·Theme
- Forums
- Cross Site
- Out Of Topic
- Ex-gay?
Ex-gay?Follow
I didn't misunderstand them. I asked them for clarity. They're worth the effort, you're not.
Donate. One day it could be your family.
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
You are using a definition of "normal" that makes reference to something that doesn't exist.
There is NO SUCH THING as a biological standard, which is the first definition I saw you offer. Which spawned this whole debate. You can't use a definition based on something that doesn't exist. Well, you can, but it means you aren't arguing anything.
The second definition you offered (that of common biological "functions") is both incredibly subjective (thus proving my point, not yours) and inadequate if you are trying to prove that same-sex relations aren't "normal" (in your terms).
There is NO SUCH THING as a biological standard, which is the first definition I saw you offer. Which spawned this whole debate. You can't use a definition based on something that doesn't exist. Well, you can, but it means you aren't arguing anything.
The second definition you offered (that of common biological "functions") is both incredibly subjective (thus proving my point, not yours) and inadequate if you are trying to prove that same-sex relations aren't "normal" (in your terms).
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people
lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
Almalieque wrote:
You're not understanding where I'm getting at. How are you disabled if you are abled? If you're considering yourself "disabled", then something must be disabled/abnormal about you, otherwise you're able.
Almalieque wrote:
YouThe exact opposite. Did you even read what I wrote? I said that I don't care about the word you use, I'm referring to the definition. And yes, I know what "semantic" means.
Almalieque wrote:
The ***** also goes in the meat blender. I never denied the fact that people can use their body parts for other purposes. My argument is that there is no physical or biological evidence to support the ***** going in your ear, nose, mouth and/or **** as it does the ******.
Almalieque wrote:
WTF? I was referring to rape, public nudity, public urination and any activity that is considered without reason, not homosexuality. That's why you fail, your whole argument is based on this assumption that I"m some bigot.
Almalieque wrote:
Once again, you color analogy COMPLETELY FAILS because there is no biological or physical evidence to support one skin color over another. Our skin color interacts with the environment that we are in.
Almalieque wrote:
As I stated in my last post to you, what exactly is your argument against me? I never denied that we have sex for pleasure, matter of fact, I said just that in the below response.
Almalieque wrote:
So, like I said earlier. You have no argument. You're just emotionally disturbed for me not having your beliefs and calling me names. It all makes sense now. What I just said complements your response above. People get hungry, they eat food and as a result they are nourished. People often eat food for pleasure never thinking about nourishment. Likewise, people have sexual urges, they have sex and as a result they reproduce. People have sex never thinking about reproduction.
Just because people eat with no regards to nourishment, doesn't change the fact that the primary function of eating is to nourish us, not make us "feel good". Likewise, just because people have sex with no regard of reproduction, that doesn't change the fact that reproduction is the primary function of sex, not make us feel good.
I can think of many other things people can do with their body parts that result in good feelings, that doesn't change the primary functions of those parts.
Just because people eat with no regards to nourishment, doesn't change the fact that the primary function of eating is to nourish us, not make us "feel good". Likewise, just because people have sex with no regard of reproduction, that doesn't change the fact that reproduction is the primary function of sex, not make us feel good.
I can think of many other things people can do with their body parts that result in good feelings, that doesn't change the primary functions of those parts.
Almalieque wrote:
Children playing with their genitals and ************ are not the same thing.
I never stated that the first and foremost reason why people have sex is for procreation, I've been arguing that the primary function of sex is procreation. Unless you disagree with that, we agree.
I never stated that the first and foremost reason why people have sex is for procreation, I've been arguing that the primary function of sex is procreation. Unless you disagree with that, we agree.
Almalieque wrote:
Then you're not disabled then. How can someone call you "disabled" if there's nothing to reference to?
Almalieque wrote:
First, you're arguing that those cases are somehow different so therefore would be irrelevant in an argument in regards with SSM. Yet, your example of skin color is completely irrelevant to SSM and you, along with other people, are making arguments with something completely different.
Second, minor consent laws are man made that can be changed just like marriages laws that you are trying to change. There's nothing preventing society from allowing minors to marry other than society.
Second, minor consent laws are man made that can be changed just like marriages laws that you are trying to change. There's nothing preventing society from allowing minors to marry other than society.
Almalieque wrote:
There's a plus side for having sickle cell, but is sickle cell itself a good thing? It's also a good thing to be bulimic/obese in a land of starvation, that doesn't make being bulimic/obese a good thing.
