happens when someone actually accomplishes something.

Like what?

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.

I don't care about what's normal or abnormal - a lot of that is cultural. Inside it are real people with feelings. And they aren't hurting you any. So if you can't stomach it - change the channel. I get nauseous at the overflow of hate from fundamentalists. So I change the channel. UInless you're a quadroplegic..I suggest you do the same.

 

[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.

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.

What facts did he deny? Like me, he acknowledges "natural" law, but also stated that because of the humans ability to reason, things change.

Mark

He denies that humans might reason that gay sexual relations are natural.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

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

Well said.

One needs to understand that the Ideological Left lacks the objectivity which is essential to sound reason.

In effect what you see in the Left is roughly what would be expected from animals who were gifted with some potential for higher reasoning.

Nature, for instance, regulates sex drive in animals as a means to regulate procreation, IF nature provided the same sense and memory of pleasure in animals, they would procreate themselves into catastrophe.

We see this in humanity... where ever the Left is found in bulging, uncontrolled populations. Such is their limited cognition that they lack any sense of responsibility, or the need to discipline their base appetites.

It is not an overstatement that these people are sub-standard human beings, or 'sub-human'.

Sadly, our culture will not survive as a result of our failure to recognize that such people should never be allowed to speak publicly... . In the post apocalypse, people will laugh at the idea that we allowed such people to influence others, and ROLL ON THE FLOOR LAUGHING that we allowed them to vote.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

You don't know that. Sex is clearly a act for humans that is both for reproduction and for pleasure without reproduction.

I asked you about marriage, not sex. Why are you so old fashioned and bigoted to insist marriage be restricted to mean between only two humans?

If you can find enough voters to sanction humans marrying their television sets then the People have spoken.

 

[80zephyr]

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

You don't know that. Sex is clearly a act for humans that is both for reproduction and for pleasure without reproduction.

Wrong. Tell me, what would be the impetus for sex if it wasn't fun? Since nature needs reproduction, it pulls out all the stops and makes the sex drive the second most intense next to self preservation.

And you can pretty much guess why self preservation is the first. Without that, there might not be procreation.

Mark

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

Well said.

One needs to understand that the Ideological Left lacks the objectivity which is essential to sound reason.

In effect what you see in the Left is roughly what would be expected from animals who were gifted with some potential for higher reasoning.

Nature, for instance, regulates sex drive in animals as a means to regulate procreation, IF nature provided the same sense and memory of pleasure in animals, they would procreate themselves into catastrophe.

We see this in humanity... where ever the Left is found in bulging, uncontrolled populations. Such is their limited cognition that they lack any sense of responsibility, or the need to discipline their base appetites.

It is not an overstatement that these people are sub-standard human beings, or 'sub-human'.

Sadly, our culture will not survive as a result of our failure to recognize that such people should never be allowed to speak publicly... . In the post apocalypse, people will laugh at the idea that we allowed such people to influence others, and ROLL ON THE FLOOR LAUGHING that we allowed them to vote.

The unanswered question remains, coward. Do you only ever engage in sex when you are trying to reproduce?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

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.

Really now? No one is saying you have to agree with it or even acknowledge it.

So... which is it? Are you lying outright? Or are ya an imbecile?

I ask because what you've advanced as truth, is demonstrably false. SO FALSE IS IT, that in truth, you must either be attempting to deceive the readers of this board or you lack the cognitive means common to a popsicle.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

You don't know that. Sex is clearly a act for humans that is both for reproduction and for pleasure without reproduction.

Wrong. Tell me, what would be the impetus for sex if it wasn't fun? Since nature needs reproduction, it pulls out all the stops and makes the sex drive the second most intense next to self preservation.

And you can pretty much guess why self preservation is the first. Without that, there might not be procreation.

Mark

Do you only ever engage in sex when you're trying to reproduce?

 

[1751_Texan]

Only combat veterans kill themselves more often than gay men. And gay men kill themselves 5 times as often as the general populous. Somebody isn't happy, wouldn't you say?

I'd kill myself if I chose to be gay.

That statement is idiotic. If you chose to be gay why would you kill yourself???

 

[Carib Gyal]

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.

What facts did he deny? Like me, he acknowledges "natural" law, but also stated that because of the humans ability to reason, things change.

Mark

He denies that humans might reason that gay sexual relations are natural.

Good lord. And tell us why it is natural. Is it because it feels good, it turns them on sexually? So if it felt good and turned someone on to fuck chickens, that would be reason to allow them to marry? What if someone felt the same about a whole barnyard? Marriage is natural?

 

[Antares]

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

"You have fun doing it because nature requires you to do it."

Requires?

Horse hockey.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

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

Well said.

One needs to understand that the Ideological Left lacks the objectivity which is essential to sound reason.

In effect what you see in the Left is roughly what would be expected from animals who were gifted with some potential for higher reasoning.

Nature, for instance, regulates sex drive in animals as a means to regulate procreation, IF nature provided the same sense and memory of pleasure in animals, they would procreate themselves into catastrophe.

We see this in humanity... where ever the Left is found in bulging, uncontrolled populations. Such is their limited cognition that they lack any sense of responsibility, or the need to discipline their base appetites.

It is not an overstatement that these people are sub-standard human beings, or 'sub-human'.

Sadly, our culture will not survive as a result of our failure to recognize that such people should never be allowed to speak publicly... . In the post apocalypse, people will laugh at the idea that we allowed such people to influence others, and ROLL ON THE FLOOR LAUGHING that we allowed them to vote.

The unanswered question remains, coward. Do you only ever engage in sex when you are trying to reproduce?

There is no question which has gone unanswered. That you lack the minimal intellectual means to recognize that, doesn't change reality.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Should married couples who have 2 children and want no more cease having sex?

Lest they be engaging in an unnatural activity?

 

[Carib Gyal]

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

You don't know that. Sex is clearly a act for humans that is both for reproduction and for pleasure without reproduction.

I asked you about marriage, not sex. Why are you so old fashioned and bigoted to insist marriage be restricted to mean between only two humans?

If you can find enough voters to sanction humans marrying their television sets then the People have spoken.

Exactly. And marriage is redefined as something else entirely.

btw, what is enough people? One judge? One court?