|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657
1500+ posts
|
|
1500+ posts
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657 |
Quote:
Jim Jackson said:
Quote:
magicjay38 said:
As for psychiatry, Freud was the first to scientifically study the mind.
As much as I am a supporter of much of what you say, this statement is erroneous.
Wilhelm Wundt of Leipzig is credited with being the first to approach "the mind" scientifically with his establishment of his "volker psychologie" and his experimental psychology laboratory, the first formal one of its kind, at Leipzig, in 1879.
Freud did indeed attempt a program of a "scientific psychology," but his efforts and writings came well after Wundt (as Wundt was roughly 20 years Freud's senior).
Wundt's findings were derived from laboratory experimentation, whereas Freud's were derived from his clinical work (it has been argued that Freud's Judaism kept him from attaining a university professorship).
You're right. I 'mis-spoke'. I recalled their being someone else but couldn't remember who. Hey, it was in a PSYCH 101 course I took 30 years ago! I do recall Maslow's Heirarchy of Wants, though. It was big at the time.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,952 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,952 Likes: 6 |
Oh, then let me say:
I'm not sure its fair to accuse magicjay38 of lying.
Even if he's wrong, that doesn't mean he isn't simply mistaken.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030 |
Quote:
magicjay38 said:
You're right. I 'mis-spoke'. I recalled their being someone else but couldn't remember who. Hey, it was in a PSYCH 101 course I took 30 years ago! I do recall Maslow's Heirarchy of Wants, though. It was big at the time.
No problem. Not meaning to sound like I was landing a ton of bricks on ya.
But Maslow's heirarchy was one of Needs, not Wants. Big difference. 
We all wear a green carnation.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657
1500+ posts
|
|
1500+ posts
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657 |
Quote:
Jim Jackson said:
Quote:
magicjay38 said:
You're right. I 'mis-spoke'. I recalled their being someone else but couldn't remember who. Hey, it was in a PSYCH 101 course I took 30 years ago! I do recall Maslow's Heirarchy of Wants, though. It was big at the time.
No problem. Not meaning to sound like I was landing a ton of bricks on ya.
But Maslow's heirarchy was one of Needs, not Wants. Big difference.
For shrink, you really show no mercy! If you'd like I could butcher cognitive dissonance and psychic equlibrium? 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030 |
Well, I did wink.
Cognitive dissonance...go for it. I know very little about it. My favorite was History of Psychology. Fascinating bunch of uptight white guys.
Psychic equilibrium? Not even ringing a bell.
We all wear a green carnation.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657
1500+ posts
|
|
1500+ posts
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657 |
Quote:
Jim Jackson said:
Well, I did wink.
Cognitive dissonance...go for it. I know very little about it. My favorite was History of Psychology. Fascinating bunch of uptight white guys.
Psychic equilibrium? Not even ringing a bell.
Hmm... Could be more in the realm of Social Psychology or Sociology. The theory goes that people have a set of beliefs about reality and the world around them that they learn through family, religion, school etc. So long as the stimuli, or information they recieve is consistent with their preconcieved notions of reality, they remain in Psychic Equalibrium. Maintaning that equlibrium is what is most important in evaluating and judging stimuli.
When information comes in that is inconsistent with their world view it causes them to move into a state of cognitive dissonance. The mind seeks to return to a state of equalibrium. The mind then acts as a perceptual filter, picking and choosing information that is consistent with an individual's preconceived world view and discounts that which is not. Thus, the mind can return to equalibrium.
An example would be the belief that the USA's goals in Iraq are proper and just and our army is disceplined and well behaved. It embodies American core values.
That belief is then challenged by reports and evidence of torcher commited by USA soldier's. The mind says 'it was not the policy. individuals were the only ones responsable, etc. . Thus the mind can retain it's preconception that America is good as is our Army.
That's it in a nutshell.
"Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives." John Stuart Mill
America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between. Oscar Wilde
He who dies with the most toys is nonetheless dead.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251 |
Quote:
magicjay38 said:
Quote:
Jim Jackson said:
Quote:
magicjay38 said:
You're right. I 'mis-spoke'. I recalled their being someone else but couldn't remember who. Hey, it was in a PSYCH 101 course I took 30 years ago! I do recall Maslow's Heirarchy of Wants, though. It was big at the time.
No problem. Not meaning to sound like I was landing a ton of bricks on ya.
But Maslow's heirarchy was one of Needs, not Wants. Big difference.
For shrink, you really show no mercy! If you'd like I could butcher cognitive dissonance and psychic equlibrium?
I love cognitive dissonance. The trick is knowing when you can break through and reset thier psychic equilibrium. That's why I don't consider debating online anything more than practice and testing of theories and how they stand up to criticism, because it's so easy for cognitive dissonance to take hold and it's obvious when someone responding isn't even reading (or can't read due to CD) what someone has said and there's no real way to force focus online and when it gets real bad all someone has to do to reestablsh thier psychic equlibrium is to log off.
Putting the "fun" back in Fundamentalist Christian Dogma.
" I know God exists because WBAM told me so. " - theory9
JLA brand RACK points = 514k 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657
1500+ posts
|
|
1500+ posts
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657 |
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
Quote:
magicjay38 said:
Quote:
Jim Jackson said:
Quote:
magicjay38 said:
You're right. I 'mis-spoke'. I recalled their being someone else but couldn't remember who. Hey, it was in a PSYCH 101 course I took 30 years ago! I do recall Maslow's Heirarchy of Wants, though. It was big at the time.
No problem. Not meaning to sound like I was landing a ton of bricks on ya.
But Maslow's heirarchy was one of Needs, not Wants. Big difference.
For shrink, you really show no mercy! If you'd like I could butcher cognitive dissonance and psychic equlibrium?
I love cognitive dissonance. The trick is knowing when you can break through and reset thier psychic equilibrium. That's why I don't consider debating online anything more than practice and testing of theories and how they stand up to criticism, because it's so easy for cognitive dissonance to take hold and it's obvious when someone responding isn't even reading (or can't read due to CD) what someone has said and there's no real way to force focus online and when it gets real bad all someone has to do to reestablsh thier psychic equlibrium is to log off.
It's really the heart and soul of marketing and advertising. Attach the product or message to pre-existing notions. The example that comes to mind is GM old add: "Baseball, Hotdogs Apple Pie and Chevrolet".
