04 Nov 11
2 edits
Originally posted by Proper KnobLol, i see, my theory is that once they make homosexuality mandatory humanity will
Homosexuals are here stay and religious fundamentalists like you are on the way out Rob. Praise the Lord!!!!!!
fail to procreate and simply die out, except for those few closet heterosexuals, left remaining.
04 Nov 11
Originally posted by Proper KnobI have no justfiable reason for it...I just despise queers...always have..I guess it's the time I was raised in and the way I was raised 🙂 .
Homosexuals are here stay and religious fundamentalists like you are on the way out Rob. Praise the Lord!!!!!!
04 Nov 11
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobiewhat actual data? there is no freakin actual data, its just a collection of statements with absolutely no numbers to back it up. it starts the BS from the very beginning claiming all gays are predisposed to STDS forgetting the fact that sticking a p3nis(incredible i can't say p3nis on this site, this is ridiculous) in a std riddled v@gina will get you just as diseased. from the very beginning it assumes gays are disgusting creatures with disgusting habits that don't want or never heard of safe sex.
is that the best you have, to call into question references and a few comments about
STD's. What about the actual data itself, hard to argue with i suppose given the
scientifically attested arguments that were made concerning the comparison with the
vagina and the anus and its suitability for penetration given the physiology. Sure
ignore a lown the wheels from your flotilla as it was cruising along quite nicely in your gay
parade.
of course if you're gonna shtoop anything that breaths you will probably get stds. of course that the gay who says he had 100 partners was asking for some sex bug. the manly straight dude that bangs 100 women has the same freakin std risk.
you found a site that supports your actual data and you most likely didn't even read it. you only saw the big bold title "link that proves gays are disgusting, use this in your gay hating rambling as proof".
04 Nov 11
Originally posted by ayceebeeit is not an excuse. i despise rapists, i can give you reasons for it. like proper asked, what are your reasons for despising a group of people ?
I have no justfiable reason for it...I just despise queers...always have..I guess it's the time I was raised in and the way I was raised 🙂 .
04 Nov 11
4 edits
Originally posted by Zahlanzisooooo you ignore the physiological evidence, hardly surprising since it blew the wheels
what actual data? there is no freakin actual data, its just a collection of statements with absolutely no numbers to back it up. it starts the BS from the very beginning claiming all gays are predisposed to STDS forgetting the fact that sticking a p3nis(incredible i can't say p3nis on this site, this is ridiculous) in a std riddled v@gina will get you ju e "link that proves gays are disgusting, use this in your gay hating rambling as proof".
off from your gay parade, spare me your hate speech its the last bastion of those left
without a reason, someone, somewhere might care.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
04 Nov 11
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI am not talking about temporary continence. I am talking about perpetual abstinence. Presumably you think that a couple, that never engages in any sexual activity could still be an intimate romantic pair. I will just point out that historically, and even still in the Catholic Church, marriage and sexual intercourse were inseparable. An unconsummated marriage could be nullified; a marriage in which one partner was impotent or otherwise unable to engage in sex would be null.
there are times in a marriage when intercourse is not possible, for example during
menstruation, will a couple simply stop demonstrating affection because of it, hardly, in
fact, its a time for demonstrating even more affection and understanding.
Look, I am not suggesting that sex is the only way for a couple to express intimacy. There are many times in a relationship where sex may no longer be pleasant for either. What I am saying is that sex nonetheless is integral. Society would generally not consider a couple who have never engaged in sex as a romantic pair.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
04 Nov 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobiebecause my friend the plumbing is all wrong. You cannot cite unreasoning animal
because my friend the plumbing is all wrong. You cannot cite unreasoning animal
behaviour as proof that homosexuality is natural. I have seen dogs trying to hump
the end of a couch, does that mean that adult consensual sex with a sofa set is
natural, hardly!
the second point, is also moot, there are 1.2 billion Muslims, to which homosexual ...[text shortened]... it is in any sense proper, nor natural, nor rational nor morally acceptable
nor even healthy!
behaviour as proof that homosexuality is natural. I have seen dogs trying to hump
the end of a couch, does that mean that adult consensual sex with a sofa set is
natural, hardly!
