The Homosexual Dilemma

[bodecea]

No. Where on earth did you get that idea? Biology is one thing. Our ability to control it in beneficial ways is another. Fact: the natural urge to reproduce has zip to do with emotional maturity. True brain maturity - that includes the regions of the brain responsible for understanding of consequences and impulse control - doesn't really occur until 25. Sexual maturity can occur as young as....?12?.

What does this have to do with having sex, or even wanting to?

Damned if I know. Ask Keys, he brought it up

You think he's saying people have no urge to have sex?

This was what I was responding to:

The natural age for reproduction is the age wherein the female is sufficiently emotionally mature to nurture and raise her child

Yeah, the natural age. A grown woman may never be sufficiently emotionally mature enough to raise a child. Not that I see that being reason to kill it.

Then that is certainly her choice not to do so. Not yours tho.

 

[80zephyr]

Sex is not just about begatting anymore and unbegattable seniors are getting married everyday.

Sex is about nothing else, but begatting.

The principles of nature never change... cultures simply devolve, due to the nature of evil, it induces deviancy.

Nothing complex about any of this stuff.

Have you informed those 75 year olds having sex that begatting is out of the question?

What does this have to do with having sex, or even wanting to?

Damned if I know. Ask Keys, he brought it up

Dogs eating their puppies is natural as well, you are not suggesting...

Mark

Oh dear....another poster who cannot tell the difference between that which does not harm others......and that which does. It concerns me how many like you can't see the plain difference.

Since that was not the question, you have given the wrong answer.

Mark

You use an example of something found in nature that harms others as if it makes sense as a comparison. That shows a fundamental lack, on your part, of discerning that which does no harm and that which does harm others. That is disturbing....even a little sociopathic.

When someone uses nature to defend that practice in humans, it deserves that type of response. If you want to use nature to defend the actions of humans, using all of nature is the only fair way.

Mark

 

[bodecea]

Sex is not just about begatting anymore and unbegattable seniors are getting married everyday.

Sex is about nothing else, but begatting.

The principles of nature never change... cultures simply devolve, due to the nature of evil, it induces deviancy.

Nothing complex about any of this stuff.

Have you informed those 75 year olds having sex that begatting is out of the question?

How sad it is for him, that sex is ONLY about procreation.

It's an understandable confusion when your life is ruled by a book that emphasizes begatting.

Didn't make it past the first half of Genesis, huh? Short attention span, a symptom of Leftist dumbing down and lowering of standards

I read the Bible from cover to cover before I was 10 just to show it can be done even by a child.

Did you get a medal?

 

[bodecea]

You think it is reasonable to claim you are being sexually abused in this thread. Whatever you say drama queen.

So... you couldn't find the courage to learn?

Whatta shame.

Oh well... it's not like it's unexpected. I guess I just allowed myself to hope... despite the chances of it being so slim.

Have you filed a police report yet over the sexual abuse you've suffered in this thread? lol.

One more post on this unwelcomed subject and you'll be ignored.

Please understand it doesn't matter to me... you rarely add anything to a discussion, beyond the usual ego stroke that comes with being palpably superior to another person, but that is the natural result of a discussion with any Leftist... so that means that such is second only to typing, on any political message board.

SOooo... do ya see where we stand, here?

I can see why you would want us to forget your absurd allegations of being sexually abused in this thread. You're overly dramatic and insufferably arrogant. I can assure you I won't lose any sleep if you put me on ignore. Bye Felicia!

Buh Bye!

Those who cannot deal with ideas adverse to their own show cowardice by running away with their ears plugged and eyes covered.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Sex is not just about begatting anymore and unbegattable seniors are getting married everyday.

Sex is about nothing else, but begatting.

The principles of nature never change... cultures simply devolve, due to the nature of evil, it induces deviancy.

Nothing complex about any of this stuff.

Nothing relevant about any of this stuff.

Same-sex couples marrying is neither 'evil' nor 'deviancy.'

Oh... that is SO CUTE!

Look how it WANTS to reason... despite such being so pitifully out of reach.

But! It's is the responsibility of those of us who are human, to help the sub-standard variations.

Scamp, the issue here is the sexual deviancy of homosexuality and the perversion of human reasoning which justifies that abnormality... Science has demonstrated that the sexual standard is established by the physiological human design, wherein two complimenting genders are designed to join together... which is analogically followed by marriage.