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
|
|
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
Quote:
magicjay38 said:
That it wasn't known in the middle ages can be attributed to the fact that most people could not read or write.
Wasn't known in the middle ages? It was because of the mass controversey Columbus set out to disprove the theory in the first place.
Quote:
Your arguments seem centered around this idea that science doesn't prove anything. You're right.
Wrong. Science proves many things (physics, locomotion), but in the case of the human psyche, there's no such thing as a totally accurate analysis of the mind. And as I said, intermixing it with physical neurological anomalies that no one's confirmed or even established proper baselines for, you might as well call this field of science "Shot-In-The-Dark-Ologist".......That wasn't very clever.
Quote:
But based upon a preponderance of the evidence we can say with X confidence that Y is the expected outcome of Z.
Not there isn't.
Quote:
magicjay38 said:
You know, Asshole, I maybe wrong on something, but I never tell a bold faced lie.
Didn't feel like it. The nature of your statement was very absolute. At first, I figured you knew what you were talking about...Then I remembered my history.
Quote:
Jim Jackson said:
Again, no way to measure this "negative effect." I still think in this area, you're reaching.
I don't think I am. One cigarette versus the lossening and depressurising of a muscle that needs to stay closed.
I once had a colonoscapi(sp). Ouch.
Quote:
Not at all. If it "hurts a little at first then feels good later" (those who are bottoms clearly say this to be the case), then "pain" was not the intention, just merely a nuisance at the start.
I'm not convinced. You know it's gonna be there, and you know it's gonna be detrimental. Whatever pleasure you feel doesn't come from the act of sodomy itself, its created simply by tweaking your entry depending on the prostate (correct if I'm wrong there). Going solely on physical dissonance, rather than a combination of virulent/bacterial risks, it's not the prostate that feels the pain. It would be more logical if it was the opening itself carried the role of inducing pleasure.
Quote:
I still don't see why you're so bent on hanging a moral evaluation on something based on the extent to which it causes pain. Again, I point to childbirth...from all accounts, a damned painful process. Yet it is not morally repugnant, it is morally beautiful.
Going through pain to give birth to a child is quintessentially moral. Going through unnecessary pain for a fruitful and positive outcome. Someone donates blood, a guy breaks his back to build an orphanage--You get the idea.
Quote:
And do you wish to tell me that Priests who remain celibate never feel any physical discomfort from their vows of chasity? Are we to then believe that because they're experiencing pain/discomfort, their vows are immoral?
The discomfort is a form of sacrifice that comes with priesthood. However, the truly devout priests won't even care about sex because of their immersion in prayer. And in any case, there's nothing unhealthy about celibacy. Furthermore, any priest who doesn't think they can keep up their vows and feels the pinch more than they do their desire to be close to God should think twice about their decision to remain a priest.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
|
|
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
Quote:
the G-man said:
Oh, then let me say:
I'm not sure its fair to accuse magicjay38 of lying.
Even if he's wrong, that doesn't mean he isn't simply mistaken.
His tone left no room for error.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657
1500+ posts
|
|
1500+ posts
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657 |
Quote:
Pariah said:
Quote:
the G-man said:
Oh, then let me say:
I'm not sure its fair to accuse magicjay38 of lying.
Even if he's wrong, that doesn't mean he isn't simply mistaken.
His tone left no room for error.
YOU are in error. The shape of the world had been known nearly 2000 years before CC. It was not known among the peasantry but educated people knew it. The evidence is right before your eyes if you look.
I was right, SHIT FOR BRAINS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
|
|
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
I didn't dispute that. I did however say that minority of people had the right idea whilst the majority, enforcing a wrong one, didn't.
My analogy stands firm.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 24,106
faggot 15000+ posts
|
|
faggot 15000+ posts
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 24,106 |
Quote:
Pariah said:
Quote:
Uschi said:
Natural as 'occuring in nature without outside influance.' Yes canibalism fits under this label.
...
Yes, but you see, not only were you trying to contradict the idea that there is a God (and that he's of moral standards), you were also trying to contradict the idea that "natural" traits of this nature aren't anti-life. That's clearly flawed reasoning since baser organisms, your chosen exemplification, live mainly to survive. Pleasure comes second.
I don't see how I was trying to contadict the existance of god anywhere in my posts. The existance of god (or non-existance) has no bearing on my thought processes. I also never said these natural traits are not anti-life. I was merely setting a basis of 'what is natural' in order to classify homosexuality as a 'natural' behavior.
My logic was thus: for something to be natural it must occur without outside influance. Homosexuality occurs without outside influance (ie the penguins being gay for no other reason than to be gay - it has nothing to do with the heirarchy of animals). Therefore, homosexuality is natural. If you have a problem with this you have to reject one of the premises and prove it invalid.
"[penguins] live mainly to survive. Pleasure comes second." <-- this is exactly part of my point. if there is no reason for the penguins to have homosexual relations with each other, why do they do it except because they want to? If it is a theme in a society of penguins, it is naturally occuring. They weren't forced to bone each other.
Quote:
Quote:
Fun Fact: Human meat is the healthiest thing for a human to eat since it has all the right nutrients.*
Fun Fact: If you eat the human cerebellum, you get Kuru.
Fun Advice: So don't eat it.
Quote:
Quote:
By my definition above, homicidal maniacs are natural occurances, yes. Natural design has nothing to do with moral preferances.
But the fact that you've been trying to use a more preferential standard you dub as "respect", as themed throughout your argument, contradicts you again. You were trying to reason animal homosexuality to cement your argument of, ' it’s natural and therefore should be accommodated' ...>
Um, excuse me for repeating myself from yesterday, but no, I did not say everything natural should be accomodated. I just wanted to show where my penguin note (a one line post that started this) came from. Homosexuality, whether it is morally acceptable or not, is a natural occurance.
Quote:
<...(accompanied the ulterior argument, 'Why would God do this if he existed').
I have no ulterior arguments. I have no ulterior motives. If I want to prove god's non-existance I'll start a thread about that. This is about homosexuality. Let's keep on tangent here.
Quote:
Murder is a direct offense upon the recesses of natural life. Sodomy--In every sense and circumstance--Is just as direct even though its methods remain [dissimilar/less quantified (in individual sessions)].
