Congrats Ireland

[89Hen]

Anyway, something like that is obviously an instance where "culture forbidding" is a good thing.

So you are OK with some things being decided by others, but only ones you think should be. I don't give a rats ass about gay marriage, but it cracks me up that people can't see the double standard.

[Grizalltheway]

So you are OK with some things being decided by others, but only ones you think should be. I don't give a rats ass about gay marriage, but it cracks me up that people can't see the double standard.

Again, it cracks me up that you think it's a double standard when the two things in question are worlds apart.

Peace.

[andy7171]

I'm fucking lost.

[HI54UNI]

I'm fucking lost.

Me too. I think we're at it's OK to be gay but looking at Allison Stokke pictures from before she was 18 is bad.

This is a college pic so we should be OK.

[andy7171]

That's a bad Stokke picture. OB55 and the rest of the sort here deemed her fat. Here is modern day Stokke and is acceptable by the powers that be...

[houndawg]

What about women that only cum when on top or through clitoral stimulus? How about men and prostate milking? Sexuality is a spectrum, JSO. Get over it.

I"m not seeing how that changes anything. Women orgasim through clitoral stimulation. That's what the organ does and it's possible to stimulate the organ without actual vaginal intercourse (though "on top" is still vaginal intercourse). But look at where it's located:



Well gee. Isn't that an interesting place for it to have evolved to be. Wonder why it's not on womens' foreheads or something. It'd be easier to get to then. Of course the location it IS in has NOTHING to do with making copulation potentially leading to pregnancy potentially pleasurable. NOTHING at ALL.

Now you can think me for not including a discussion of the penis complete with diagrams.

Your beer will tip over.

[dbackjon]

Can we get back to talking about McFaggots? That's what this thread is about.

Sure

[89Hen]

Again, it cracks me up that you think it's a double standard when the two things in question are worlds apart.

Peace.

What two things? Marriage between two consenting adults vs marriage between two conenting adults?

[andy7171]

Again, it cracks me up that you think it's a double standard when the two things in question are worlds apart.

Peace.

What two things? Marriage between two consenting adults vs marriage between two conenting adults?

Yeah, WTAG doesn't get that part. But that isn't what he was saying up in here.

[Grizalltheway]

Again, it cracks me up that you think it's a double standard when the two things in question are worlds apart.

Peace.

What two things? Marriage between two consenting adults vs marriage between two conenting adults?

No

[89Hen]

What two things? Marriage between two consenting adults vs marriage between two conenting adults?

No

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dakxwoVV7yM[/youtube]

[CID1990]

That's a bad Stokke picture. OB55 and the rest of the sort here deemed her fat. Here is modern day Stokke and is acceptable by the powers that be...

I liked her better when she was chubsy wubsy and carrying a long pole

[Grizalltheway]

No

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dakxwoVV7yM[/youtube]

Oh, the irony.

I you had actually read the passage I posted, you'd probably realize that it really had nothing to do with gay marriage, but was actually a rebuttal to JSO's argument that homosexuality is biologically unnatural. Hope this helps.

[89Hen]

I you had actually read the passage I posted, you'd probably realize that it really had nothing to do with gay marriage, but was actually a rebuttal to JSO's argument that homosexuality is biologically unnatural. Hope this helps.

It does, but it comes a little late. If you weren't talking about gay marriage (thread subject and referenced in my very first post) why did it take you two pages to say that?

[andy7171]

I you had actually read the passage I posted, you'd probably realize that it really had nothing to do with gay marriage, but was actually a rebuttal to JSO's argument that homosexuality is biologically unnatural. Hope this helps.

It does, but it comes a little late. If you weren't talking about gay marriage (thread subject and referenced in my very first post) why did it take you two pages to say that?

Kalmy took a day off.

[JohnStOnge]

I'm not calling homosexuality a disease,

By "homosexual" I mean an actual preference for copulation with a members of your own sex over copulation with members of the opposite sex.

If you are homosexual you have a malfunction. Something is off about you. Something is not functioning as it should. You have a misdirected sex drive. It is inconsistent with the underlying "reason" for having a sex drive. It's like a hunger drive directed towards eating sand. The drive does not lead you to satisfy the biological "purpose" behind the existence of the drive.

And that's really obvious when you think about it. That's why it's so incredible that people buy what the American Psychiatric Association has to say about the issue. There is a point at which you have to realize that the experts are jacking you; that what they're saying doesn't come from application of the scientific method but instead comes from egalitarian philosophy.

[kalm]

I'm not calling homosexuality a disease,

By "homosexual" I mean an actual preference for copulation with a members of your own sex over copulation with members of the opposite sex.

If you are homosexual you have a malfunction. Something is off about you. Something is not functioning as it should. You have a misdirected sex drive. It is inconsistent with the underlying "reason" for having a sex drive. It's like a hunger drive directed towards eating sand. The drive does not lead you to satisfy the biological "purpose" behind the existence of the drive.

And that's really obvious when you think about it. That's why it's so incredible that people buy what the American Psychiatric Association has to say about the issue. There is a point at which you have to realize that the experts are jacking you; that what they're saying doesn't come from application of the scientific method but instead comes from egalitarian philosophy.