The 'joining' part of all of that stuff... is what is called 'sex'... which nature designed as a means to propagate the species; meaning that THAT is how mommies and Daddie show their love for one another and when they love each other enough, YOU were conceived in Mommy's tummy, where you lived for 9 months, until you grew big enough to survive, er uh... to live outside of mommy's tummy.

And then you were born and Mommy and Daddy did there best to love you, despite that you chronically disappointed them.

And there's more bad news... ya know how they always told you that you were special? It didn't mean what ya 'felt' it did. But they're your 'rents... and nature requires that they love you, anyway.

 

[bodecea]

Sex is not just about begatting anymore and unbegattable seniors are getting married everyday.

Sex is about nothing else, but begatting.

The principles of nature never change... cultures simply devolve, due to the nature of evil, it induces deviancy.

Nothing complex about any of this stuff.

Nothing relevant about any of this stuff.

Same-sex couples marrying is neither 'evil' nor 'deviancy.'

Oh... that is SO CUTE!

Look how it WANTS to reason... despite such being so pitifully out of reach.

Interesting schtick you've got...dehumanizing and running away.

 

[Carib Gyal]

What does this have to do with having sex, or even wanting to?

Damned if I know. Ask Keys, he brought it up

You think he's saying people have no urge to have sex?

This was what I was responding to:

The natural age for reproduction is the age wherein the female is sufficiently emotionally mature to nurture and raise her child

Yeah, the natural age. A grown woman may never be sufficiently emotionally mature enough to raise a child. Not that I see that being reason to kill it.

Then that is certainly her choice not to do so. Not yours tho.

Nor the father's, nor the baby's. Not exactly treating people with the equality we advocate, is it.

 

[Coyote]

Sex is not just about begatting anymore and unbegattable seniors are getting married everyday.

Sex is about nothing else, but begatting.

The principles of nature never change... cultures simply devolve, due to the nature of evil, it induces deviancy.

Nothing complex about any of this stuff.

Have you informed those 75 year olds having sex that begatting is out of the question?

Damned if I know. Ask Keys, he brought it up

Dogs eating their puppies is natural as well, you are not suggesting...

Mark

Oh dear....another poster who cannot tell the difference between that which does not harm others......and that which does. It concerns me how many like you can't see the plain difference.

Since that was not the question, you have given the wrong answer.

Mark

You use an example of something found in nature that harms others as if it makes sense as a comparison. That shows a fundamental lack, on your part, of discerning that which does no harm and that which does harm others. That is disturbing....even a little sociopathic.

When someone uses nature to defend that practice in humans, it deserves that type of response. If you want to use nature to defend the actions of humans, using all of nature is the only fair way.

Mark

That's kind of like saying if you use the Bible to defend marriage you have to use ALL the bible - the stonings and slavery etc.

 

[80zephyr]

Sex is about nothing else, but begatting.

The principles of nature never change... cultures simply devolve, due to the nature of evil, it induces deviancy.

Nothing complex about any of this stuff.

Have you informed those 75 year olds having sex that begatting is out of the question?

Dogs eating their puppies is natural as well, you are not suggesting...

Mark

Oh dear....another poster who cannot tell the difference between that which does not harm others......and that which does. It concerns me how many like you can't see the plain difference.

Since that was not the question, you have given the wrong answer.

Mark

You use an example of something found in nature that harms others as if it makes sense as a comparison. That shows a fundamental lack, on your part, of discerning that which does no harm and that which does harm others. That is disturbing....even a little sociopathic.

When someone uses nature to defend that practice in humans, it deserves that type of response. If you want to use nature to defend the actions of humans, using all of nature is the only fair way.

Mark

That's kind of like saying if you use the Bible to defend marriage you have to use ALL the bible - the stonings and slavery etc.

Not exactly. The New Testament makes the Old Testament obsolete.

Mark

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Have you informed those 75 year olds having sex that begatting is out of the question?

Oh dear....another poster who cannot tell the difference between that which does not harm others......and that which does. It concerns me how many like you can't see the plain difference.

Since that was not the question, you have given the wrong answer.

Mark

You use an example of something found in nature that harms others as if it makes sense as a comparison. That shows a fundamental lack, on your part, of discerning that which does no harm and that which does harm others. That is disturbing....even a little sociopathic.

When someone uses nature to defend that practice in humans, it deserves that type of response. If you want to use nature to defend the actions of humans, using all of nature is the only fair way.

Mark

That's kind of like saying if you use the Bible to defend marriage you have to use ALL the bible - the stonings and slavery etc.