Taking a person's life, especially against their will (as I have a hard time figuring out the morals of Dr.Kevorkian's line of work, but that's a whole different thread), is hardly the same as having anal sex with a willing partner who derives pleasure out of said activity. I'm having a hard time seeing how you make such a jump in logic. I do not see these two as comparable situations in any way. Anal rape, like in prison and pedophilia molesters, is a different story as the partner is not allowed a decision in the act. Rape is rape is rape. Sex is sex is sex. Different.
Quote:
Quote:
If you think there are still moral qualms, that's fine. I'm just establishing, to this point, that homosexuality is a natural occurance.
Since you, yourself, have revealed types of moral qualms, I find the overall intent of the statement as contradicting as your formers.
Where did I reveal types of moral qualms? How is my statement contradictory? I was summing up my argument to that point.
Quote:
Quote:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA202.html
"Nothing in the real world can be proved with absolute certainty. .....
Okay. Fine. They know evolution is fact, but they're not actually certain it's fact, but at the same time, to not say our uncertain notions are certainly fact would be "preposterous". Great.
All science 'fact' is just a hypothesis which predicts future behavior. It's a really really really good guess. There is no answer manual for the universe to make sure we get things right. Newton was assumed right for, like, ever until Einstein made the laws of physics more complex and, thus, accurate. He at the same time knew that they were not the whole thing and now physicists are searching for the General Theory of Everything to hone science even more. This does not mean Newton was wrong, really. He was right. For middle-scale things (like us and skyscrapers and stuff) Newton's Laws work perfectly to describe all moving bodies. The same goes for all science. Scientists have learned that it is foolish to be arrogant and claim to have all the answers. So they don't. When it comes to science proof is accepted as truth with a grain of salt. However, until someone comes up with a better argument than evolution, evolution is accepted as The Way Things Happened. Saying 'god made it that way' explains nothing and predicts nothing. Saying 'physical distortions from outside stimuli can be passed down genetically (Darwin's contemporary's theory)' is obviously false as has been proven time and time again.
Quote:
This doesn't cancel out my argument, it merely repeats it and the adopts an apologetic tone with that link, which, by the way, offers nothing but hypothetical assumptions concerning evolution, no real "consistent and extensive evidence". It's pretty much the same tone that's been repeated over and over for the past 60 years.
It's still more factual than anything you've posted for god's creation of the world EXACTLY how it is. Something that has not yet been disproved dispite many people dispising it and trying to disprove it (the theory of evolution) is something that can be counted on whereas 'just 'cause' does nothing as an argumentitive support. As for 'same tone repeated over and over for the past 60 years,' how about the same tone as repeated over and over for the last 2200 years? You have no proof for your faith and have no evidance to support it, yet because the story has been repeted over and over and over you choose to believe it.
Evolution and creationism do not have to be separate, by the way. For a creature to evolve it must already have the occasional mutation for the newer traits. Who's to say 'god' didn't create everything with those specific traits dormant inside them so they could be expressed later?
ANYways, you got us WAY off the topic here. Until you can disprove the almost unanimously accepted theory of evolution then it stands as a valid aspect of my argument.
Quote:
Counter-Reference
I didn't go here because you haven't told me why you posted it. What relevance does it have?
Quote:
Quote:
Please give me a real argument against asexual reproduction. There are living creatures (in the oceans mostly) that reproduce asexually. Life can and does exist without genders.
Yeah, there are, and that's lovely for them, but their ability to procreate is dissimilar to ours.
DDDUUUUUUUUHHHHHHH.
sorry, continue.
Quote:
It's hard to tell what your proposed baselines for argument are. Are you trying to say that I should dispute the evolutionist placement of asexual stages within the hypothetical evolution chart (cuz' really, the relevance of your argument rests on your source's confirmability and "certainty") OR Do you want me to counter-argue your attempted contradiction of Christianity's version of Creation (although, in your argument, you mixed your atheistic and secular views in with Christianity when you tried to reason humans evolving from lower sentience whilst doctrine decrees that humans were created. So you fucked up there)?
Get off the goddamn church! You know I don't give a fuck about it, why would I base an argument around it?!
You origionally said something like, 'homosexuality is bad because a society cannot live with sex only between one gender - they will eventually die off.' I said 'there's asexual reproduction so no, a society of creatures will no necessarilly die off.' By this you were posing: A species must reproduce to survive (true). A species must have sex between two genders to reproduce (false). Homosexuality is sex between only one gender (true). Homosexuals are part of the species referred to as human beings (true). Therefor homosexuality will destroy human life (false). If you wish to continue along this line of argument you must either A) disprove my claim to why your premis is false (asexuality) or B] think of a different way to phrase your argument with a different premis or two so you have a valid argument.
Quote:
Quote:
Are these animals abominations before "God?" Should we wipe them off the earth in a massive holucaust? Aren't they technically homosexual since they're transgender? Or is that kind of natural sexual relation ok with you?
Uh, huge problem with that (aside from your judgmental attitude implying that I’m a fanatic). Those sex organs are meant to work with their species' for propagation. With this line of reasoning originating from the basis that humans shouldn't deviate from the proper sexual posture, your argument is rendered invalid since humans have different mechanics.
It was a tangent I went off in at a whim. It's a faulty argument and I retract it. Thank you for pointing it out to me.
Quote:
Quote:
I get the statistics from the two college-level courses I have taken regarding Europe in the Middle Ages. People would reproduce and most (if not all) of their children would die. My main argument here is also not regarding the church. It is regarding society's norms. In the Middle Ages for Western Culture, most of Europe was dominated by the Christian belief system. People of learning were people who could read and the only thing to read were religous texts. All the educated people were monks (all is used loosly, but not too much so). The people in charge of large groups of people ultimately answered to the Pope (since the ultimate rulers got their ques from the Pope's decisions and opinions). Society was dominated by Christianity, thus is had an influance on the people and society of the times. That is why the church is important in this particular aspect of my arguments (although the arguments don't really NEED to referance the church so we can erase the sentance regarding the church above).
But, for some reason, you're getting the idea that "be fruitful and multiply" was the Vatican's motto, when really, it wasn't.
