The Homosexual Dilemma

[80zephyr]

Cite the post where you answered the question.

No problem: #582, #587, #594

Since 582 doesn't answer the question I'm not wasting my time with the others.

It's clear that you have sex for non-reproductive purposes which makes you, by your own measure, a pervert no different than gays.

For the record, two gays are not "having sex". Sex is when a penis goes into a vagina. Anything else is not sex.

Mark

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Well in fairness... you are also the ones that 'believe' that things which are ABNORMAL are normal... that paying people to NOT WORK will encourage them to seek employment and that there is a RIGHT to MURDER THE MOST INNOCENT of human beings, EVEN WHILE THEY'RE STILL IN THEIR MOTHER'S WOMB!

So... LOL! That means that you're crazy; which is to say that you suffer a perverse form of human reasoning; meaning that you're insane... and healthy people, like healthy cultures... disregard the 'feelings' of the insane.

Normal and abnormal are matters of opinion.

No. Normal is the standard which is established, in the case of human sexuality, by the human physiological design.

That standard, like all legitimate standard rests upon objectivity... favoring only the purpose of the exercise.

Abnormal is that which deviates from that standard of normality. We call this 'deviation' and those who present such: Deviants.

But again, you would have no way to know that... as these are things that people of sound mind would understand.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

I like them fine.

You?

I'm into adult women myself.

When you can afford them?

I'm married to one....and yes, I can afford her.

Uh....before I go off in the wrong direction, are you a man?

No...are you?

As my profile would indicate yes. Apparently you don't want people to know what gender you are. Insecure?

 

[Coyote]

Procreation may be the main component of the drive but that does not mean it is SOLEY procreative anymore.

ROFLMNAO!

Oh... So natural principle is subject to antiquation?

LOL!
You cannot make this crap up folks. AGAIN!: In greater nature, these idiots are what is OKA: FOOD!

Sex is used for a variety of purposes pubes. Surely you are aware of this? Most of us grasp this fundemental principle in our teens.

I'll thank you to cease these sexual references. They're not welcome.

Now with regard to your 'feeings' of the uses of sex... none of that has any relevance to he PURPOSE of such.

One could use their forehead to drive nails... that in no way would mean that such was designed or even appropriate for such, despite your 'feeling' otherwise.

Again... you couldn't had no way to know that, because this is a discussion best suited for grown ups.

Like I said pubes (not a sexual reference) - check out the bonobos. Nature is nothing if not a recycler and a multi-tasker. Sex may have started out for procreation but evolved in some species to be more than that. Humans are the best example. Bonobos another easy example. Now, I don't base that on "feelings" hon, but science. Try it some time.

 

[80zephyr]

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.

Licking your own ass is natural as well. It does not mean it should be acceptable.

Mark

So now you're throwing all that's natural under the bus as irrelevant?

lol

Not any more than you are. Pedophilia, bestiality and necrophilia are also natural. Are you for allowing these activities as well?

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.

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.

That human's may reason some given conclusion, does not mean that such reasoning is valid and sound.


But again... you had no way to know that... as such is known only to actual humans.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

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?

Then why is Fox News and CNN still on air? Surely they would have been replaced with the Ben Affleck show, Richard Dawkins, a gay fashion show, gay partner swap, and the Playboy channel.

The nature of evil is to deceive, the nature of good is truth... Fox News defends good... thus it consistently prospers.

Need anything else?

Good needs to be defended by lies?

Fox News is NOT banned in Canada.

ROFLMNAO! You can NOT make this crap UP! These idiots believe ANYTHING they're told, without regard to how ridiculous it is on its face.

What ya have there is a Deceit, Fraudulently advanced as a means to influence the Ignorant.

It's endlessly hilarious how much a hard on the Left has for Fox News.

 

[80zephyr]

Procreation may be the main component of the drive but that does not mean it is SOLEY procreative anymore.

ROFLMNAO!

Oh... So natural principle is subject to antiquation?

LOL!
You cannot make this crap up folks. AGAIN!: In greater nature, these idiots are what is OKA: FOOD!

Sex is used for a variety of purposes pubes. Surely you are aware of this? Most of us grasp this fundemental principle in our teens.

I'll thank you to cease these sexual references. They're not welcome.