Not exactly. The New Testament makes the Old Testament obsolete.

Mark

There's no reason to not use the entire bible, there's nothing in there which is not perfectly acceptable.

Slavery happens when God wants it to happen.

The Ideological Left is about to have itself enslaved. In the post apocalypse, the few Leftist who survive will be enslaved... which is fitting considering their reasoning having resulted in the enslavement of tens of millions of people.

Stoning happens when God wants it to...

Killing of entire nations is perfectly acceptable where such is in defense of God's principles. The United States took part in precisely that, just 70 years ago.

The Left tries to push us away from the scriptures, by suggesting that much of what 'God Did" is not acceptable... they're idiots and as is so often the case, they're simply stripping the story from its context.

Do that to just about anything and it loses its meaning and is easily twisted by deceit.

 

[Coyote]

Have you informed those 75 year olds having sex that begatting is out of the question?

Oh dear....another poster who cannot tell the difference between that which does not harm others......and that which does. It concerns me how many like you can't see the plain difference.

Since that was not the question, you have given the wrong answer.

Mark

You use an example of something found in nature that harms others as if it makes sense as a comparison. That shows a fundamental lack, on your part, of discerning that which does no harm and that which does harm others. That is disturbing....even a little sociopathic.

When someone uses nature to defend that practice in humans, it deserves that type of response. If you want to use nature to defend the actions of humans, using all of nature is the only fair way.

Mark

That's kind of like saying if you use the Bible to defend marriage you have to use ALL the bible - the stonings and slavery etc.

Not exactly. The New Testament makes the Old Testament obsolete.

Mark

Tell that to the Dominionists and those who insist we live by the Ten Commandments. The OT is not obsolete, the NT just gives them permission to cherry pick their abominations.

 

[Carib Gyal]

Since that was not the question, you have given the wrong answer.

Mark

You use an example of something found in nature that harms others as if it makes sense as a comparison. That shows a fundamental lack, on your part, of discerning that which does no harm and that which does harm others. That is disturbing....even a little sociopathic.

When someone uses nature to defend that practice in humans, it deserves that type of response. If you want to use nature to defend the actions of humans, using all of nature is the only fair way.

Mark

That's kind of like saying if you use the Bible to defend marriage you have to use ALL the bible - the stonings and slavery etc.

Not exactly. The New Testament makes the Old Testament obsolete.

Mark

Tell that to the Dominionists and those who insist we live by the Ten Commandments. The OT is not obsolete, the NT just gives them permission to cherry pick their abominations.

The Old Testament is certainly NOT obsolete. The Jews believe in it exclusively.

 

[Howey]

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.

Please.

Do.

 

[Skylar]

Since that was not the question, you have given the wrong answer.

Mark

You use an example of something found in nature that harms others as if it makes sense as a comparison. That shows a fundamental lack, on your part, of discerning that which does no harm and that which does harm others. That is disturbing....even a little sociopathic.

When someone uses nature to defend that practice in humans, it deserves that type of response. If you want to use nature to defend the actions of humans, using all of nature is the only fair way.

Mark

That's kind of like saying if you use the Bible to defend marriage you have to use ALL the bible - the stonings and slavery etc.

Not exactly. The New Testament makes the Old Testament obsolete.

Mark

Tell that to the Dominionists and those who insist we live by the Ten Commandments. The OT is not obsolete, the NT just gives them permission to cherry pick their abominations.

It is fascinating, isn't it? Adultery and sodomy have the exact same penalty in the OT. But you don't often hear for the execution of cheating husbands.

Why? Because it would directly effect too many of those condemning the gays.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Well, in fairness... you're an advocate that sexual abnormality is normal.

So as cute is it is for you to offer an opinion, your opinions are unworthy for consideration by reasonable people.

Now, perhaps you can use this as a 'educational' opportunity and recognize the downside to standing upon foolish public advocacies.

I hope it works out for ya.

You think it is reasonable to claim you are being sexually abused in this thread. Whatever you say drama queen.

So... you couldn't find the courage to learn?

Whatta shame.

Oh well... it's not like it's unexpected. I guess I just allowed myself to hope... despite the chances of it being so slim.

Have you filed a police report yet over the sexual abuse you've suffered in this thread? lol.

One more post on this unwelcomed subject and you'll be ignored.

Please understand it doesn't matter to me... you rarely add anything to a discussion, beyond the usual ego stroke that comes with being palpably superior to another person, but that is the natural result of a discussion with any Leftist... so that means that such is second only to typing, on any political message board.