'be fruitful and multiply' was what god commanded Adam and Eve, am I wrong? It's in the bible anyhow. Since the church (and thus the Pope) stands behind (and is created about) the Bible, it can be safely assumed that the church agrees with this sentiment. As marriage in the Catholic Church (the faith of the Pope) requires a couple to be fertile and have plans to create babies, I can assume I am right with my first assumption (that the church is FOR making little christians). I did not say that it was the vatican's MOTTO, just that it is part of that religous faith and, also AS AN ADDITIONAL COMMENT, people abided by that sort of thing (popping out as many babies as possible. I was just trying to tie it home for you with a nice religous bow. As I mentioned somewhere else in one of these posts, you can remove the referance to the church here as it is not a necessary point in my arguments.
Quote:
Quote:
#1 - How is this a contradiction? People have grown out of the need for sex to be limited to it's primary function. End of story here.
#2 - The church has nothing to do with anything I'm trying to get across here.
You very clearly argued that the Christian higher ups, way back when, were in a position to profit from a gregarious amount of endorsement for mass breeding at the time (whichever time that may be). The Church wasn't concerned with populating the world,
What? Hello! Yes they were, that's the easiest way to spread your faith. It might not have been project numero uno, but they didn't say NO FUCKING AFTER DARK! WORKING IN THE DAY! or anything. It's part of the docterine for couples to copulate and create baby christians. ARGGH! No more church shit! This is WAY off topic, Mr.Stay-On-Tangent.
Quote:
even if that were the case, people would still retain the opportunity for the more deviant sexual acts. Quite simply, your convictions against the church, in this case, don't hold water.
It is my understanding that any sex other than sex which promotes conception is not ok in the church's eyes. Back in the Ye Olde Tymes people would be at risk of claims of witchery if they did devient sex acts.
Quote:
Quote:
Until cigarettes and tattoos and body piercings are made illegal, yes self-mutilation is a viable "alternative rout" for anything. So long as a person's actions do not step on another person's rights, they have the freedom to partake in them.
Tattoos and body piercing do not measure up to the harmful potential of sodomy. Unless someone has an addiction or their piercing/tattoo job is done by an amateur, the effects of.....Uh, the more orthodox tattoos and/or piercing are more or less harmless.
HIV infection. Scarring. Stafflococcus(sp?) infections. There are a lot of things that are harmful about tattoos and piercings. Sodomy will probably give you loose bowels when you get older. Many people will get that anyways so I guess people can take the risk if they want. HIV infection (or other STDs) can happen through vaginal sex too (or even birth) so that doesn't really set sodomy out of the norm here.
Quote:
Cigarettes, like forms of Vitamin C and Coca Cola, are a mild stimulant. All three can be abused, but moderate use, as encouraged, isn't bad for one's health. The same can't be said for sodomy.
Anything inhaled into the lungs harms them. One cigarette is bad for you. One REALLY large shit is bad for you just like one poke up the butthole is bad for you.
Quote:
Quote:
Pre-req learned behavior? What the fuck are you trying to say with that?
I said that the stimulation from either act is a learned process. One can take a pleasure from them, but its a case of trial and error. That's not the case with a penis and a vagina--And please don't lecture me on some people being better at sex than others or some shit. The vaginal nerves won't be missed upon penetration no matter how unskilled the guy or gal is.
Neither of us are ones to talk about sexual stimulation, Pariah. And, yes, there are people who have to get counseling and medications because they find vaginal sex extremely painful and they want to save their marriage for their spouse's sake. Don't lecture me on everyone liking sex every time or some shit. If something exists there can be problems with it.
Quote:
Quote:
If someone wants to take the risk of skateboarding, who are we to stop them? ... the cops aren't arresting people for succombing to q-tip's temptation.
But no one has the intent to be hurt. There's a big difference.
And you think homosexuals want to be hurt? I think you're confusing them with Masochists. When learning to skateboard you do not want to be hurt, but you accept it as the risk you take in order to enjoy the pleasure of skateboarding. Falling down happens a LOT when skateboarding, even for professionals.
Quote:
Quote:
it's not a problem to have anal sex.
Yes. It is.
Oh, thank heavens you cleared that up! Thanks, professor!
Quote:
Quote:
Since it is a base instinct to reproduce it is interesting that a 'soulless creature' such as an ape might have survived when they like to have sex without creating babies.
What the hell is this supposed to mean!? Just because it doesn't have a soul, that doesn't mean we think any less of it, as you imply. We don't feel it's at all bound by our morals due to its lower sentient status. It's not going to be judged when it dies.
It survived. I likes to have sex without vaginal penetration. = my point. I'm not going back to look at the argument you posted to which I replied with this, but I'll stand by my words.
Quote:
Quote:
Wow. That's what's called a 'slippery slope' argument. Those arguments are invalid and mostly brought up by zealots jumping to a great amount of conclusions in a short time-frame. The association with NAMBLA at the end was similar to someone saying (without justifying how) someone is acting like Adolf Hitler.
You know, I never really thought you'd stoop to that--Never would I think you'd resort to a "zealot" knee-jerk.
There's nothing "slippery slope" about it.
"Slippery slope" is in quotes because that is one technical term for the kind of argument you posted. I would look the term up in my text but I sold it back to the school after the course.
Quote:
I realize that you don't like to think that homosexuals have a mental disorder on par with pedophiles, fetishists, serial killers, etc., but the possibility is so apparent, you'd be foolish to disregard it so quickly.
I did not disregard it quickly. As my mother raised me telling me that homosexuals are evil pedophiles that are going to jail and I believed her as a kid, I have done my own research and thinking and come to my own conclusions regarding homosexuality as a 'mental disorder.' I think that's a load of shit. People who are born transsexuals know who they are and don't fit in their bodies. Hermaphrodites can be clearly one gender or another. Neither of these classes of people are mentally disturbed like a pedophile or serial killer. Pedophiles, rapists, and serial killers all have one major thing in common: they don't care about their victims. All of them are sociopaths without respect or concern for other humans' rights. Homosexuals have realtionships that are reciprocal. That's a big differance.
Quote:
With the given idea that homosexuals should have the right to have sex through sodomy 'cuz' they were born that way' being legal, NAMBLA is given its legal chance to step through a very non-technicality in the legal cracks.
NAMBLA wants to claim that pre-sexual boys want to have sex with them. If somehow a ten year old suddenly has the mental maturity of an adult and it can be proven and he wants to have sex with a man three times his age, there's no problem with that. Children are not capable of that though. They haven't formed an identity, let alone a sexuality, by the age of ten. That is the differance between homosexuals and pedophiles like NAMBLA.