Why would be bulimic or obese ever be a good thing? Sickle cell anaemia prevents malaria. Not dying from malaria is a lot better than having to live with sickle cell, so yes it's a good thing.
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.
LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
Quote:
You're trolling here, right? I mean, if you want to say that we use them for both, therefore it's moot, then sure. But if you want to call the design moot, when the point of making it pleasurable is to increase the likelihood of reproducing, I don't know what to say to you.
Design? Point? There is no point to evolution. Genes don't have purpose; only sentients can make it.
Quote:
Design? Point? There is no point to evolution. Genes don't have purpose; only sentients can make it.
Omg, this.
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people
lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
Idig,
I'm done repeating myself with you.
That's not what I mean at all. I mean, whatever it is that you're considering disabled can't be disabled if it is able. You can't call anything "disabled" unless you define able.
Yes.
Please explain, I want to hear this. While you at it, include, ears, noses and meat blenders.Just because it can be done, doesn't necessarily provide evidence of a function.
This whole "your sex-life sucks" routine does not phase my argument.
And you're a racist who hate non-whties because you you don't support slavery reparations and employing less qualified ethnic workers over fully qualified workers to meet a quota.
No, I was arguing the purpose of sex, not the reason why people personally decide to have sex.
Apparently I was arguing the former and you the latter. So, unless you believe Belkira or Idiggory, then there is nothing to argue about.
I read it.
No, that's not what ************ is. I never said homosexuality was wrong and I never even mentioned that let alone based it on my argument. As I said, you created an argument to battle without even knowing what my point was. I stated it twice already in this thread, so you can't act like that I didn't ever mention it.
You're confusing concept of a definition with a word. Based on the concept, regardless of whatever word you want to use, how can you call someone disabled if you have nothing to reference to? Where did that reference come from?
Why do you consistently make up arguments to debate? I haven't said 90% of the stuff you accused me of. You made a statement that a SSM argument can't be used as precedence for marriage with minors because minors can't enter contracts. I merely responded with the fact minors can't enter in contracts is a man made law that we can change. Furthermore, changing that law is conceptually the same as changing any other major law.
Once again, you're just bothered that I don't agree with you, so as a result, you decide to make false accusations of me.
If you're in a land of starvation, being obese keeps you from dying of starvation. Yet, you can still die from being overly obese. Same with the sickle cell analogy.
I'm done repeating myself with you.
Nilatai wrote:
I am understanding what you're getting at. You're saying I'm not "normal" because I have a disability. I can still do all of the things you can do, it's just I have certain limitations. That's what a disability is you @#%^ing moron.
That's not what I mean at all. I mean, whatever it is that you're considering disabled can't be disabled if it is able. You can't call anything "disabled" unless you define able.
Nilatai wrote:
Are you sure you know what it means?
Yes.
Nilatai wrote:
I think there's plenty of biological evidence of a ***** going in the mouth and **** as it does the ******. Maybe your sex life is just sadly lacking?
Please explain, I want to hear this. While you at it, include, ears, noses and meat blenders.Just because it can be done, doesn't necessarily provide evidence of a function.
This whole "your sex-life sucks" routine does not phase my argument.
Nilatai wrote:
You are some kind of bigot, you don't like homosexuality because you find it icky...
And you're a racist who hate non-whties because you you don't support slavery reparations and employing less qualified ethnic workers over fully qualified workers to meet a quota.
Nilatai wrote:
I'm not entirely sure what your argument is at this point. You started out by saying that as we have sex for procreation that means homosexuality is intrinsically wrong. I don't know if that's what you were trying to argue, but it's certainly what you were arguing.
No, I was arguing the purpose of sex, not the reason why people personally decide to have sex.
Apparently I was arguing the former and you the latter. So, unless you believe Belkira or Idiggory, then there is nothing to argue about.
Nilatai wrote:
You should read the clarification I gave Ugly on the last page, I think...
I read it.
Nilatai wrote:
Isn't that exactly what ************ is? So what if the primary function of sex is procreation? That fact alone doesn't make homosexuality wrong, so why base your entire argument on it?
No, that's not what ************ is. I never said homosexuality was wrong and I never even mentioned that let alone based it on my argument. As I said, you created an argument to battle without even knowing what my point was. I stated it twice already in this thread, so you can't act like that I didn't ever mention it.
Nilatai wrote:
You're confusing "biological" and "medical" again.
You're confusing concept of a definition with a word. Based on the concept, regardless of whatever word you want to use, how can you call someone disabled if you have nothing to reference to? Where did that reference come from?
