through out time; things have changed. i remember when being straight meant you didn't do drugs. and gay meant happy. long ago; it was accepted for shepards to have sex with their animals. loving is something different. i love my parents but wouldn't think of having sex with them.
sodomy streaches out the anus muscles and before long; the anus will not seal in the feces. what results is a dripping of feces and digestive fluids. that's one way it's medically harmful.
if you loved someone; would you want to hurt them in that manner?
Okay, so it's harmful in that manner. there are straight couples who show their love without sexual actions, but I understand what you're saying. So, it's harmful if you're a male. What about a female? Also, if you aren't making this decisions, why does it concern you?
Okay, so it's harmful in that manner. there are straight couples who show their love without sexual actions, but I understand what you're saying. So, it's harmful if you're a male. What about a female? Also, if you aren't making this decisions, why does it concern you?
females who use "toys" (straight or gay) also get streached out. especially young; sexually active girls. by the time they reach their late 20's; they no longer enjoy sex because they don't feel it. it doesn't concern me.....until i have to hear about it. i don't care if you poke your dog; but i don't want to hear about it.
some things discust some people. i have a friend who will vomit if i ask her for a peanut butter and sardine sandwitch with mayo. she doesn't have to see it and i wouldn't eat it.
we were having dinner once and she uses hazelnut flavor in her coffee. i told her it smelled like a mans locker room and she almost lost it.
i can't watch people eat mushrooms. why someone would pick something out of a pile of crap and eat it is beyond me.
most of the people who know me don't know if i'm gay or straight. it doesn't come up in conversation. yet i know everyone who is gay because they talk about it. that's my point. i don't care what you do but if you constantly bring it up for discussion; you'll get others opinions.
yeah right, sure. now we all know that your homophobia stems from your lover man not using enough lube!
Prism!
I'm not homosexual. Why do pro-homos accuse non-homos of being homos to try to agitate them? Isn't that kind of degrading to homos?
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
females who use "toys" (straight or gay) also get streached out. especially young; sexually active girls. by the time they reach their late 20's; they no longer enjoy sex because they don't feel it. it doesn't concern me.....until i have to hear about it. i don't care if you poke your dog; but i don't want to hear about it.
some things discust some people. i have a friend who will vomit if i ask her for a peanut butter and sardine sandwitch with mayo. she doesn't have to see it and i wouldn't eat it.
we were having dinner once and she uses hazelnut flavor in her coffee. i told her it smelled like a mans locker room and she almost lost it.
i can't watch people eat mushrooms. why someone would pick something out of a pile of crap and eat it is beyond me.
most of the people who know me don't know if i'm gay or straight. it doesn't come up in conversation. yet i know everyone who is gay because they talk about it. that's my point. i don't care what you do but if you constantly bring it up for discussion; you'll get others opinions.
Unless they were using some kind of extra large dildo, would they get stretched out by a regular sized one? Straight females who have sex don't normally get stretched unless having sex regularly with a large penised male do they?
Unless they were using some kind of extra large dildo, would they get stretched out by a regular sized one? Straight females who have sex don't normally get stretched unless having sex regularly with a large penised male do they?
I think stretching occurs from over-use and of course massive objects. That's why they have benoi balls.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Unless they were using some kind of extra large dildo, would they get stretched out by a regular sized one? Straight females who have sex don't normally get stretched unless having sex regularly with a large penised male do they?
Why is it that as soon as men pronounce themselves gay, they start waving their hands like a chick? And start talking with a lisp or something else that is gay? It's part of psychology, they think that's how gay men act. A gay guy couldn't just be attracted to other men, they have to act like fags.
I must admit, this is something I've also questioned and never quite understood. Those gay guys people often refer to as "flaming". There is no real way of explaining it to me other than its a big act. No one is that gay! It would be like extremely wealthy men all talking like Mr. Howell from Giligan's island. No one really talks like that!! Turn it down a little.
"When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
it's just the hetro-phobes lashing out. like nazis with swastikas on they're foreheads.
yes, you're on to me, as I hate straight people soooo much that my children hatched from eggs in a field. I hate to disappoint you but i'm a woman that's sexually attrached to men. i just hate to see people discrimated against because of who they love when they love another consenting adult no matter if they're male/female, male/male or female/female.
yes, you're on to me, as I hate straight people soooo much that my children hatched from eggs in a field. I hate to disappoint you but i'm a woman that's sexually attrached to men. i just hate to see people discrimated against because of who they love when they love another consenting adult no matter if they're male/female, male/male or female/female.