SOooo... do ya see where we stand, here?

I can see why you would want us to forget your absurd allegations of being sexually abused in this thread. You're overly dramatic and insufferably arrogant. I can assure you I won't lose any sleep if you put me on ignore. Bye Felicia!

Permanent ignore.

 

[Coyote]

You use an example of something found in nature that harms others as if it makes sense as a comparison. That shows a fundamental lack, on your part, of discerning that which does no harm and that which does harm others. That is disturbing....even a little sociopathic.

When someone uses nature to defend that practice in humans, it deserves that type of response. If you want to use nature to defend the actions of humans, using all of nature is the only fair way.

Mark

That's kind of like saying if you use the Bible to defend marriage you have to use ALL the bible - the stonings and slavery etc.

Not exactly. The New Testament makes the Old Testament obsolete.

Mark

Tell that to the Dominionists and those who insist we live by the Ten Commandments. The OT is not obsolete, the NT just gives them permission to cherry pick their abominations.

It is fascinating, isn't it? Adultery and sodomy have the exact same penalty in the OT. But you don't often hear for the execution of cheating husbands.

Why? Because it would directly effect too many of those condemning the gays.

Isn't that the truth.

And what about the abomination of eating shellfish? Talk about picking and choosing...

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Have you informed those 75 year olds having sex that begatting is out of the question?

Oh dear....another poster who cannot tell the difference between that which does not harm others......and that which does. It concerns me how many like you can't see the plain difference.

Since that was not the question, you have given the wrong answer.

Mark

You use an example of something found in nature that harms others as if it makes sense as a comparison. That shows a fundamental lack, on your part, of discerning that which does no harm and that which does harm others. That is disturbing....even a little sociopathic.

When someone uses nature to defend that practice in humans, it deserves that type of response. If you want to use nature to defend the actions of humans, using all of nature is the only fair way.

Mark

That's kind of like saying if you use the Bible to defend marriage you have to use ALL the bible - the stonings and slavery etc.

Not exactly. The New Testament makes the Old Testament obsolete.

Mark

Not true... Christ said he did not come to change the law. He came to spare us from the law, to help us to recognize that the law is objective perfection that we can never meet. And to tell us of God's grace, that through him, we can be spared from the law... by admitting that we are flawed, unworthy and asking to be forgiven, accepting Christ as the light and the way, as a lord and he that has come to save us, from our own evil nature.

 

[Howey]

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.

True. Too many people confuse having sex with procreation. The two are mutually exclusive.

 

[beagle9]

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?

See that's just it, you undoubtedly believe everything that you read...LOL

Ever read the Bible, undoubtedly not or you would refer that book to us also, but you wouldn't believe that one so you wouldn't refer that one to us now would you ? I'll be your professor for a day, and I'll refer the Bible to you...Now Happy Reading!

Which translation/version?

That will be the King James version of course, but you can pick anyone that you like, just as long as it doesn't deviate to far from the basic truths that are found within the one that we all relate to most.

Why just the King James version? Wouldn't it be better to go right to the source and read the source documents in their original languages.? You know how inaccurate translations can be, let alone what translations of translations of translations can be like.

I thought I was the professor for a day, but now you've taken over the class ? It appears that this is the same results in America right now, where as some radical groups also want to take over the class, but they need an idiotic government to do so, and it seems that they have finally gotten themselves one..LOL

 

[mdk]

You think it is reasonable to claim you are being sexually abused in this thread. Whatever you say drama queen.

So... you couldn't find the courage to learn?

Whatta shame.

Oh well... it's not like it's unexpected. I guess I just allowed myself to hope... despite the chances of it being so slim.

Have you filed a police report yet over the sexual abuse you've suffered in this thread? lol.

One more post on this unwelcomed subject and you'll be ignored.

Please understand it doesn't matter to me... you rarely add anything to a discussion, beyond the usual ego stroke that comes with being palpably superior to another person, but that is the natural result of a discussion with any Leftist... so that means that such is second only to typing, on any political message board.

SOooo... do ya see where we stand, here?

I can see why you would want us to forget your absurd allegations of being sexually abused in this thread. You're overly dramatic and insufferably arrogant. I can assure you I won't lose any sleep if you put me on ignore. Bye Felicia!

Permanent ignore.

I am all broken up inside. You are a silly bigot so it is no great loss. I do love that you feel the need to tell me I am going on ignore as if I give a shit. Hint: I don't. Girl bye!