Ex-gay?Follow

Was there room for the watermelon?

It's not that it's "off topic", but the fact that it was used misused in the conversation. Besides, I did what I preached. If you have a "problem" with the direction of a topic, you say something immediately, not pages and days after the fact.

I like watermelon.

Alas, like every Alma thread before this, and every Alma thread to come, this one must end with me (and eventually, everyone else) being unable to match his stubborness and losing interest.

Ta ta for now.

Why couldn't you ******* lose interest 2 pages ago? ****

I'm sorry, I left out this question, I think I left out some others to by mistake.

This is my point, only a woman would ever say that. I have never met or known ANY guy who didn't have sex with someone they didn't love for any other reason but to bust one and/or for +1.

You're just not paying attention.

Insulting him is always worthwhile. Trying to reason with him is futile.

We aren't arguing semantics. This is absolutely central to the understanding of Biology. There is NO WAY an organ is "supposed" to be. There is merely the way an organ IS. How that organ interacts with the body it is a part of is biology. How that organism interacts with the environment/other organisms is biology. The way the organ is is the way it is--there is no "wrong" or no "defects" where biology is concerned.

It's also incredibly important to understand that the notion of "function" is a purely human construct. Nature doesn't give a crap about functions. DO certain things function a certain way? Yes. But nature doesn't care if Ralph's ear functions like his nose. There's nothing "wrong" with that. Nature doesn't judge. It doesn't have a blue print for how things are "supposed" to be.

If your entire argument is based around the idea that the reproductive system is SUPPOSED to be used for X, then this is extremely important. It isn't semantics.

There is NO SUCH THING as a "mistake of nature." If it exists within nature, it's natural. That's really all there is to it. Guys boning guys is perfectly natural. It's only if you believe that nature is serving a higher order (usually god) that you can argue that something is a violation of nature. And that's only because you think that free will interfered with god's will. And, in that case, your argument is theistic, not biological.

And yes, sickle cell anemia is not a bad thing (with specific reference to health as valuable) if you are living in a malaria-infested area of the world without access to medicine.

So I guess you don't realize that around 40 or so, when a woman begins to go into menopause, they have a sex drive that rivals that of an 18 year old boy...?



I have no idea what the above means. It has nothing to do with my point.

If pleasure is a biological function of our sex organs, then it is, using your definition, normal. Therefore, homosexual sex acts are normal.

[quote]Sex isn't just about an ******, but when I say that I don't mean that ****** isn't the eventual goal. It is also about how it feels during sex. I imagine you have met and know plenty of men who have held back an ****** just to make the sex last longer because it feels good. I imagine that doesn't happen when ************ because that's not the point of *********************

Actually, it's probably extremely common with ************ too--called edging. Basically you go to the point of climax, and stop just before it. By doing that multiple times, your eventual ****** is much larger. Plus, the constant state of arousal makes the whole experience much more pleasurable.

Compliments of wikipedia.

Edited, Jun 25th 2011 1:02am by idiggory

If we're not arguing semantics, then you're just flat out wrong. I was giving you a benefit without a doubt that maybe you were referring to something else. Sickness exist. Plain and simple. You can't deny that. Well you can, but you'll look stupid.



So, are you going to answer the question or not?



Nope, I didn't, but that further more supports my argument as a "last ditch effort". Get it now or forever hold your peace, because I'm quite sure women over the age of 50 (then latter end of menopause years) are not having the same feelings. Unless you're claiming that seniors are sexually driven, then you have no counter. There's a reason why Viagra exist.



You contradicted yourself. You first said that STDs are SECOND to sex, so they shouldn't be mentioned, but then you said that it doesn't matter if it's second or third, it's still a function. You claim that because you can receive pleasure from sex, then pleasure is a function of sex. Well, you can also receive STD's from sex. So according to you, the function of sex is STDs.

You fail to differentiate a "function" with a side effect. Everything you do will yield some feeling, rather emotional or physical. So, to act like a function of a particular action is pleasure is just silly. As I said, it feels good to use the restroom. That doesn't mean that pleasure is a function of taking a dump. Cracking my fingers feels good and I'm sure that's not good for me and even more sure that isn't a function of my bones, to be "cracked".



When you are with someone that you don't love or care for (which was stated twice), yes it is. I hate to burst your bubble, but if you put out to a man you hardly know, he's in it for one or two reasons, to bust one or for +1, you pick.



Uh, I stated in the previous page about men holding back.. While having sex does feel good, having sex and stopping before the initial bust is a horrible feeling. I would personally rather not even start if I knew ahead of time that we would stop prematurely. On the other hand, if I'm guaranteed an ******, I really don't care what happens prior to that, assuming it's a person that I don't love or care for.

While no male on this thread may openly admit to it, I'm sure that's common thinking among many men. I'm sure that there are exceptions in each case, but I believe this to be true for the most part.



You can come at me like that if you want, but that's reality. Take it or leave it. Women don't always have orgasms, so they don't always base sex on orgasms. Men almost always have orgasms, so not having one is usually not a good thing.

Edited, Jun 25th 2011 3:42pm by Almalieque

Lulz. Actually I went to the pub. It seemed more constructive than countering your "arguments".

And so, I'll go against my better instincts and reply to you now...


Arthrogyposis Multiplex Congenita, Rheumatism and Osteoarthritis. Those make me disabled.


So your argument is basically semantic? Awesome.

***** also goes in the butt.

So you're saying that homosexuality isn't "within reason"? That's because you're a bigot. This is why my analogy about skin colour works so well. Someone could say that Dark skin is an unnatural curse from god(Mormans for example do this), it doesn't mean that black people should be treated any differently from whites, even though some people say it's unnatural, and not normal.

No, having sex is great because it feels good. That's the stimulus we pursue, not to procreate. Otherwise we wouldn't use sex as recreation. You're an idiot if you can't see that's true.

What does this have to do with anything? If we didn't have sex for recreation we'd be driven to have it by some other biological impulse. The fact remains, some people aren't physically attracted to the opposite sex. They have intercourse with those of the same sex. This does not mean that you are allowed to treat them differently because of your own bigoted @#%^ing opinion, you disgusting excuse for a human being.

I don't know if you have children, but males have a compulsion to play with their genitals long before puberty hits. It feels good. I assume you're still a virgin if you don't have kids though, because first and foremost people are driven to have sex for procreation, right?


There's no such thing as "biological standards" you insatiable cretin.




wasn't going to bother with this post, but the last part caught my eye. Here's why SSM won't lead to things like people marrying horses:

Horses can't give consent. Neither can minors or <insert other thing you think would be ikky for people to marry here>. That's why it can't be used as a precedent for any of those things. Idiot. (Now you can answer this which I posted a few pages ago).


edit: Oh and sickle cell anaemia actually helps to protect against malaria, so yes it's a good thing.

Edited, Jun 25th 2011 11:05am by Nilatai