Now with regard to your 'feeings' of the uses of sex... none of that has any relevance to he PURPOSE of such.

One could use their forehead to drive nails... that in no way would mean that such was designed or even appropriate for such, despite your 'feeling' otherwise.

Again... you couldn't had no way to know that, because this is a discussion best suited for grown ups.

Like I said pubes (not a sexual reference) - check out the bonobos. Nature is nothing if not a recycler and a multi-tasker. Sex may have started out for procreation but evolved in some species to be more than that. Humans are the best example. Bonobos another easy example. Now, I don't base that on "feelings" hon, but science. Try it some time.

What about the bonobos confuses you?

Mark

 

[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.

You don't care about normal or abnormal? Then, you are OK with pedophilia?

Mark

As long as they don't act on it, I could care less.

 

[beagle9]

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.

It's like anything, where as once the door gets pryed off of the cellar (upsetting the very foundation), and this by these storms that are raging outside it now, then who knows what someone will try next...

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Procreation may be the main component of the drive but that does not mean it is SOLEY procreative anymore.

ROFLMNAO!

Oh... So natural principle is subject to antiquation?

LOL!
You cannot make this crap up folks. AGAIN!: In greater nature, these idiots are what is OKA: FOOD!

Sex is used for a variety of purposes pubes. Surely you are aware of this? Most of us grasp this fundemental principle in our teens.

I'll thank you to cease these sexual references. They're not welcome.

Now with regard to your 'feeings' of the uses of sex... none of that has any relevance to he PURPOSE of such.

One could use their forehead to drive nails... that in no way would mean that such was designed or even appropriate for such, despite your 'feeling' otherwise.

Again... you couldn't had no way to know that, because this is a discussion best suited for grown ups.

Like I said pubes (not a sexual reference) - check out the bonobos. Nature is nothing if not a recycler and a multi-tasker. Sex may have started out for procreation but evolved in some species to be more than that. Humans are the best example. Bonobos another easy example. Now, I don't base that on "feelings" hon, but science. Try it some time.

Does anyone know the procedure for reporting sexual abuse by a moderator? This 'contributor' is a moderator and as such I am unable to ignore them, so when a Moderator is found to be abusive, what is the procedure for reporting them?

If no one knows... I'll happily open a thread. But I'd appreciate the info if someone has it.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Nature needs egg and sperm...but marriage does not need procreation....just like procreation doesn't need marriage. They are mutually exclusive.

Marriage doesn't even need sex to exist, there's no reason to limit it to two people. That's old fashioned thinking. If ten men want to marry each other they can use your argument.

Except when you add more than two...the property rights and child custody issues get more complicated....instead of A to B....we now have choice...A to B or C.....B to A or C, etc.

Wrong. A women can fuck many men but the paternal father has to pay. Property is divided up every day. Never heard of guys knocking each other up though.

Yes, but you would need something above and beyond a marriage license for BOTH of those scenerios.....which complicates things more than what legal marriage contracts provide. There is your difference. Unsurmountable? No....but not doable with the current marriage license while there is no need to change marriage contracts with gay marriage.....just remove the legal restrictions (as many states have now done).

And remove the age barrier too, right? Or are we getting ahead of ourselves with that one?

 

[AVG-JOE]

God you dumb as a box of fucking hammers. Who raised the child was of no concern, who you fucked to get it was.

Who raised the child was of no concern? In which universe?

This one. It's human history.

Proof? Are you really claiming that the shunning of children before marriage had nothing to do with those children?

It had to do with fucking, which people, wrongly, believed was a sin outside of marriage, usually. It's interesting to note that the lower classes of Victorian times, and many people of other times, were fine with fucking after you were engaged. Testing the waters so to speak.

And why did they condemn sex before marriage? Could it be that they wanted a stable couple to raise that child?

These old beliefs are easy to understand when taken in the context of the times they were in. They simply understood that a family was needed to bring up a child.

Mark

Remember... in Victorian times women were owned by their fathers until sold in to the bondage of holy matrimony.

Perspective counts.

​

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

In truth, sex has not evolved, in the slightest since the first human beings engaged in it. What has happened is that a large segment of the species has devolved, which is having the catastrophic effect that reason requires it must.

 

[80zephyr]

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?