Quote:
Their tone is natural attraction as well, and that gives them lee-way--Too fucking much to overlook. By all reasoning and logic, with that kind of bullet proof defense, anyone whose killed a person could have their indictment expunged simply because they say their minds have this urge that they were born with.
Arguments are not blanket statements. Yes people might be born with a predisposition towards pedophilia. Sure maybe someday someone can prove that pedophilia is natural. That doesn't mean pedophilia is morally acceptable. There is no way to consent before the age of reason (psychological term for becoming an adult mentally - taken from shakespear I think... it's familiar) and therefor pedophilia is statutory rape still.
Quote:
Hell! Texas is the best example of one of the beginnings for this snowball effect. I'm sure we're all aware of the arrested gay couple whose crime and defense was able to overturn the law. You may not want to agree with the effects of their sexual behavior, but this situation has some very apparent foreshadowing.
I am not aware of that, no. Can you supply a link to some details?
Quote:
Quote:
Homosexuality will cause society to crumble and be destroyed? Really? Christianity killed Rome, not their homosexual practices (which made their warriors more ferocious to defend every one of their lives).
Are you trying to say that the Christians who were executed and tortured in Rome brought it on themselves? If so, fuck off.
I'm saying that when Rome turned Christian they decided to convert the barbarians and spread out so their cities emptied and could not support the economy and the society crumbled. I don't want to have to give a history lesson, I suck at history.
[Quote:
Quote:
Romans and Greeks and many many other societies lasted for LONG periods of time when sodomy was acceptable.
"Long periods of time"? Couldn't they have lasted LONGER?
Excuse me? Rome was the biggest empire and lasted the longest of ANY other society EVER in the recorded history of mankind.
Quote:
I mean, what's a "long reign" in the face of the fact that their actions stagnated their ability to keep going.
Not really, it was when they left their cities for the barbaric lands of the Germanic Tribes that the society fell. Until then (and even partially through then) Rome was a thriving metropolitan marvel.
Quote:
You do realize that in Rome, Greece, and Athens, there were numerous and growing cases of STDs such as Syphilis, Gonorrhea(sp), and UTI yes? If war and corruption didn't get em', the sex would have.
Really? Wow, you're real smart to know that the society would have been wiped out had the christian adoption of the government hadn't dont them in.
Maybe STDs wouldn't have killed everyone, think of that? I don't recall STDs being ferocious killers most of the time. If they were, however, that would probably contain the outbreaks.
Quote:
Quote:
Sodomy is minority = drug trafficing is small and costly to fight === speed up governmental entropy therefore we fall into anti-utopian anarchy
That is a total redefinition of what I said. Thank you for being so misrepresentative.
I was just clarifying what I could jimmy out of your post.
Quote:
I said that exercising those perceptions would lead to social imbalance. Drug trafficking is a serious problem with serious risks, but it's mostly the undesirables that feel the pinch, plus there's hardly any success to stopping it, so the view that its not worth fighting has been adopted. Sodomy is not an isolated or small practice that retains any sort of exclusivity to a certain group, it merely retains a majorital use among homosexuals--However, because homosexuals have been legally pampered, the perception that it's only a small group doing it the most and not much anyone else is following suit becomes the adopted view of compromise. To avoid a possibly perceived notion of discrimination (or, in the case of the left, it's a publicity/cash cow), the government hierarchy tolerates such practices. Assuming that the homosexual sentiment towards sodomy would be a growing opinion is a valid hypothesis.
So.... how does homosexuality being acceptable mean the downfall of the government?
Quote:
A growing fan-base for sodomy is a concept that holds inherent dangers: Raised likelihood of contracted diseases, a sexually ignorant percentage that proportionally accompanies every populace--A government's gotta look out for its inhabitants,
No, in a republic like america or a democracy like a lot of people pretend we have, it is supposed to be a government made up of the people. The people take care of themselves. The government should take care of the country and international relationships.
Quote:
I realize that you think, in the case of sodomy, that it's an inhibition of some freedoms, but your very much under-estimating the dangers that follow this so-called harmless behavior. With regular sex, you at least have the ability to not hurt yourself and much less chance of contracting a hygienical disease (Hepatitis, abrasion/rupture, UTI), let alone an STD.
You can't prove it's less harmful (or if you can, you're failing to). And I don't want the government to tell me not to smoke, let alone how to have a good time engaging in sex. Therefore, the gov't can get the fuck out of everyone else's bedrooms too.
Quote:
Quote:
Is that right? Give some evidance to support this claim. Show me how homosexuality is making the govenrment disintegrate. Show me how what homosexuals have done to gain rights as humans has done anything not comparable to what Womens Liberation and the Civil Rights Movement did for women and blacks.
Like the Civil Rights Movement that helped women and black people, the homosexual movement is just as dead set on getting more and more rights then is allowed anyone else.
What rights are these? The right to be contractually married and thus benefit from government tax breaks as other married couples do? That seems to me that they are being denied a right.
Quote:
So this argument doesn't make much sense to me. However, I've already gone over, to a great extent, the pleading for special rights is current and voluminous here.
I'll be as clear-cut as possible: The institution of legal marriage wasn't designed for homosexuals because it was an invention based on likelihood and convenience. Just because it's only straight people who can marry, that does not suggest an oppression of homosexual rights. It does, however, recite its proper function as a sexually orthodox system, which allows a family monetary lee-way for the sake of its branching growth. Marriage was designed to [support families/potential families]. Homosexuals cannot produce children and, therefore, are not included as likely candidates for marriage.
Only in the Christian faiths. In America it is ok for impotent couples to get married, just not by your church.
Quote:
While they can indeed adopt, which, in some cases, would require legal monetary support (depending on their financial history), hence they are indeed afforded stipends as needed. With that, they are also afforded civil unions, which give tax benefits to gay couples. Since they would likely not have financial requisites for family, it is seemingly wasteful to accommodate their legally united status. This is taking into mind that the couple could have manually filed all of their paperwork so as to have their joint finances and power of attorneys. What's more, I find there to be a serious security risk when it comes to [gay civil unions/gay marriage]: There's no actual way to confirm their homosexual status, everything would have to be taken at face value. Straight people could easily pose as gay couples and scam the government.