Nilatai wrote:
So what then? You're saying if we let gays get married some how it will leave to children being allowed to marry adults? Where the @#%^ do you get this slippery slope bullsh*t from? Children aren't allowed to give consent, adults are. Do you know why? Because children haven't developed the proper decision making faculties until around the age of 16, which incidentally is the age of consent in the UK. 16 year olds can also get married here, with their parents consent.
Why do you consistently make up arguments to debate? I haven't said 90% of the stuff you accused me of. You made a statement that a SSM argument can't be used as precedence for marriage with minors because minors can't enter contracts. I merely responded with the fact minors can't enter in contracts is a man made law that we can change. Furthermore, changing that law is conceptually the same as changing any other major law.
Once again, you're just bothered that I don't agree with you, so as a result, you decide to make false accusations of me.
Nilatai wrote:
Why would be bulimic or obese ever be a good thing? Sickle cell anaemia prevents malaria. Not dying from malaria is a lot better than having to live with sickle cell, so yes it's a good thing.
If you're in a land of starvation, being obese keeps you from dying of starvation. Yet, you can still die from being overly obese. Same with the sickle cell analogy.
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
What lolgaxe said.
Almalieque wrote:
That's not what I mean at all. I mean, whatever it is that you're considering disabled can't be disabled if it is able. You can't call anything "disabled" unless you define able.
Almalieque wrote:
Please explain, I want to hear this. While you at it, include, ears, noses and meat blenders.Just because it can be done, doesn't necessarily provide evidence of a function.
This whole "your sex-life sucks" routine does not phase my argument.
This whole "your sex-life sucks" routine does not phase my argument.
Almalieque wrote:
And you're a racist who hate non-whties because you you don't support slavery reparations and employing less qualified ethnic workers over fully qualified workers to meet a quota.
Almalieque wrote:
No, I was arguing the purpose of sex, not the reason why people personally decide to have sex.
Apparently I was arguing the former and you the latter. So, unless you believe Belkira or Idiggory, then there is nothing to argue about.
Apparently I was arguing the former and you the latter. So, unless you believe Belkira or Idiggory, then there is nothing to argue about.
Almalieque wrote:
I read it.
Almalieque wrote:
No, that's not what ************ is. I never said homosexuality was wrong and I never even mentioned that let alone based it on my argument. As I said, you created an argument to battle without even knowing what my point was. I stated it twice already in this thread, so you can't act like that I didn't ever mention it.
Almalieque wrote:
You're confusing concept of a definition with a word. Based on the concept, regardless of whatever word you want to use, how can you call someone disabled if you have nothing to reference to? Where did that reference come from?
Almalieque wrote:
Why do you consistently make up arguments to debate? I haven't said 90% of the stuff you accused me of. You made a statement that a SSM argument can't be used as precedence for marriage with minors because minors can't enter contracts. I merely responded with the fact minors can't enter in contracts is a man made law that we can change. Furthermore, changing that law is conceptually the same as changing any other major law.
Once again, you're just bothered that I don't agree with you, so as a result, you decide to make false accusations of me.
Once again, you're just bothered that I don't agree with you, so as a result, you decide to make false accusations of me.
Almalieque wrote:
If you're in a land of starvation, being obese keeps you from dying of starvation. Yet, you can still die from being overly obese. Same with the sickle cell analogy.
Sure, but dying from sickle cell is less unpleasant than dying from malaria.
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.
LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
Quote:
Idig,
I'm done repeating myself with you.
I'm done repeating myself with you.
Good, because repeating something wrong 80 times doesn't make it right.
Quote:
You're confusing concept of a definition with a word. Based on the concept, regardless of whatever word you want to use, how can you call someone disabled if you have nothing to reference to? Where did that reference come from?
You're disabled if you do not fall into the subjective category of human values with regard to ability. That's pretty simple.
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people
lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
idiggory wrote:
You're disabled if you do not fall into the subjective category of human values with regard to ability. That's pretty simple.
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.
LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
Kavekk wrote:
Quote:
You're trolling here, right? I mean, if you want to say that we use them for both, therefore it's moot, then sure. But if you want to call the design moot, when the point of making it pleasurable is to increase the likelihood of reproducing, I don't know what to say to you.
Design? Point? There is no point to evolution. Genes don't have purpose; only sentients can make it.
Donate. One day it could be your family.
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
Quote:
They have more point than you, so if they're pointless, you are as well. You know what you need to do now. Farewell.
+1 more?
