Features

liquidstatik · #1

emu i hope not ;_;

Fat_Hippo · #2

Actually Emu, jerking off to porn is already a sin, since by doing so you support the porn firms, which promote non-marital sexual activity...so unless you're 100% sure that the 2 porn models are married, and one is actually just a woman who looks like a man and has a penis, that's taboo. Guess no more jerking off for us...

I have another question though: Is anal sex allowed? I mean, the woman can't get pregnant through it, but it's not actually gay, so what's the deal with that, huh KK?

Edit: Man, I just love philosophizing (ugh, I'm sure that's spelled wrong) about important subjects like these. Don't you all agree?

Edit 2: Oh, 'nother question: What if you're not christian? What if you're buddhist, or just some religion that doesn't prohibit homosexuality? Is homoseuxality then still wrong, or can I pound that guys ass 'till it's raw, and vice versa?

Girl Drink Drunk · #3

What is the deal with guys like KK and Mel Gibson being all holier than thou, but are also drunken, homophobic slobs?

kahljorn · #4

It's funny that this thread is directed at homosexuality when it could also be targetted at any couple that has sex for any purpose other than creating babies. Why not just title it, "WHY SEX IS WRONG UNLESS YOU"RE WEARING A BLINDFOLD AND PARALYZED FROM THE NECK DOWN."

I think that some "Saints" (MOSTLY ONES WHO COULDNT GET LAID BECAUSE THEIR PENISES DIDNT WORK MAYBE I DONT KNOW) even condemned marital sex as sinful, but accepted it was necessary.

Also everything you said in this thread relies on "Marriage" and "Religion" being objective and real or something. It's an undefended assumption. As such, none of what you said can be accepted as anything other than begging the question over and over. ITS WRONG BECAUSE THE BIBLE SAYS ITS WRONG. THE BIBLE SAYS ITS WRONG BECAUSE IT DOES BAD THINGS TO SOCIETY. ITS BAD FOR SOCIETY BECAUSE THE BIBLE SAYS ITS WRONG. or something I dont know I don't really feel like properly representing your argument but that's close enough!

and uh not all religions and societies condemn homosexual behavior so I guess homosexuality is a-okay right?

OH ya and you're kind of reverting to that whole "Natural" (MEN AND WOMEN ARE MEANT TO BE TOGETHER BECAUSE MEN HAVE PENISES THAT CAN GO INTO THE VAGINAS AND MAKE BABIES) argument again which I remember in the past we already discussed. And it being natural doesn't necessarily mean it's right. Cooking food isn't natural. Reading books and typing on the internet isn't natural. OR MAYBE IT IS BECAUSE IT EXISTS IN THE WORLD!? OH WAIT HOMOSEXUALS EXIST IN THE WORLD!

would you say that people who are sterile (incapable of having babies) should not be allowed to be married and should not be allowed to have sex? After-all, the only purpose their sex can serve is pleasure or some social benefit, because they can't have babies.

Colonel Flagg · #5

The sterility argument was used successfully by my college philosophy profesor in giving me a "C" in a paper on morality. One of the reasons I majored in Chemistry.

Durin · #6

The way I see homosexuality is this.

First off, its not a biologically positive trait (curbs species propagation)

Now the, we get into the issue of whether its a choice or"not your fault", such as through genetics

If its a choice, than stop havin gay buttsex with men.

If its not a choice, but something your genes throw upon you, than we can in the future theoretically eliminate the gay gene, thus curing the world of homosexuality.

Sleazeappeal · #7

Quote:

Originally Posted by Durin413

If its not a choice, but something your genes throw upon you, than we can in the future theoretically eliminate the gay gene, thus curing the world of homosexuality.

STANDING BY...

Dr. Boogie · #8

I do believe KK has pulled a JOEBIALEK on us.

derrida · #9

Quote:

Originally Posted by Durin413

The way I see homosexuality is this.

First off, its not a biologically positive trait (curbs species propagation)

Now the, we get into the issue of whether its a choice or"not your fault", such as through genetics

If its a choice, than stop havin gay buttsex with men.

If its not a choice, but something your genes throw upon you, than we can in the future theoretically eliminate the gay gene, thus curing the world of homosexuality.

Self-reproduction is not the only way to increase the frequency of a gene. Your genes are interested in making more copies of themselves, not just in getting you to reproduce. (Sorry) What I am saying is that there is a credible evolutionary argument for a homosexual predisposition as a trait beneficial to the group as a whole (via population control, checks placed on detrimental male-male competition etcetera) Just because say, rampant lesbianism among macaques is detrimental to short-term reproduction doesn't mean shit in the long run of evolution. In fact, homosexual coupling is actually more common than heterosexual among most animals.

If homosexuality is in fact a genetic abberration, why hasn't it been bred out? If it was a genetic disorder it would be by an order of magnitude the most common such disorder in existence. How many people do you know with Huntington's disease?

kahljorn · #10

I don't think the matter of if homosexuality is a choice or not is really relevant at all to if it's wrong. Unless you're a deterministic sort in which case nothing is wrong because it's all predetermined am i right? I don't know that just runs the course of eventually saying something like, "SERIAL KILLERS ARENT MORALLY RESPONSIBLE BECAUSE THEY HAVE GENES THAT MAKE THEM KILL!" ... or make them more predisposed to kill in which case we can still judge them for lack of control.

Really you can say nobody is guilty of anything if you're that deterministic *shrug* Other than that it's kind of pointless. And even assuming it is a choice you still have to show how it's a bad choice which dumbass thread author tried to do with his gay arguments about MEN AND WOMEN TOGERTHER 4 EVERER

Big Papa Goat · #11

Quote:

Originally Posted by derrida

Self-reproduction is not the only way to increase the frequency of a gene. Your genes are interested in making more copies of themselves, not just in getting you to reproduce. (Sorry) What I am saying is that there is a credible evolutionary argument for a homosexual predisposition as a trait beneficial to the group as a whole (via population control, checks placed on detrimental male-male competition etcetera)

Sorry, my biology is a bit out of date, but aren't group selection theories of such a nature usually considered to be not very accurate? I mean, I understand kinship altruism and so forth, but population control and the checking of male-male competition are exactly the kind of group benefits that are absolutely unbeneficial to whoever is carrying the gene for them.
I mean really, if evolution provided for genes that checked detrimental male-male competition and controlled population, what would we need governments for?

MacLeon · #12

I believe a union between two people of the same gender is somewhat of an abomination for the following reasons: they can bare no fruit. However, this is the least of my problems. I could care less about gay marriage.

Tadao · #13

Quote:

Originally Posted by MacLeon

I believe a union between two people of the same gender is somewhat of an abomination for the following reasons: they can bare no fruit. However, this is the least of my problems. I could care less about gay marriage.

__

Fat_Hippo · #14

Quote:

Originally Posted by MacLeon

they can bare no fruit.

So? Are people like apple trees now? Or do you consider fruitless plants like...roses, to be abominations too? Huh? HUH!?

P.S.: Yes, it's SUPPOSED to be stupid.