I get what you're saying here I also don't like to see people discriminated against. Let's not confuse love with sexual attraction. I'm a man. There are other men that i truly love. There are two or three men that i love so hard i would willing lie down in traffic for.
They're called FRIENDS!
"When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
I get what you're saying here I also don't like to see people discriminated against. Let's not confuse love with sexual attraction. I'm a man. There are other men that i truly love. There are two or three men that i love so hard i would willing lie down in traffic for.
They're called FRIENDS!
So if you're in love with someone you aren't sexually attracted to them? And if you are sexually attracted to them, you aren't in love with them?
I get what you're saying here I also don't like to see people discriminated against. Let's not confuse love with sexual attraction. I'm a man. There are other men that i truly love. There are two or three men that i love so hard i would willing lie down in traffic for.
They're called FRIENDS!
so if you were to wind up in a sexual/love relationship with one of these friends(I'm not say that YOU personally would) then it would be okay for people to discriminate against you?
The whole "marriage is a sacred insitution" rationale is really a hypocrisy within the context of gay marriage bans. Under the edicts of catholicism, the "sacred institution" of marriage between a man and a women is founded on the belief that sexual intercourse should only be performed for the purpose of conceiving offspring. What I'm talking about is the church's ban on birth control. According to "god", you shouldn't have sex unless you are trying to have kids. Therefore, homosexual sexual intercourse really is no different from heterosexual intercourse from "god's" point of view as long as birth control is being used.
I didn't say it wouldn't. As you say, the divirce rate is off the charts. Its absolutely obscene as is the number of single parents (I am not disrespecting single parents, I am actually quite amazed by the ones who pull it off successfully). This, i feel is in large part, due to the declining esteem of marriage as a institution and comittment. People simply have no respect for it anymore. It is regarded as no big deal. By stretching the boundaries of marriage, I think we would only enhance and strengthen this "no big deal" attitude that is already destroying marriage.
So it might (would IMHO) help family life, but your perception of marraige is more important than helping families? If I'm putting words in your mouth I apologize, but I don't see how the institute of marriage is more important the the success of the family.
My whole life
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
So it might (would IMHO) help family life, but your perception of marraige is more important than helping families? If I'm putting words in your mouth I apologize, but I don't see how the institute of marriage is more important the the success of the family.
A family generally does not benefit from divorce unless there is abuse or neglect going on. Children are put under immeasurable amounts of stress during and, as a result of, divorce. Further, it has been statistically proven that children who have gone through divorces tend to be less equipped to handle life in general. Again, there are exceptions when one parent is clearly a negative influence on the child. In which case, the child is certainly better off with the other parent. But, "irreconcilable differences" alone do not justify destroying the stability and dual parenting that children need in order to become well-rounded adults. I'm just quoting Dr. Laura, though. I don't know for sure if it's right or wrong.
The whole "marriage is a sacred insitution" rationale is really a hypocrisy within the context of gay marriage bans. Under the edicts of catholicism, the "sacred institution" of marriage between a man and a women is founded on the belief that sexual intercourse should only be performed for the purpose of conceiving offspring. What I'm talking about is the church's ban on birth control. According to "god", you shouldn't have sex unless you are trying to have kids. Therefore, homosexual sexual intercourse really is no different from heterosexual intercourse from "god's" point of view as long as birth control is not being used.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Nor can you with the use of birth control, which is banned by the church. That's why there is no difference between homosexual sex and heterosexual sex with birth control.
Nor can you with the use of birth control, which is banned by the church. That's why there is no difference between homosexual sex and heterosexual sex with birth control.
If we are looking at homosexuality through the Vaticans eyes, then yes there is a difference, homosexuals are Sodomites. I don't think people that use birth control are considered sodomites, perhaps though.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
If we are looking at homosexuality through the Vaticans eyes, then yes there is a difference, homosexuals are Sodomites. I don't think people that use birth control are considered sodomites, perhaps though.
According to your link, what makes the sodomites "bad" are the following:
they fuel God's wrath, they burn in lust, and they will burn in hell
The first and the last reasons aren't really reasons. They're consequences. Only the middle reason is actually a reason. The sodomites were "burning in lust" because homosexual sex is performed for the sole purpose of having sex just for the sake of having sex. That's what makes it lustful. When a man and a woman have sex without birth control, it can't really be said for sure that they aren't or are trying to reproduce. So, god gives them the benefit of the doubt.
