(April 19, 2015 at 1:44 am)Esquilax Wrote: Two thoughts: Firstly, I don't think clarity is too much to ask for from a book like the bible; if god had bothered to have a little more of that in his works you might not have thousands of splinter denominations around today, and moreover we wouldn't have people like you, Chad, who make these big stark claims about what the words really mean, but have absolutely no means beyond their own presuppositions to demonstrate that their interpretation aligns with the original authorial intent. Essentially, if the bible was actually clear then you wouldn't need to fart out these interpretations into the ether like this, demanding that they're true because you say they are.

Not to mention the original language the books were written in are not English and were from a radically different culture. Secondly, if authored by proxy by an inhuman mind the original authorial intent is as alien to us as a human mind is to a cat. Hell, I don't even get how Christians get to the conclusion, "If God exists, then we expect God to speak to people through ancients books." Question begging? Wishful thinking? Confirmation bias? 

Um, I don't know if anyone mentioned it already, but homosexuality could not possibly be a fetish, by definition, at least according to the American Psychiatric Association.

Quote:Sexual fetishism or erotic fetishism is a sexual focus on a nonliving object or nongenital body part.

Also, I keep reading the title as 'Being gay is a fish'.

Please help.

What is it with fundies thinking gay male sex is all intercourse? Outercourse is a thing too.

(April 18, 2015 at 5:41 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote: It cracks me up, this obsession Heywood has with gay sex. He must have studied much to amass this many objections ... you might say it was a labor of love.

Its not an obsession Parker.  I'm not delusional like you and others who think that when it comes to orientation or sex....a Godless reality would simply create them all equal.  I'm sorry but I am not as naive as you.  Some traits are going to me more advantageous than others....and it seems to me at least that heterosexuality is more advantageous than homosexuality.  There are obvious reasons for this that don't require any study.  When I point out those obvious reasons instead of refuting them, weak minded fools like you, try to demonize me.

---

(April 18, 2015 at 8:21 pm)thesummerqueen Wrote: I wish Heywood could have a vagina for a while, just so he could lay back and find out how "cumbersome" vaginal sex is when someone as idiotic as him is at the wheel.

Another no content post from a lying lizard.  You'd be more productive if you went back to your garden and ate some aphids.

---

(April 18, 2015 at 4:14 pm)Brian37 Wrote:

(April 18, 2015 at 4:00 pm)Heywood Wrote: I don't object to the gay male.  I only believe the heterosexual orientation is better than homosexual orientation.   Why?  Because male/female sex is less cumbersome.  Male/Female sex allows one to create an offspring with someone they love.  I believe that most people also believe the heterosexual orientation is better than homosexual orientation and would choose to be heterosexual if they had the choice.

---

Your position is that it takes condoms and KY Jelly to make certain kinds of homosexual sex equivalent to heterosexual sex?

NO, you are using this dodge yourself. Gay sex certainly is different, because for them that is what they evolved to like just like heterosexuals evolved to like the opposite sex. So no shit gay sex is different than heterosexual sex but BOTH are part of the same evolution. The anus being dry and not producing it's own lube would be the same though with a male anus and a female anus. And if a partner, gay or heterosexual wants to insert their penis into an anus they can do it dry, but yes, it is going to be rougher, or they can ad lube to the anus to make it go smoother. But to say anal sex is wrong because two guys do it is bullshit because heterosexuals do it too.



Now please tell me this has absolutely nothing to do with you being a Christian or the bible. Think before you respond because the bible also calls eating shellfish an "abomination" too.

---

Men get blowjobs from women all the time, and that is natural too, but so is cancer and semen carries the hpv virus.

I never said anal sex was wrong.  

(April 19, 2015 at 6:27 am)Heywood Wrote: Some traits are going to me more advantageous than others....and it seems to me at least that heterosexuality is more advantageous than homosexuality.  There are obvious reasons for this that don't require any study.  When I point out those obvious reasons instead of refuting them, weak minded fools like you, try to demonize me.

If we're talking stone age tribes where abundant procreation was in order to preserve the social structure, you certainly have a point. It's only, we don't live in the stone ages anymore. Life expectancy is high, child death rates, at least in developed countries, is low. I don't think that about 5 percent of people being gay endangers our species.

No, cut the crap. It's all about Middle Eastern Iron Age morality carried over into the 21st century.

(April 19, 2015 at 6:27 am)Heywood Wrote:

(April 18, 2015 at 5:41 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote: It cracks me up, this obsession Heywood has with gay sex. He must have studied much to amass this many objections ... you might say it was a labor of love.

Its not an obsession Parker.  I'm not delusional like you and others who think that when it comes to orientation or sex....a Godless reality would simply create them all equal.  I'm sorry but I am not as naive as you.  Some traits are going to me more advantageous than others....and it seems to me at least that heterosexuality is more advantageous than homosexuality.  There are obvious reasons for this that don't require any study.  When I point out those obvious reasons instead of refuting them, weak minded fools like you, try to demonize me.

---

(April 18, 2015 at 8:21 pm)thesummerqueen Wrote: I wish Heywood could have a vagina for a while, just so he could lay back and find out how "cumbersome" vaginal sex is when someone as idiotic as him is at the wheel.

Another no content post from a lying lizard.  You'd be more productive if you went back to your garden and ate some aphids.

---

(April 18, 2015 at 4:14 pm)Brian37 Wrote: NO, you are using this dodge yourself. Gay sex certainly is different, because for them that is what they evolved to like just like heterosexuals evolved to like the opposite sex. So no shit gay sex is different than heterosexual sex but BOTH are part of the same evolution. The anus being dry and not producing it's own lube would be the same though with a male anus and a female anus. And if a partner, gay or heterosexual wants to insert their penis into an anus they can do it dry, but yes, it is going to be rougher, or they can ad lube to the anus to make it go smoother. But to say anal sex is wrong because two guys do it is bullshit because heterosexuals do it too.



Now please tell me this has absolutely nothing to do with you being a Christian or the bible. Think before you respond because the bible also calls eating shellfish an "abomination" too.

---

Men get blowjobs from women all the time, and that is natural too, but so is cancer and semen carries the hpv virus.

I never said anal sex was wrong.  

Ok, so what is your problem with men having anal sex? Any type of unprotected sex even with heterosexuals has risks. 

You are not against gays? Or are you one of those who are a half assed bigot, "I don't hate them, but I just don't want it in my face"? 

I think there is a higher age of consent for anal sex in the UK, if I remember right. 18, as opposed to 16. That may have been dropped by now.

There are risks in any type of sex when not done safely and the sexuality of the people involved is a bullshit argument. Finding a sex act yucky only means you don't like it. If sex is done by consent and the people who consent to it know the risks and take precautions then it is nobody's fucking business.

Just like I am not attracted to obese women. My not being attracted to that body type does not make what they do with their bodies wrong. Same with tatoos. If you recoil at the sight of something, that by itself is not enough to ban it or try to pretend the person who does it is wrong.

CONSENT is what matters, education is what matters. Not our personal likes and dislikes.

(April 18, 2015 at 12:46 pm)Pizza Wrote:

(April 18, 2015 at 12:24 pm)Esquilax Wrote: Only if it were designed a specific way; given that there is no design, there is no purpose for which the penis or the vagina are "supposed" to be put to.

I mean, that's just leaving aside the completely fiat nature of your statement; you don't get to just demand that what you say is true. Given that the penis has nerves used for sexual pleasure, one could easily also determine that the penis is for sexual pleasure, which sex of any stripe provides. Your baseless assertion is unjustifiably narrow.

The idea that a body part could have many functions is beyond their minds.

I for example also use my penis for pissing and hammering in stubborn nails.

1) Don't you fucking accuse me of lying, you jackass. That's the sort of shit that does get you reported.

2) Provide content that makes sense. Some of the things you say make it sound like you've learned all of your sex from Jack Chick tracts.