Go back and read GATW's quote from a book. It completely destroys all arguments you have regarding homosexuality.

[Grizalltheway]

I you had actually read the passage I posted, you'd probably realize that it really had nothing to do with gay marriage, but was actually a rebuttal to JSO's argument that homosexuality is biologically unnatural. Hope this helps.

It does, but it comes a little late. If you weren't talking about gay marriage (thread subject and referenced in my very first post) why did it take you two pages to say that?

Yeah, probably should have quoted JSO. Mea culpa.

[kalm]

I you had actually read the passage I posted, you'd probably realize that it really had nothing to do with gay marriage, but was actually a rebuttal to JSO's argument that homosexuality is biologically unnatural. Hope this helps.

It does, but it comes a little late. If you weren't talking about gay marriage (thread subject and referenced in my very first post) why did it take you two pages to say that?

[Grizalltheway]

It does, but it comes a little late. If you weren't talking about gay marriage (thread subject and referenced in my very first post) why did it take you two pages to say that?

Kalmy took a day off.

You seem to have an unhealthy obsession with kalm. Do you want to talk about it?

[JohnStOnge]

Go back and read GATW's quote from a book. It completely destroys all arguments you have regarding homosexuality.

If you're talking about the post that shows up on my system as posted Mon May 25, 2015 11:04 am, no, it doesn't. First of all it's basically a set of unsubstantiated assertions. But I think it's important to say that I don't even disagree with the assertions per se. I did not say that homosexuality is not "natural." Any disfunction is "natural."

I don't disagree with the assertion that sex plays social roles beyond reproduction.

But the bottom line is that sex drives exist because they promote reproduction. And if you have a sex drive that is directed primarily towards members of your own sex you've got a malfunction. I'm talking about an actual preference for copulation with members of your own sex over members of the opposite sex.

Reproduction is ultimately what biology is all about. Even all of the social organization stuff is ultimately related to reproduction. Even the hunger drive. All the stuff about surviving. The survival is about surviving to reproduce or to facilitate reproduction of your species. There are asexual individuals, such as in ants, that don't survive to reproduce themselves. But their existence is about reproduction of the species.

And anybody that tells you otherwise is lying to you.

[BDKJMU]

One man is physically capable of having sex with another, and there's no legitimate reason for society to forbid it. A man is also capable of having sex with an underage girl, but there are plenty of legitimate , non-religious reasons to forbid that.

Again, no one ever said that people's natural urges shouldn't be subject to the rule of law.

I have no problem with two men or two women being in love with one another. It isn't any of my business and I don't feel like it's a threat to society or heterosexuals. There is no reason for society to say it's illegal (would you agree that society should stay away from legalizing/forbidding the sexual activities of consenting adults?)

And that's not illegal anywhere in our society...

[dbackjon]

Go back and read GATW's quote from a book. It completely destroys all arguments you have regarding homosexuality.

If you're talking about the post that shows up on my system as posted Mon May 25, 2015 11:04 am, no, it doesn't. First of all it's basically a set of unsubstantiated assertions. But I think it's important to say that I don't even disagree with the assertions per se. I did not say that homosexuality is not "natural." Any disfunction is "natural."

I don't disagree with the assertion that sex plays social roles beyond reproduction.

But the bottom line is that sex drives exist because they promote reproduction. And if you have a sex drive that is directed primarily towards members of your own sex you've got a malfunction. I'm talking about an actual preference for copulation with members of your own sex over members of the opposite sex.

Reproduction is ultimately what biology is all about. Even all of the social organization stuff is ultimately related to reproduction. Even the hunger drive. All the stuff about surviving. The survival is about surviving to reproduce or to facilitate reproduction of your species. There are asexual individuals, such as in ants, that don't survive to reproduce themselves. But their existence is about reproduction of the species.

And anybody that tells you otherwise is lying to you.

You are making the mistake that the only way to advance a species is for every single member of that species to reproduce. Nature has shown time and time again that your core assumption is false - there are plenty of examples of family/cooperative rearing of young, with some members of the group not reproducing.

In fact, having non-reproducing siblings would actually be an ADVANTAGE for small hunter/gatherer groups. You would have more adults caring for the infants, so instead of a man and a woman (or two women with the one husband, assuming they did that sort of pairing), if you had a woman and her non-reproducing sibling helping out, the infant would have a better chance of survival.

In addition, many of the gay/transgendered individuals (and they have existed since the dawn of man) have been drawn to healing, artistic and other endeavors that benefited the group as a whole - a small group with a healer would be much more likely to thrive than a group with no healer.

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

I take it back. He doesn't understand and maybe that's why he's embarrassed.

I may have to rename him GrizQuarterWit.

Once again, half as long

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

That's how it sounded. Penis' and Vagina's go together, it's science. I'm not calling homosexuality a disease, but I wouldn't be surprised if there isn't some unknown genetic mutation that's confusing the brain or something and that creates homosexual feelings.

One man is physically capable of having sex with another, and there's no legitimate reason for society to forbid it. A man is also capable of having sex with an underage girl, but there are plenty of legitimate , non-religious reasons to forbid that.

Again, no one ever said that people's natural urges shouldn't be subject to the rule of law.

So much crazy........why waste time on this mindset?
?