DS
But the fact that you're incredibly incompetent
Lucius may be defensive about homosexuality and he may be heretical on so many different levels (the guy has managed to avoid most of the entertainment industry's greatest creations [he cuts me in this regard]), he is not incompetent. He is, in fact, very intelligent and well educated on many subjects*.
Be nice, DS.
*And for the record, I do not take it up the ass.
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
The act of homosexuality is defined a penetrating another man.
Where? I've always thought, that "homosexuality" is defined by having a sexual preference for the same gender. There are lesbians, right?
And yes, men's body parts aren't meant to be penetrated while women's are, hence the whole natural argument against homosexuality.
Urm. Actually, a man can be sexually stimulated by penetrating his ass, because he has a prostate. Women don't. So the "natural argument" doesn't make much sense in this particular case.
Sheesh, you've lost your mind today. Next you're going to tell me that homosexuality is as natural as heterosexuality.
Not "as natural", but natural indeed. There are about 1500 faunal species exhibiting homosexual behaviour, with that kind of behaviour being well documented for about 500 of them. So, yes. It's natural in the sense that it is present in nature.
truejedi
another aside though: This latest gaffe by Obama: "Israel must return to 1967 borders"
Barack Obama
The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states.
It would behoove you to avoid the use of quotation marks ("[...]"😉 when you do not actually know what's supposed to go between them, particularly when the actual statement in contemptquestion is easily made available to you with a search engine and a modicum of effort.
I think it's fair to conclude based on my experience with you that as of that posting you hadn't even watched the speech, which leaves me to wonder why you would so vehemently espouse such a blatant misrepresentation of the President's intentions. You have to understand that allowing yourself to remain [willfully?] ignorant to the simplest of immediately relevant facts means your entitlement to an opinion of merit is left null and void.
Lucius
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/21/opinion/21iht-edcohen21.html?src=me&ref=generalhttp://www.haaretz.com/blogs/strenger-than-fiction/netanyahu-has-nothing-to-fear-but-hope-1.363066
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/paul-pillar/the-oblique-approach-middle-east-policy-5341
http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=221614
http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=221505
The only credible sources, silly child, are blogs.
If you find an intelligent companion
who will walk with you,
who lives wisely, soberly, overcoming all dangers,
walk with that person in joy and thoughtfulness.If you find no intelligent companion
who will walk with you,
who lives wisely and soberly,
walk alone like a king who has renounced a conquered kingdom
or like an elephant in the forest.It is better to live alone;
there is no companionship with a fool.
Let a person walk alone with few wishes, committing no wrong,
like an elephant in the forest.
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Wonderful response. And your argument that the act isn't gay is what? The desperation of "who are you to..."? Also, great cover up at what you were hoping. But the fact that you're incredibly incompetent and defensive about homosexuality dulls your objective senses and makes you sound like a moron. The fact that a man in a woman is natural and a man inside a man is a deviation from that, making it abnormal. The act has been called gay for thousands of years but that doesn't matter!! Of course your idiotic diatribe works better for same sex marriages, not homosexual acts. Great job, dumbass.
It always amuses me when people, especially men, aggressively speak out against something as harmless as pleasurable behavior between two consenting adults. Usually, it's because they are sexually confused and the concept challenges them.
Anywas, your stance here is stupid. You say homosexuality is wrong because it is abnormal. This is not a convincing argument considering it is circular. If this some how stands on its own then you must also believe things like nipple clamps, viagra, and fleshlights are homosexual as well since they are "abnormal". I guess people with foot fetishes or those who masturbate are gay too because the proper man on woman protocols are violated.
How ignorant...
Just a little education: when a woman does a guy with a strap on, it's called pegging, not "homosex". When you get out of the uptight 20th century, let us all know.
If a man doing another man up the ass is gay, but a man doing a woman up the ass is straight... why is the ass the distinctive factor here?
Also, if homosexuality is wrong because it's... abnormal, as in, "not within nature", then what's our excuse for genetic engineering, nuclear fission, space travel, plastics and synthetics etc.?
And if homosexuality is considered abnormal because "it doesn't conform to rule or system", then that's just personal distaste, not a scientific basis.
Originally posted by Exal Kressh
It always amuses me when people, especially men, aggressively speak out against something as harmless as pleasurable behavior between two consenting adults. Usually, it's because they are sexually confused and the concept challenges them.Anywas, your stance here is stupid. You say homosexuality is wrong because it is abnormal. This is not a convincing argument considering it is circular. If this some how stands on its own then you must also believe things like nipple clamps, viagra, and fleshlights are homosexual as well since they are "abnormal". I guess people with foot fetishes or those who masturbate are gay too because the proper man on woman protocols are violated.
How ignorant...
Just a little education: when a woman does a guy with a strap on, it's called pegging, not "homosex". When you get out of the uptight 20th century, let us all know.
If a man doing another man up the ass is gay, but a man doing a woman up the ass is straight... why is the ass the distinctive factor here?
And if homosexuality is considered abnormal because "it doesn't conform to rule or system", then that's just personal distaste, not a scientific basis.
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
No, I say the sexual part is classified as "gay" because of the ass factor.
I don't know who calls it pegging because from what I understand, it's considered a homosexual act. The fact that it's not a real penis makes no difference.
And speaking of amusing, it always amuses me when the so called progressive claim homosexuality is as natural as heterosexuality.
It's abnormal in every system.
Nothing to do with right or wrong.
Originally posted by ZampanóDoes this mean that doing a girl in the pooper is gay?
I think that this is a good example of why sexual orientation cannot be determined by actions. If someone is attracted to the opposite sex, no matter what form their affections take, they are heterosexual. That's the definition. There are certainly deviations from traditional intimacy roles, but not all deviants are homosexual.
