Oh no you didn’t just go nuclear with Queen at Wembley.
[quote]ZJStrope wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Actually if you read the thread you’ll see I gave more than eight reasons why the homosexual lifestyle is unhealthy and against natural law.[/quote]
Most certainly and I read those, but your conclusion comes from the combination of 8 premises. All I need to do is prove one wrong and the house of cards comes tumbling down. Now if you want to drop that premise and rely upon the other 7 alone, then we can discuss the rest. As of right now, there’s no need to.
[quote]I’ve already addressed that too. Many of those acts are foreplay and lead to sex. I wouldn’t argue someone should leave their spouse because they’re infertile. They are in a natural union and are practicing traditional marriage instead of undermining it.
[/quote]
Lead to sex, but does not guarantee sex. Masturbation certainly doesn’t lead to sex, especially if you masturbate to finish. I can’t even count how many HJs, BJs, Titty Fucks, etc I’ve had in my short lifetime and did not participate in sex, especially outside of marriage.
Further, you’ve contended that the purpose of marriage is for procreation and raising children. So if you aren’t doing that, then why get married? And you can’t say from a social aspect since marriage is a social construct, not a natural law.[/quote]
I’m not really interested in how many tittie fucks you’ve had. But in relation to marriage I have already explained that as well. Men and women are complimentary and provide each other with psychological benefits. Marriage is also a natural union in harmony with natural law. Although procreation is its main function it is not its only function.
[quote]ZJStrope wrote:
Lead to sex, but does not guarantee sex. Masturbation certainly doesn’t lead to sex, especially if you masturbate to finish. I can’t even count how many HJs, BJs, Titty Fucks, etc I’ve had in my short lifetime and did not participate in sex, especially outside of marriage.[/quote]
You’ve been undermining marriage left and right! I spent most of my high school undermining traditional marriage and potentially leading to the downfall of the human race from masturbation, blowjobs, hand jobs, etc.
Forgive me, I had no idea the actions in the backseat of a Ford Taurus were going to lead to the downfall of the Roman Empire.
A small piece of Western civilization dies each time two straight people don’t have actual sex but do something that can’t directly lead to procreation.
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
Oh no you didn’t just go nuclear with Queen at Wembley. [/quote]
Yep, the nuclear option.
I’ve used it around here before, for the same effect, but there is no such thing as too much of that concert. No such thing.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
They are the norm, naturally. And they will continue to be the norm in a species that is overwhelmingly straight and overwhelmingly compelled–by their biology–to desire heterosexual sex and natural offspring. You are, in other words, a cockatoo defending a lion. The lion needs no defense. (As an aside, if straight people decide to stop making babies, then that’s a function of the proclivities and circumstances of straight people.)
[/quote]
I agree that the declining birth rate is mostly the fault of heterosexuals. But not through lack of trying. The gays just don’t have the numbers. And of course procreation was only one out of many points I gave. All the others were skipped over. However the problem is the lion has a fertility rate below replacement level. It does need protecting. If only people would show as much concern for the human race as they do for animal ‘rights’ or the climate the world would be a better place.
[quote]
As for whether gay marriage is harmful to society, well that’s nonsense but I don’t feel like fighting this out anymore. My point has been made: Nobody is going to put forth a halfway persuasive argument for homosexuality’s immorality, and certainly not on the grounds that gays are shirking some kind of personal imperative to procreate.
Well, repulsed as in, “I’m not making sexytime to that thing.”
If you don’t want to have sex with women, you are as good a candidate as any for someone who isn’t “in a position to” naturally procreate. There are plenty of people–you, me, everybody who is engaged in the present debate–who are in such a position, and the existence and sexual orientation of Ellen DeGeneres has got jack and shit to do with that.
If anything, straight guys should understand that life is a cruel and merciless zero-sum competition for, among a few other things, vaginas. And they should be grateful for every dude who disqualifies himself from that competition by identifying as gay.
That last paragraph was a joke. Anyway, in closing:
Freddie’s lifestyle choices cost him his life. If that’s not a wake up call I don’t know what is.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I’m not really interested in how many tittie fucks you’ve had. But in relation to marriage I have already explained that as well. Men and women are complimentary and provide each other with psychological benefits. Marriage is also a natural union in harmony with natural law. Although procreation is its main function it is not its only function.[/quote]
Given your name is SexMachine, I figured you would care sarcasm
Anywho, I can think of many other relationships that are beneficial to each other, but I’m not seeing marriage as a requirement? Again, marriage is a social construct, not a natural construct.
Pilot fish and Sharks have evolved a natural union in harmony with natural law, but they aren’t even the same species. What does marriage have to do with it?
[quote]ZJStrope wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I’m not really interested in how many tittie fucks you’ve had. But in relation to marriage I have already explained that as well. Men and women are complimentary and provide each other with psychological benefits. Marriage is also a natural union in harmony with natural law. Although procreation is its main function it is not its only function.[/quote]
Given your name is SexMachine, I figured you would care sarcasm
Anywho, I can think of many other relationships that are beneficial to each other, but I’m not seeing marriage as a requirement? Again, marriage is a social construct, not a natural construct.
Pilot fish and Sharks have evolved a natural union in harmony with natural law, but they aren’t even the same species. What does marriage have to do with it?[/quote]
Marriage is a way of recognising monogamy. Monogamy is not a social construct.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Freddie’s lifestyle choices cost him his life. If that’s not a wake up call I don’t know what is.