AS HAPPENS WITH MAN/WOMAN COUPLES. WOW. People are people, who would have guessed?
I just want my gay friends who are gay to be able to be married.
Quote:
Quote:
One last thing: Pariah, since when do you give a flying fuck about other people's colon health so much as to demand they change their ways? What does it have to do with you?
I kinda already expressed that. I'm saying sodomy and its damaging effect on the body along with its increased risk for any sort of infection or possible new strain of STD is a concern to me.
Right... you never want to have sex though. If you (god forbid) ever get married, you get blood tests to check for STDs and stuff. No problem until you get a whore or fuck around with people you don't have any certainty about.
Quote:
I'm sure we've all read up on the outbreaks around 30 years ago, and know what's going on in Africa and south-eastern China. These things have a way of snow-balling.
I'm still confused as to why you care. I thought you were proud to be apathetic and sociopathic? Less people in the world! Yay!
Quote:
Your assertion that the world can't and won't, on a long enough timeline, incorporate sodomy as a casual act is a rather ignorant one, I find.
The world by large has accepted sodomy. It is America and a few oher places that are behind the curve. I hope everyone eventually accepts sodomy. I have no doubt that people will eventually be swayed. Where have I steered you into thinking I believed otherwise?
Quote:
Quote:
How are the big bad homosexuals out to get you and how have they made your life worse so that you find it necessary to wage a personal tirade against them collectively?
I've already made it clear that I'm not against "big bad homosexuals", but sodomy in general. The only reason I talk about them the most in reference to sodomy is because their populace seems the most predisposed to it. Their concentrated number and voice that it's 'not bad' is a flawed message that effects every societal crevice it saturates, and all of these new legal rights will just give way to more even worse developments than sodomy. And it hasn't made my life worse....Yet. I'm just being pre-emptive.
That is, to me, absolutely absurd. Outlaw sodomy and outlaw cigarettes and outlaw blood transfusions and outlaw police action in close combat with a person who is bleeding and outlaw McDonald's coffee and outlaw skateboarding and outlaw cooking with vegetable oil and outlaw telephones because people sometimes dial 911 wrong.
Quote:
You see Uschi, the problem is you're being too damn literal. You hear me say society's gonna go belly up and you say 'it hasn't happened at all'.
I'm saying I'll bet you a dollar it WON'T.
Quote:
I've made it perfectly clear that we're on the presipice of a chain-reaction. Not an immediate and present doomsday, as you like to portray my arguments as prophesizing.
This is what I call the slippery-slope argumentation.
Quote:
I've also gone over the signs, but you didn't feel like actually addressing what I wrote in the other threads.
Right. I doubt I'll teach you that homosexuality is perfectly moral, just like I won't my mom. So I'm not going to research into your previous conversations to have a conversation with you today.
Quote:
Quote:
And I hope Batwoman replies to my reply to her since that's who I started this conversation with. I dislike arguing with Pariah. No offense, P.
No offense taken, but I will ask, however, that when you make a gargantuan argumentative post--PLEASE!! PLEASE!! FOR THE LOVE OF YOUR NON-BELIEF IN GOD!! MAKE SURE YOU STAY ON TANGENT!!
Alright, so long as you get off the church horse.
Old men, fear me! You will shatter under my ruthless apathetic assault!
Uschi - 2
Old Men - 0
"I am convinced that this world is of no importance, and that the only people who care about dates are imbeciles and Spanish teachers." -- Jean Arp, 1921
"If Jesus came back and saw what people are doing in his name, he would never never stop throwing up." - Max von Sydow, "Hannah and Her Sisters"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 7,281
Tabarnak! 6000+ posts
|
|
Tabarnak! 6000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 7,281 |
Quote:
Pariah said:
Going through pain to give birth to a child is quintessentially moral. Going through unnecessary pain for a fruitful and positive outcome. Someone donates blood, a guy breaks his back to build an orphanage--You get the idea.
Can this not also apply to the physical aspect of loving someone? How can love for anonomous orphaned children be an excuse to wreck your body (actually causing serious damage) be more acceptable than any theoretical risks that you wish to place between two people who love each other?
Really, no malice or confrontation here, just an honest question.
If karma's a bitch, it will be my bitch!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 920
500+ posts
|
|
500+ posts
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 920 |
Why bother?
No matter your arguments, Pariah will spin and justify as to why your life is so wrong and why people are free to treat you unequally with no fear of injustice or of a troubled conscience to bother them.
Everything is funny as long as it is happening to somebody else. --Will Rogers
"I don't think anyone anticipated the breach of the levees." - George W. Bush
I don't think anybody could have predicted that these people would .. try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile. - Condoleeza Rice
Barbara Bush: It's Good Enough for the Poor
To comfort the powerless and make the powerful uncomfortable.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 19,633
I walk in eternity 15000+ posts
|
|
I walk in eternity 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 19,633 |
But Pariah is NOT a Jedi yet....
"I offer you a Vulcan prayer, Mr Suder. May your death bring you the peace you never found in life." - Tuvok. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657
1500+ posts
|
|
1500+ posts
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657 |
Let's talk about something else. Why are we spending time and effort trying to convince this child, Pariah, to allow others to live their chosen/geneticly determined lives?
How about something more gay? Like why is it that people in the personals looking for partners frequently ask for or identify themselves as 'straight looking, straight acting GWM?
"Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives." John Stuart Mill
America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between. Oscar Wilde
He who dies with the most toys is nonetheless dead.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 19,633
I walk in eternity 15000+ posts
|
|
I walk in eternity 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 19,633 |
I don't like that " Straight Acting " line. It implies that a guy is looking for a SUPER str8 acting macho stud..and that ain't me..nor is it a lot of guys..on the OTHER hand, it implies that this guy would want a guy who " acts" str8.
That doesn't sound so hot, either.
Men should just be themselves..and want other men who are just being themselves, too.
As for " looking straight "? How does one look str8?
They ought to be more specific...in the traits they seek in a man.
I would just want a big sexy man who is nice. He does NOT have to follow a rigid set of rules or act like anything but himself.
"I offer you a Vulcan prayer, Mr Suder. May your death bring you the peace you never found in life." - Tuvok.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657
1500+ posts
|
|
1500+ posts
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657 |
Quote:
Beardguy57 said:
I don't like that " Straight Acting " line. It implies that a guy is looking for a SUPER str8 acting macho stud..and that ain't me..nor is it a lot of guys..on the OTHER hand, it implies that this guy would want a guy who " acts" str8.