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people
lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
idiggory wrote:
Quote:
They have more point than you, so if they're pointless, you are as well. You know what you need to do now. Farewell.
+1 more?
Donate. One day it could be your family.
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
WooT! I like learning!
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people
lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
Wooooo edumacations!
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.
LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
Much more interesting than the ***** history class I'm taking right now!
Though not really.
Though not really.
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people
lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
Is it a large class? You must be quite sore afterwards.
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Kavekk wrote:
Quote:
You're trolling here, right? I mean, if you want to say that we use them for both, therefore it's moot, then sure. But if you want to call the design moot, when the point of making it pleasurable is to increase the likelihood of reproducing, I don't know what to say to you.
Design? Point? There is no point to evolution. Genes don't have purpose; only sentients can make it.
Mon Dieu! Stop trying to objectify me.
Quote:
Is it a large class? You must be quite sore afterwards.
I'm not the teacher, duh.
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people
lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
Nilatai wrote:
Well I'm defined as disabled in medical terms. It's just a word my dear boy.
How many times do I have to say that I'm not focused on the word, but the concept? You can't be disabled if you're abled.
Nilatai wrote:
**** and oral sex provide pleasure, in some cases to both parties. That's their function. Courtship ritual, if you like. That same can not be said for the other hyperbole you tried to use here.
Hypocritical much? How can you say that there is no sexual pleasure from ear sex or nose sex? How's that any different from someone saying that there is no sexual pleasure from **** sex? People can get off on anything, i.e. pain, fecal matter, domination, urine, objects, etc. You can not proclaim one "fetish" as a function but denounce the other because it isn't "cool" enough.
Besides that point, you haven't said anything to compare **** and oral sex to vaginal sex other than pleasure, which I just showed can be done with anything.
Nilatai wrote:
Actually those policies are racist in themselves. Hiring someone of lesser skill to fill a quota? That's pretty racist. Why would I need to support slavery reparations? My ancestors come from Ireland, we were too busy being oppressed by the English to own slaves.
If you don't support the advancement of a certain people (slavery reparations) then you are racist, plain and simple. There can not exist any other logical reason that might exclude reparations that's not based on racism.
Nilatai wrote:
Oh, well the purpose of sex is sexual pleasure. It's a courtship ritual, it's recreational. If it were only for reproduction, we'd have a mating season. Why do you never address this point? If sex were purely for recreation, we'd only be driven to have it for five days of the month. (Or is it three?)
You just told Ugly that wasn't your point. So, which one is it? Why do you keep changing your point?
I've explained at least 3 times that we do have a "Mating season", it's puberty to menopause. That's when our sexual urges begins and dies, which just so happens to be the highest time of reproduction.
Nilatai wrote:
I thought your whole argument was that homosexuality wasn't normal? And that you're opposed to it? Forgive me if I don't know exactly what point you're trying to make, it's like digging for a nugget of gold in a sewer. Only to then have it turn out to be pyrite.
Nilatai wrote:
That fact alone doesn't make homosexuality wrong, so why base your entire argument on it?
Those are two completely different inferences. The fault is on your end. If you can't read, that's not my fault. Tell me if below is too difficult for you to understand.
Almalique wrote:
1. People argued that there was no argument against SSM that wasn't out of hatred and/or fear. If you accept the fact that it isn't "biological normal" and if marriage were to be defined on "normal" relationships, specifically based on biological "intentions", then that would exclude SSM.
2. My main focus wasn't to demerit it, but to get people to accept the fact that it isn't "normal", so quit pretending that it is and it's somehow wrong for people not to accept it.
2. My main focus wasn't to demerit it, but to get people to accept the fact that it isn't "normal", so quit pretending that it is and it's somehow wrong for people not to accept it.
Nilatai wrote:
I don't make false accusations at all. You said earlier that SSM would be used as a precedent for other types of unsavoury marriage. I gave a few examples about why you wouldn't be able to use SSM in those cases. I've had this argument with you before, I know where it leads. So I nipped it in the bud.
Almalieque wrote:
No, I didn't. Wait, someone brings up race in EVERY single homosexual argument as if sexuality and skin color are the same thing. Besides presenting an argument I wasn't making, the arguments that are similar and apply for apples do not apply for oranges. Ironic how people will constantly bring up racial arguments in the past but swears like it's no tomorrow that any SSM laws are not precedents to any other marriage laws.