Absolutely. The natural urge to reproduce is a powerful one. "Nature" is hoping that with enough exposure, the woman will become pregnant. We all know that all sex doesn't result in pregnancy. Therefore, nature needs you to try to reproduce as often as possible. Why do you think men can ejaculate so often?

Mark

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Nature needs egg and sperm...but marriage does not need procreation....just like procreation doesn't need marriage. They are mutually exclusive.

Marriage doesn't even need sex to exist, there's no reason to limit it to two people. That's old fashioned thinking. If ten men want to marry each other they can use your argument.

Except when you add more than two...the property rights and child custody issues get more complicated....instead of A to B....we now have choice...A to B or C.....B to A or C, etc.

Wrong. A women can fuck many men but the paternal father has to pay. Property is divided up every day. Never heard of guys knocking each other up though.

Yes, but you would need something above and beyond a marriage license for BOTH of those scenerios.....which complicates things more than what legal marriage contracts provide. There is your difference. Unsurmountable? No....but not doable with the current marriage license while there is no need to change marriage contracts with gay marriage.....just remove the legal restrictions (as many states have now done).

And remove the age barrier too, right? Or are we getting ahead of ourselves with that one?

The barriers to the age of consent are presently being challenged. And if we concede to the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality, within the next generation Adult sexual pursuit of children for sexual gratification will be legalized.

In truth, such is the purpose of the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality.

The founder of the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality is also a founding member of the North American Man-Boy Love Association, OKA: NAMBLA. He is also the founder of the Kinsey Institute which is largely responsible for the 'legalizing of Sodomy' and the assault on the culture by the culture of sexual deviancy.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Procreation may be the main component of the drive but that does not mean it is SOLEY procreative anymore.

ROFLMNAO!

Oh... So natural principle is subject to antiquation?

LOL!
You cannot make this crap up folks. AGAIN!: In greater nature, these idiots are what is OKA: FOOD!

Sex is used for a variety of purposes pubes. Surely you are aware of this? Most of us grasp this fundemental principle in our teens.

I'll thank you to cease these sexual references. They're not welcome.

Now with regard to your 'feeings' of the uses of sex... none of that has any relevance to he PURPOSE of such.

One could use their forehead to drive nails... that in no way would mean that such was designed or even appropriate for such, despite your 'feeling' otherwise.

Again... you couldn't had no way to know that, because this is a discussion best suited for grown ups.

Like I said pubes (not a sexual reference) - check out the bonobos. Nature is nothing if not a recycler and a multi-tasker. Sex may have started out for procreation but evolved in some species to be more than that. Humans are the best example. Bonobos another easy example. Now, I don't base that on "feelings" hon, but science. Try it some time.

Does anyone know the procedure for reporting sexual abuse by a moderator? This 'contributor' is a moderator and as such I am unable to ignore them, so when a Moderator is found to be abusive, what is the procedure for reporting them?

If no one knows... I'll happily open a thread. But I'd appreciate the info if someone has it.

Coyote is good people even though we don't agree on this issue...not a troll. Since it's against the rules to discuss moderators let's not proceed any further down this path. Just PM her about any issue you have and you'll find she's very reasonable to talk to.

 

[Carib Gyal]

wtf is up with the bonobos? Are humans supposed to take their cue from them? Why not the black widow spider, who eats her mate after sex?

Although I don't know that cannibalism would make for a happy marriage.

 

[80zephyr]

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.

Nature doesn't? As a man, I can tell you that the longer I go without sex, the greater the urge is to have sex. That is nature telling me it is time to try to reproduce, because nature doesn't give a fuck whether I enjoy it or not.

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

Who raised the child was of no concern? In which universe?

This one. It's human history.

Proof? Are you really claiming that the shunning of children before marriage had nothing to do with those children?

It had to do with fucking, which people, wrongly, believed was a sin outside of marriage, usually. It's interesting to note that the lower classes of Victorian times, and many people of other times, were fine with fucking after you were engaged. Testing the waters so to speak.

And why did they condemn sex before marriage? Could it be that they wanted a stable couple to raise that child?

These old beliefs are easy to understand when taken in the context of the times they were in. They simply understood that a family was needed to bring up a child.

Mark

Remember... in Victorian times women were owned by their fathers until sold in to the bondage of holy matrimony.

Perspective counts.

​

And?

Mark