That doesn't sound so hot, either.
Men should just be themselves..and want other men who are just being themselves, too.
As for " looking straight "? How does one look str8?
They ought to be more specific...in the traits they seek in a man.
I would just want a big sexy man who is nice. He does NOT have to follow a rigid set of rules or act like anything but himself.
I'm kinda effeminate myself. I've got this hormone thang goin' do to health problems. Lot's of estrogen but not much testosteron. Since this has been going on since I was in my late teens I've developed lots of female body characteristics. I present myself in an androgynous kind of way. Straight guys have all these competitive games they play with each other and I'm not interested in having them deal me in. I like a guy with style, intellect and a sense of humour. He can lisp like daffy duck and match me in femme-ness, so long as he treats me right.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 12,353
Award-Winning Author 10000+ posts
|
|
Award-Winning Author 10000+ posts
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 12,353 |
The gays are a very clean people. They have been ever since they came here from France.
Knutreturns said: Spoken like the true Greatest RDCW Champ!
All hail King Snarf!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030 |
Quote:
Pariah said
I don't think I am. One cigarette versus the lossening and depressurising of a muscle that needs to stay closed.
I once had a colonoscapi(sp). Ouch.
Colonoscopy. Scoping the colon.
Yeah, it hurt. It would for anyone. (A) It's not a sexual sitaution; sexual arousal is not involved. (B) It's akin to a woman going in for a pelvic exam to her gyno and he/she uses the speculum. Not a pleasant experience from what my ex has told me, even though the vagina is designed for penetration.
And the sphincter's job is not to stay closed constantly. It's to open when the person needs it to open.
Unless of course yours doesn't, which would mean that you are, in fact, full of shit in the most literal of ways.
Quote:
Pariah said
The discomfort is a form of sacrifice that comes with priesthood. However, the truly devout priests won't even care about sex because of their immersion in prayer. And in any case, there's nothing unhealthy about celibacy.
Oh, I beg to differ about the unhealthiness of celibacy. The body was designed to be a sexual thing. Human beings, regardless of their station in life or their calling, have sexual urges.
My honest opinion is that all the sexual atrocities/crimes we're witnessing in the Priesthood stand as solid evidence that celibacy is not a healthy thing and that many Priests have tried ways to satisfy those urges without losing their positions (hence their preying on children)
And you do know that Priests at one time were permitted to marry?
We all wear a green carnation.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 32,001 Likes: 1
We already are 15000+ posts
|
|
We already are 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 32,001 Likes: 1 |
JLA owes you points for that Jimbo.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030 |
Quote:
Uschi said:
NAMBLA wants to claim that pre-sexual boys want to have sex with them. If somehow a ten year old suddenly has the mental maturity of an adult and it can be proven and he wants to have sex with a man three times his age, there's no problem with that. Children are not capable of that though. They haven't formed an identity, let alone a sexuality, by the age of ten. That is the differance between homosexuals and pedophiles like NAMBLA.
Yes, if nothing else, let's be sure to get one thing correct: NAMBLA do not represent all gay men. I would venture to say, and feel confident in doing so, that they represent a very small, tiny minority of gay men, and those they do represent are pedophiles.
We all wear a green carnation.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 32,001 Likes: 1
We already are 15000+ posts
|
|
We already are 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 32,001 Likes: 1 |
But the Log Cabin Republicans of which Lincoln was the first definitely represent all gay men. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030 |
Maybe Lincoln was gay...I heard he was a woodsman.
Dunno.
We all wear a green carnation.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251 |
We can blame Pariah for teh fact that this thread has neccesatated the graphic discription of male anal intercourse.
Now, I haven't shown my hand in this thread yet, but I would ask Pariah (since my last challenge was for Klinton) if you're going to rest your argument that Homosexuality is wrong because of the harmfull effects it has phisically would you say that it's also morally wrong for a husband and wife to engage in anal sex?
Putting the "fun" back in Fundamentalist Christian Dogma.
" I know God exists because WBAM told me so. " - theory9
JLA brand RACK points = 514k
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 7,281
Tabarnak! 6000+ posts
|
|
Tabarnak! 6000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 7,281 |
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
since my last challenge was for Klinton
Did I address it? I don't recall.
If karma's a bitch, it will be my bitch!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 9,769
cookie monster 7500+ posts
|
|
cookie monster 7500+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 9,769 |
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
We can blame Pariah for teh fact that this thread has neccesatated the graphic discription of male anal intercourse.
Now, I haven't shown my hand in this thread yet, but I would ask Pariah (since my last challenge was for Klinton) if you're going to rest your argument that Homosexuality is wrong because of the harmfull effects it has phisically would you say that it's also morally wrong for a husband and wife to engage in anal sex?
The arguments that have been made against homosexuality, as WBAM mentioned, have been geared towards "physical harm" - more specifically, regarding anal penitration. Would you still say that its "morally wrong" for lesbians to be together, as the "physical harm" argument doesn't seem to come into play in that scenario?
 Dear, sweet Harley Kwink...I'm madly in love with you. Marry me! We can go to Canadia. Or Boston or something. It'll be grand...You know the cookies are a given. They are ALWAYS a given. You could dump me tomorrow and you'd still get the cookies. Boston..shit, wherever dyke weddings were legalized. And where better to rub their little piggie noses in how bad they suck than right on their doorstep? What are they gonna do? Be jealous of you? Stare furiously at your tah-tahs? Not willingly give you cookies, but instead begrudgingly give you their cookies? Woman, time to wake up to the powers you wield - Uschi
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657
1500+ posts
|
|
1500+ posts
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657 |
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
We can blame Pariah for teh fact that this thread has neccesatated the graphic discription of male anal intercourse.
Now, I haven't shown my hand in this thread yet, but I would ask Pariah (since my last challenge was for Klinton) if you're going to rest your argument that Homosexuality is wrong because of the harmfull effects it has phisically would you say that it's also morally wrong for a husband and wife to engage in anal sex?
I hate to re-engage this topic. At the moment I'd like to do some physical harm to Pariah's sphincter, say tear him a new one? 
But we've missed a major point: Vaginal intercourse is far more dangerous to a woman's health than is anal sex to anyone's. How often do the consequences of anal sex kill a person in less than a year? Though less common now since the advent of modern medicine just 100 years ago, death in childbirth was quite common. Go to the chuchyard of Trinity Church at Wall St. and Broadway in lower Manhattan. Check out the graves of women who died in their prime with an infant buried along side her. Read the names of the men who buried 2 or 3 wives and multiple infants.
Even today women die in childbirth. The risks of straight sex are far greater than incontinance, which is common during pregnancy I might add!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657
1500+ posts
|
|
1500+ posts
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657 |
Quote:
harleykwin said:
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
We can blame Pariah for teh fact that this thread has neccesatated the graphic discription of male anal intercourse.
Now, I haven't shown my hand in this thread yet, but I would ask Pariah (since my last challenge was for Klinton) if you're going to rest your argument that Homosexuality is wrong because of the harmfull effects it has phisically would you say that it's also morally wrong for a husband and wife to engage in anal sex?
The arguments that have been made against homosexuality, as WBAM mentioned, have been geared towards "physical harm" - more specifically, regarding anal penitration. Would you still say that its "morally wrong" for lesbians to be together, as the "physical harm" argument doesn't seem to come into play in that scenario?
Lesbian sex is safe sex!
"Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives." John Stuart Mill
America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between. Oscar Wilde
He who dies with the most toys is nonetheless dead.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030 |
Quote:
magicjay38 said:
I hate to re-engage this topic. At the moment I'd like to do some physical harm to Pariah's sphincter, say tear him a new one?
But we've missed a major point: Vaginal intercourse is far more dangerous to a woman's health than is anal sex to anyone's.
Psst, I mentioned this several times in the last couple of days.
We all wear a green carnation.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 9,769
cookie monster 7500+ posts
|
|
cookie monster 7500+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 9,769 |
Quote:
magicjay38 said:
Go to the chuchyard of Trinity Church at Wall St. and Broadway in lower Manhattan. Check out the graves of women who died in their prime with an infant buried along side her. Read the names of the men who buried 2 or 3 wives and multiple infants.
I walk by Trinity everyday going to work, and I've actually noticed that fact too.
Dear, sweet Harley Kwink...I'm madly in love with you. Marry me! We can go to Canadia. Or Boston or something. It'll be grand...You know the cookies are a given. They are ALWAYS a given. You could dump me tomorrow and you'd still get the cookies. Boston..shit, wherever dyke weddings were legalized. And where better to rub their little piggie noses in how bad they suck than right on their doorstep? What are they gonna do? Be jealous of you? Stare furiously at your tah-tahs? Not willingly give you cookies, but instead begrudgingly give you their cookies? Woman, time to wake up to the powers you wield - Uschi
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 9,769
cookie monster 7500+ posts
|
|
cookie monster 7500+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 9,769 |
Quote:
magicjay38 said:
Quote:
harleykwin said:
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
We can blame Pariah for teh fact that this thread has neccesatated the graphic discription of male anal intercourse.
Now, I haven't shown my hand in this thread yet, but I would ask Pariah (since my last challenge was for Klinton) if you're going to rest your argument that Homosexuality is wrong because of the harmfull effects it has phisically would you say that it's also morally wrong for a husband and wife to engage in anal sex?
The arguments that have been made against homosexuality, as WBAM mentioned, have been geared towards "physical harm" - more specifically, regarding anal penitration. Would you still say that its "morally wrong" for lesbians to be together, as the "physical harm" argument doesn't seem to come into play in that scenario?
Lesbian sex is safe sex!
Dear, sweet Harley Kwink...I'm madly in love with you. Marry me! We can go to Canadia. Or Boston or something. It'll be grand...You know the cookies are a given. They are ALWAYS a given. You could dump me tomorrow and you'd still get the cookies. Boston..shit, wherever dyke weddings were legalized. And where better to rub their little piggie noses in how bad they suck than right on their doorstep? What are they gonna do? Be jealous of you? Stare furiously at your tah-tahs? Not willingly give you cookies, but instead begrudgingly give you their cookies? Woman, time to wake up to the powers you wield - Uschi
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 7,281
Tabarnak! 6000+ posts
|
|
Tabarnak! 6000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 7,281 |
That's true. Lesbians have the lowest rate of STI transmission.
If karma's a bitch, it will be my bitch!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657
1500+ posts
|
|
1500+ posts
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657 |
Quote:
Jim Jackson said:
Quote:
magicjay38 said:
I hate to re-engage this topic. At the moment I'd like to do some physical harm to Pariah's sphincter, say tear him a new one?
But we've missed a major point: Vaginal intercourse is far more dangerous to a woman's health than is anal sex to anyone's.
Psst, I mentioned this several times in the last couple of days.
Sorry, I missed it.
"Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives." John Stuart Mill
America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between. Oscar Wilde
He who dies with the most toys is nonetheless dead.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030 |
We all wear a green carnation.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657
1500+ posts
|
|
1500+ posts
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657 |
Quote:
harleykwin said:
Quote:
magicjay38 said:
Go to the chuchyard of Trinity Church at Wall St. and Broadway in lower Manhattan. Check out the graves of women who died in their prime with an infant buried along side her. Read the names of the men who buried 2 or 3 wives and multiple infants.
I walk by Trinity everyday going to work, and I've actually noticed that fact too.
I remember feeling really sad. I was new father and couldn't imagine the level of grief these people suffered. I'd have been suicidal at the loss of one child let alone 4 or 5. Yet somehow they carried on..
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 24,106
faggot 15000+ posts
|
|
faggot 15000+ posts
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 24,106 |
Quote:
Jim Jackson said:
....I read it Jimmy.
Old men, fear me! You will shatter under my ruthless apathetic assault!
Uschi - 2
Old Men - 0
"I am convinced that this world is of no importance, and that the only people who care about dates are imbeciles and Spanish teachers." -- Jean Arp, 1921
"If Jesus came back and saw what people are doing in his name, he would never never stop throwing up." - Max von Sydow, "Hannah and Her Sisters"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030 |
We all wear a green carnation.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 32,001 Likes: 1
We already are 15000+ posts
|
|
We already are 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 32,001 Likes: 1 |
Quote:
klinton said:
That's true. Lesbians have the lowest rate of STI transmission.
so you're saying pussy is cleaner than cornhole nuts.
|
|
|
|
|