You really can't read? I said that you would use race as precedence, even though it's completely irrelevant to SSM, but swear up and down that SSM isn't a precedence for any other marriage. I was pointing out the fact that you're being a hypocrite. No matter if you believe that SSM is irrelevant to other forms of marriage, you can't say that it isn't a "precedence" when you use race as a "precedence" to something that is equally irrelevant.
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Am I understanding you @#%^wits in that, you're saying the primary function of reproductive organs is not for reproducing, but for pleasure?
Nilatai wrote:
Oh, well the purpose of sex is sexual pleasure. It's a courtship ritual, it's recreational.
Almalieque wrote:
How many times do I have to say that I'm not focused on the word, but the concept? You can't be disabled if you're abled.
Almalieque wrote:
Hypocritical much? How can you say that there is no sexual pleasure from ear sex or nose sex? How's that any different from someone saying that there is no sexual pleasure from **** sex? People can get off on anything, i.e. pain, fecal matter, domination, urine, objects, etc. You can not proclaim one "fetish" as a function but denounce the other because it isn't "cool" enough.
Besides that point, you haven't said anything to compare **** and oral sex to vaginal sex other than pleasure, which I just showed can be done with anything.
Besides that point, you haven't said anything to compare **** and oral sex to vaginal sex other than pleasure, which I just showed can be done with anything.
Almalieque wrote:
If you don't support the advancement of a certain people (slavery reparations) then you are racist, plain and simple. There can not exist any other logical reason that might exclude reparations that's not based on racism.
Almalieque wrote:
You just told Ugly that wasn't your point. So, which one is it? Why do you keep changing your point?
I've explained at least 3 times that we do have a "Mating season", it's puberty to menopause. That's when our sexual urges begins and dies, which just so happens to be the highest time of reproduction.
I've explained at least 3 times that we do have a "Mating season", it's puberty to menopause. That's when our sexual urges begins and dies, which just so happens to be the highest time of reproduction.
Almalieque wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
I thought your whole argument was that homosexuality wasn't normal? And that you're opposed to it? Forgive me if I don't know exactly what point you're trying to make, it's like digging for a nugget of gold in a sewer. Only to then have it turn out to be pyrite.
Nilatai wrote:
That fact alone doesn't make homosexuality wrong, so why base your entire argument on it?
Those are two completely different inferences. The fault is on your end. If you can't read, that's not my fault. Tell me if below is too difficult for you to understand.
Almalique wrote:
1. People argued that there was no argument against SSM that wasn't out of hatred and/or fear. If you accept the fact that it isn't "biological normal" and if marriage were to be defined on "normal" relationships, specifically based on biological "intentions", then that would exclude SSM.
2. My main focus wasn't to demerit it, but to get people to accept the fact that it isn't "normal", so quit pretending that it is and it's somehow wrong for people not to accept it.
2. My main focus wasn't to demerit it, but to get people to accept the fact that it isn't "normal", so quit pretending that it is and it's somehow wrong for people not to accept it.
Nilatai wrote:
I don't make false accusations at all. You said earlier that SSM would be used as a precedent for other types of unsavoury marriage. I gave a few examples about why you wouldn't be able to use SSM in those cases. I've had this argument with you before, I know where it leads. So I nipped it in the bud.
Almalieque wrote:
No, I didn't. Wait, someone brings up race in EVERY single homosexual argument as if sexuality and skin color are the same thing. Besides presenting an argument I wasn't making, the arguments that are similar and apply for apples do not apply for oranges. Ironic how people will constantly bring up racial arguments in the past but swears like it's no tomorrow that any SSM laws are not precedents to any other marriage laws.
You really can't read? I said that you would use race as precedence, even though it's completely irrelevant to SSM, but swear up and down that SSM isn't a precedence for any other marriage. I was pointing out the fact that you're being a hypocrite. No matter if you believe that SSM is irrelevant to other forms of marriage, you can't say that it isn't a "precedence" when you use race as a "precedence" to something that is equally irrelevant.
No dear boy, I used race to show you how your babble about what's normal can be used to justify racism. Your opposition to SSM is pure bigotry. It does not affect you in the slightest, yet you're opposed to it on grounds that it's not normal, so I gave you a for instance about white being normal and black not being so. I don't believe that at all, I was just using your own logic against you.
Also, for the second time, saying something is "biological normal" doesn't make any f*cking sense.
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.
LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
I guess homosexual necrophilia is biologically normal, then.
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
Yeah, alma, we're no longer talking about that. You aren't really an interesting conversation partner.
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people
lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
Recent Visitors: 226
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (226)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- Out Of Topic
- Ex-gay?
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC