Ex-gay?Follow

Am I understanding you ******** in that, you're saying the primary function of reproductive organs is not for reproducing, but for pleasure?

No I'm saying that sexual intercourse in our species is practised primarily for pleasure. Otherwise we'd be limited by a mating season. It's the same with other primates, like bonobos.

So there's nothing objectively "abnormal" with having no heart beat, pulse, head or any other vital organ? Really? Give it up you're flat out wrong.



I'll respond to that later.



So, what are you actually arguing against then? I don't deny that people have sex for pleasure, my argument is that the primary function of sex is reproduction, not pleasure. Our "mating season" is from puberty to menopause, the time when our sexual desires are at their peak.

Since no one will answer Alma's basic biology question, I'll give it a go. You see, Alma, when a fetus is formed, it doesn't have a gender as it begins to form all the types of cells we need. Several weeks into incubation, the X/Y chromosomes begin to react accordingly. The Y chromosome will cause the fetus to start to create male reproductive organs out of the cells that have been developed for genitalia. The X will do this to a female fetus as well.

We all begin with the same parts, however. The cells that form the tip of a male's ***** will form the ******** on a female. ********* on a male baby become ovaries on a female. The prostate on a male becomes the g-spot on a female. They perform the same type of functions, just varying for gender differentiation.

Does this make sense to you now?

Also, before you start spouting about the ******** not being for sexual pleasure because it's not placed appropriately to be stimulated directly, you should realize that humans haven't always had sex the way God wants us to. Also, probably try to get laid so you understand that the g-spot and the ****** are not easily confused.

Edited, Jun 25th 2011 10:55am by Guenny

I'm saying it's for both, and saying which is primary and which is secondary is moot. So saying that other forms of sex are not "normal" (i.e. are not biological functions of those organs) is idiotic.

Edited, Jun 25th 2011 11:22am by Belkira

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.



The 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.



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 ******.



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.

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.



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.



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.



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.



Then you're not disabled then. How can someone call you "disabled" if there's nothing to reference to?



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.



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.

Only if disregard the first decade and a half and die at 50.




Soooooo... you did all of that writing and still didn't answer the question. Is she specifically talking about the g-spot of the ****** or the entire ****** itself. It makes a big difference in respect to her comparison.



You're still confusing various definitions for the same words. I'm specifically focusing on one specific definition, not the various others. If you want to discuss those, fine, but they don't counter my argument. I've said numerous times already that the "normal" definition that I"m making is in reference to the biological commonality in the function of our bodies.

You're making the same argument as Nilatai. No matter how many people have it, it's not a normal condition in reference to common functionality. You not being able to walk if you're paralyzed is normal for you, but the fact that you can't walk isn't a normal in reference to biological function of your body.



How does creating an artificial heart or some other technique to act as a heart change the fact you need a "heart"?



We didn't CREATE anything, we only observe. We realized not having a heart prevents you from living. You being born with 4 arms is natural (self occurring) but not normal(commonality in bodily function). You can deny that all you want, but you're wrong.

If we defined the heart function, then we could change it and make it so where our heart would serve a different function. The reality is, regardless of what we say as a society, the heart will function the same way, which makes it objective.



I'm no longer repeating the same thing over and over and over and over. There's biological evidence against our bodies being overly obese or skinny. There's no unparallelled evidence against the weights, heights, skin colors, voices, hair color, etc. in the middle. If you can't see the difference, then we need to agree to disagree, because we're just wasting time.

So no one has sex post 50? Not looking forward to those years.

See my last reply to Nilati then. I only started paying attention to this crap a few posts ago.

I can't believe you typed all that and made me scroll that far up to read three words.

Fair enough.

I'll take a large double double.

Edited, Jun 25th 2011 4:09pm by Uglysasquatch

Says the guy who just misunderstood two different posters. As of now, your record is in my favor.