[/quote]
Makes sense. Big logical post and you focus on the youtube joke at the end. Can’t see the forest through the trees and no desire to even look.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Freddie’s lifestyle choices cost him his life. If that’s not a wake up call I don’t know what is.
[/quote]
Rock and Roll is a risky life style for sure.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]ZJStrope wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I’m not really interested in how many tittie fucks you’ve had. But in relation to marriage I have already explained that as well. Men and women are complimentary and provide each other with psychological benefits. Marriage is also a natural union in harmony with natural law. Although procreation is its main function it is not its only function.[/quote]
Given your name is SexMachine, I figured you would care sarcasm
Anywho, I can think of many other relationships that are beneficial to each other, but I’m not seeing marriage as a requirement? Again, marriage is a social construct, not a natural construct.
Pilot fish and Sharks have evolved a natural union in harmony with natural law, but they aren’t even the same species. What does marriage have to do with it?[/quote]
Marriage is a way of recognising monogamy. Monogamy is not a social construct.
[/quote]
Why don’t we see massive amounts of divorce in states that allow same sex marriage yet do in states that prohibit it?
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Freddie’s lifestyle choices cost him his life. If that’s not a wake up call I don’t know what is.
[/quote]
Rock and Roll is a risky life style for sure.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/sep/04/musicnews.topstories3[/quote]
BAN ROCK N ROLL IT IS DESTROYING WESTERN CIVILIZATION.
[quote]H factor wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Freddie’s lifestyle choices cost him his life. If that’s not a wake up call I don’t know what is.
[/quote]
Makes sense. Big logical post and you focus on the youtube joke at the end. Can’t see the forest through the trees and no desire to even look. [/quote]
He stated he didn’t want to go over it again. I feel the same way. I’ve already explained my position. smh says my argument doesn’t hold ground. I say it does. There’s nothing more to say on the matter.
[quote]H factor wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]ZJStrope wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I’m not really interested in how many tittie fucks you’ve had. But in relation to marriage I have already explained that as well. Men and women are complimentary and provide each other with psychological benefits. Marriage is also a natural union in harmony with natural law. Although procreation is its main function it is not its only function.[/quote]
Given your name is SexMachine, I figured you would care sarcasm
Anywho, I can think of many other relationships that are beneficial to each other, but I’m not seeing marriage as a requirement? Again, marriage is a social construct, not a natural construct.
Pilot fish and Sharks have evolved a natural union in harmony with natural law, but they aren’t even the same species. What does marriage have to do with it?[/quote]
Marriage is a way of recognising monogamy. Monogamy is not a social construct.
[/quote]
Why don’t we see massive amounts of divorce in states that allow same sex marriage yet do in states that prohibit it? [/quote]
Why would we? What does divorce have to do with anything?
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
All the others were skipped over. [/quote]
They weren’t skipped over. I chose the logically strongest of your points, which also happened to be the first. The others were entirely inferior (and we covered the god one here, anyway). Furthermore, I explicitly mentioned that this thread would in no way benefit from eight simultaneous arguments between you and I, and I really, really doubt you disagree.
They did. He joins millions of men and women, straight and gay, of whom the same can be said. Not that that has got anything to do with homosexuality’s morality or immorality.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]ZJStrope wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I’m not really interested in how many tittie fucks you’ve had. But in relation to marriage I have already explained that as well. Men and women are complimentary and provide each other with psychological benefits. Marriage is also a natural union in harmony with natural law. Although procreation is its main function it is not its only function.[/quote]
Given your name is SexMachine, I figured you would care sarcasm
Anywho, I can think of many other relationships that are beneficial to each other, but I’m not seeing marriage as a requirement? Again, marriage is a social construct, not a natural construct.
Pilot fish and Sharks have evolved a natural union in harmony with natural law, but they aren’t even the same species. What does marriage have to do with it?[/quote]
Marriage is a way of recognising monogamy. Monogamy is not a social construct.
[/quote]
Really? Why do non monogamous couples get married then?
[quote]pushharder wrote:
I understand your point and you certainly must understand mine. I was just quibbling for the fun of it.
[/quote]
You know, I’ve always found the word “quibble” to be pretty gay.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
If you’d read the links you would see that gay men are the main source of HIV infection to women. It’s a public health problem. And what is particularly disturbing is the trend of ‘bug chasing’ and ‘gift giving’ where gay men deliberately spread and contract HIV.
[/quote]
Is this something your really concerned about? I’ve never had this concern with women, maybe you are hanging around the wrong types if its an actual problem in your life.
So hypothetically if they ever find a cure for HIV you have no problems will gays and will stop making threads like this?[/quote]
You’re an idiot. HIV is only one of more than a dozen STDs and STDs are only one reason amongst many that I oppose the normalisation of homosexuality.
[/quote]
We can get to the other reasons but I am not convinced STDs are a real reason so I am curious why you brought that up first when I asked a straight forward question.
The bottom line is you are at much greater risk of STDs from a chain of heterosexual transmissions. Most STDs were more prevalent before homosexuality was normalized. This means you are at lower risk today yet are still trying to blame homosexuals who are more accepted today than ever.[/quote]
No heterosexuals are not at a greater risk than homosexuals of contracting STDs. I don’t know of anyone who makes that claim. And HIV became widespread due to homosexuals and IV drug users. I don’t know of anyone who denies that either.[/quote]
Not at all what I said. As a heterosexual why do you care what their risk favor is compared to yours? Your risk has declined in the last 30 years. Societies acceptance of gays has obviously not made it worse in this area so I don’t understand why its on your list of reasons.