I don't know if I agree with this. 20 to 80 percent of dragonflies display homosexual (male to male) mating behaviors; if that isn't the result of "natural" instincts, what causes it? Are dragonflies capable of sin?
👆 [/B]The liberal idiots get their panties in a twist when someone says something about homosexuality, they don't even bother to read if someone is discussing the validity of it. Their defense mechanism kicks in and it makes everyone who questions it a bigot. I'm surprised I haven't been called racist for liking Obama or a murderer for ardently supporting capital punishment.
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
No, it's still a chick and a dude, although I question the sanity of a girl that is fine with that and a dude with the urge to do that.Well, this is a tough one because some say you're gay when you're attracted to the opposite sex while the predominant idea seems to be that you're straight until you perform a homosexual act. I really haven't made up my mind on this but to tell you the truth, I don't care. Those who are attracted to the same sex can keep that private.
As far as classifications go, I'd say that the attraction is the deciding factor, rather than any actions one takes.
Sin? I believe the concept of sin only involves anyone with a soul. Homosexuality in humans is unnatural because it's in the minority more than the majority or even half. I'm not using that as a basis for why it's wrong, just throwing out statistics. I'm waiting for one of these retards to tell me that it's as natural as heterosexuality.
This distinction becomes clear when you say that homosexuality is [unusual, atypical, minority] and a liberal responds with [found in nature, happens on its own].
So yes, homosexuality is "as natural" as heterosexuality in that both are found to occur in nature, without any damage or intervention from humans. Presumably this phenomenon carries over into human beings, meaning that some humans are biologically disposed to be sexually attracted to those of the same gender.
The liberal idiots get their panties in a twist when someone says something about homosexuality, they don't even bother to read if someone is discussing the validity of it. Their defense mechanism kicks in and it makes everyone who questions it a bigot. I'm surprised I haven't been called racist for liking Obama or a murderer for ardently supporting capital punishment.
I'd like you to elaborate on "the validity of it." What do you mean by that?
Originally posted by ZampanóI kind of grouped "natural" and "normal" together but fine, if you want to put a distinction on it, lets go with normal. Although, I would think heterosexuality is natural/normal while homosexuality is unnatural/unnormal, but I digress.
See, you're still using "natural" in a way that is guaranteed to trigger a liberal autoresponse. (Which you will then ignore, and this will never end.) I think the difference is that you are using "natural" to mean "normative" (i.e. the default state, or something that just happens) which then defaults homosexuality into something that requires an active, conscious decision to initiate. This is not the opinion of the liberal, who asserts that sexual attraction (i.e. the target of feelings) is largely inborn. So when you say natural you mean "usual" while when a liberal says natural they mean "original."
So yes, homosexuality is "as natural" as heterosexuality in that both are found to occur in nature, without any damage or intervention from humans. Presumably this phenomenon carries over into human beings, meaning that some humans are biologically disposed to be sexually attracted to those of the same gender.
I'd like you to elaborate on "the validity of it." What do you mean by that? [/B]Take my argument with the two defensive idiots up there. The debate regarded homosexual acts, and as soon as I came into the picture and made a distinction between homosexuality and heterosexuality, it triggered this retarded defense mechanism where the issue became "right or wrong", when such issue was never mentioned.
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
I kind of grouped "natural" and "normal" together but fine, if you want to put a distinction on it, lets go with normal. Although, I would think heterosexuality is natural/normal while homosexuality is unnatural/unnormal, but I digress.So you would argue homosexuality is a nature thing? I would say a nurture thing or a combo of nature vs. nurture. But I don't know how you can say "as natural as". Of all the species on this planet, how many "naturally" gravitate towards homosexuality? And if that number is less than 50% which it undoubtedly is, wouldn't that mean it's unnatural?
And I would definitely argue that orientation is genetic. inimalist posted these links, and I think they are relevant:
Familial factors, which are at least partly genetic, influence sexual orientation.
link
The large majority of gay men with brothers knew about their own homosexual feelings before they learned about their brothers' homosexual feelings, suggesting that discovery of brothers' homosexuality is not an important cause of male homosexuality.
link
Take my argument with the two defensive idiots up there. The debate regarded homosexual acts, and as soon as I came into the picture and made a distinction between homosexuality and heterosexuality, it triggered this retarded defense mechanism where the issue became "right or wrong", when such issue was never mentioned.
Originally posted by ZampanóNo, if the number of homosexuals within a population is less than fifty, it makes it a minority behavior (or, if you prefer, unusual) but not necessarily unnatural. For example, the proportion of people with red hair is a lot less than 50% but that does not make it unnatural. Homosexuality is just another expression of genes. It is not the most common one, but it is no more unnatural than red hair. This view that focuses on the expression of genes is best suited to explain the prevalence of homosexual behavior in animals (which I linked earlier).
And I would definitely argue that orientation is genetic. inimalist posted these links, and I think they are relevant:
Originally posted by Exal Kressh
Usually, it's because they are sexually confused and the concept challenges them.
While I don't disagree with your overall point, statements like this tend to make me scratch my head. It's kind of like "Guys who talk about how big their penises are are insecure and have small ones". Has there ever been some kind of study or something to support that? I thought people made fun of gays because they're socially taboo?
Originally posted by RE: BlaxicanIn case you haven't noticed, it's a weak rationalization.
While I don't disagree with your overall point, statements like this tend to make me scratch my head. It's kind of like "Guys who talk about how big their penises are are insecure and have small ones". Has there ever been some kind of study or something to support that? I thought people made fun of gays because they're socially taboo?