But didn't you say that sexual activity is irrelevant? Why are you now insisting that the mechanics of the sexual act has some moral import when you have just said that it is unimportant in determining whether a relationship is loving and intimate?
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
04 Nov 11
I will just point out that anal sex is not the predominant form of sexual intercourse for gay men. Perhaps on 37% engage in it:
http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2011/10/18/346473/new-study-of-gay-and-bi-mens-sexual-behavior-has-implications-for-health-advocacy/
Presumably Robbie has no issue with homosexual couples provided that they avoid anal sex for health reasons.
04 Nov 11
1 edit
Originally posted by Conrau Kyes of course its integral to marriage, but desire is not a basis to consummate a
I am not talking about temporary continence. I am talking about perpetual abstinence. Presumably you think that a couple, that never engages in any sexual activity could still be an intimate romantic pair. I will just point out that historically, and even still in the Catholic Church, marriage and sexual intercourse were inseparable. An uncons ...[text shortened]... Society would generally not consider a couple who have never engaged in sex as a romantic pair.
marraige and never has been. That you find males attractive and females unattractive
is neither here not there, as i have explained, I find many females very attractive, but
i realise that it is morally unacceptable to peruse any romantic interest with them. What
you practice Conrau is your business, i mean it, I have no doubt that you are an
articulate and caring individual who seeks to be with someone that you love and who
in turn will reciprocate your affection, but no one can transgress the Biblical mandates
for any reason and remain sanctified, they are sacrosanct as you are no doubt aware.
If your right hand is making you stumble, then cut it off states the Christ. If your
desire is causing you to stumble then its best to practice abstinence, that goes for
heterosexuals as well as homosexuals. I hope that is clear enough.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
04 Nov 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobieOK, I understand that desire is not necessarily relevant. There are many examples where desire is not a justification. Pedophilia is an extreme example. In the case of homosexuality, however, a few points are relevant: homosexuality is prevalent, affecting 1-2% of the population; many homosexuals do not know how to practice abstinence; there are many cases in which homosexuals who have tried to live in abstinence have struggled and committed suicide. These points illustrate that homosexual desire cannot be dismissed as morally insignificant.
yes of course its integral to marriage, but desire is not a basis to consummate a
marraige and never has been. That you find males attractive and females unattractive
is neither here not there, as i have explained, I find many females very attractive, but
i realise that it is morally unacceptable to peruse any romantic interest with them. What ...[text shortened]... abstinence, that goes for
heterosexuals as well as homosexuals. I hope that is clear enough.
I think that the comparison to extramarital affairs or pedophilia are unfair. In both cases, these desires, however strong, necessarily involve the harm of another. A man who pursues other women harms his wife; a pedophile who molests children scars them for life. But a gay man who simply desires a relationship with another man is not, as far as we can see, harming anyone.
04 Nov 11
4 edits
Originally posted by Conrau Kagain you may have some justification Conrau, loneliness is a terrible thing, no doubt,
OK, I understand that desire is not necessarily relevant. There are many examples where desire is not a justification. Pedophilia is an extreme example. In the case of homosexuality, however, a few points are relevant: homosexuality is prevalent, affecting 1-2% of the population; many homosexuals do not know how to practice abstinence; there are many cases ...[text shortened]... who simply desires a relationship with another man is not, as far as we can see, harming anyone.
never the less, if one is determined to live by Biblical standards there are simply
certain moral constraints which one must observe and which no amount of justifiable
circumstances can negate. To the moral relativist this presents no problem, to others its
simply insurmountable. For example it is clear that many heterosexual couples live
outside of marriage and do no apparent harm to anyone, yet this is morally
objectionable from a Biblical standpoint, simply because they are practising
fornication. Homosexuality is no different in this respect. Even if same sex couples
were married and practised strict monogamy and fidelity to a single partner it would
not negate this, nor can it.
I dunno what you can do, desire can be cultivated and it certainly depends upon
what we feed our minds with. I think if i were you i would have an inner personal
battle.