But, homosexuals can't be given the benefit of the doubt. So, that's the only difference.
But, back when the bible was written, there was no such thing as birth control. Even when the guy "pulls out", there is still a chance of pregnancy, so "pulling out" is not birth control.
I'm sure if birth control were around during the time when the bible was being written, users of birth control would be viewed as perpetrating the same "lustful" behavior as the sodomites.
Also worth mentioning here is that god refers to the sodomites as "burning sticks." Yes, it is a metaphor. But, could this be a metaphor for the lack of lubrication involved in homosexual sex? Remember, lube wasn't around back then.
So, not only does god not approve of homosexual sex because it is undoubtedly "lustful", but he is also disgusted by the idea of unlubed sex. That is probably why rape is also a sin.
The whole "marriage is a sacred insitution" rationale is really a hypocrisy within the context of gay marriage bans. Under the edicts of catholicism, the "sacred institution" of marriage between a man and a women is founded on the belief that sexual intercourse should only be performed for the purpose of conceiving offspring. What I'm talking about is the church's ban on birth control. According to "god", you shouldn't have sex unless you are trying to have kids. Therefore, homosexual sexual intercourse really is no different from heterosexual intercourse from "god's" point of view as long as birth control is being used.
Oh dear ... my ovaries are gone, I can't reproduce. No more sex for me, huh?
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
Jesus Fucking Christ. I can't believe you would use Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church website as a source for anything. Fucking disgusting.
It's funny though, right?
Hey man, I don't know what god thinks. But I know he is omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent so when he referred to gay sex as sodomy, I'm sure he knew about the future existance of lube and birth control.
Anyway, I don't give a shit. I just think it's a mental disorder, I could care less what god thinks about it.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
colorado city has been in the news a lot and it's because the leader is indited for sexual contact with a minor and arranging marriages with minors. not for poligamy. also; the residents are not being prosecuted for polygamy. true; poligamists don't enjoy the same rights and advantages of marriage as we know it; but either do gays and thus brings us to the discussion. if gays get these rights; why not polygamists? polyigamy is illegal because a woman cannot marry another woman and visa-versa. thus; to have two wives; you cannot expect the same rights unless a man can marry both wives and both wives marry eachother. can you understand the doors it would open?
Polygamy is illegal because it is against the law to have more than one spouse. Allowing gays to marry would not have any effect on the one spouse rule. It would not require us to rewrite inheritance laws, pension plans, insurance contracts, welfare policy, etc. In other words, granting equality to homosexuals is not going to upset the entire apple cart of society. If you're not gay, I doubt it would affect you at all.
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
See, this is just a word of advice. It is impossible to use Fred Phelps in defense of any of your arguments and then claim not to be homophobic. Phelps' loony followers are homophobia incarnate. I know you dislike that label, so just some friendly advice. These people are so filled with hate they picket funerals of soldiers killed in action yelling insults at the grieving parents and holding signs like "Thank God for IEDs" and "Thank God for Dead Soldiers". At Matthew Sheppard's funeral they had signs reading "No Fags in Heaven" and "God Hates Fags" (which is the name of Phelps' website).
Not a lot funny about any of it.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
you're right. it doesn't fit. and genetics doesn't explain bisexuality. maybe there's an: any port in a storm gene. if they stopped trying to justify their lifestyle and keep their sex lives to themselves like everyone else; the problem would be solved.
I've never had to worry that holding hands with my significant other might get either of us beat up. If a man puts his arm around me in public, no one is going to insult us. No one snickers and points if he holds the door for me or helps me with my coat. These small public gestures make my sexual preference obvious, but I pay no price for it, whereas same-sex couples often do.
I agree that it's in poor taste to run around blabbing about your sex life, and graphic public displays of affection shouldn't be engaged in by ANYONE, regardless of orientation, but there are countless little things that people in relationships do for one another that aren't distasteful or graphic, and I see no reason why gay couples shouldn't be able to engage in those behaviors publicly without fear of repurcussions. I don't know what kind of gay people you've been associating with, but my gay friends only want to be able to do the same sorts of things that I do.
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
I've never had to worry that holding hands with my significant other might get either of us beat up. If a man puts his arm around me in public, no one is going to insult us. No one snickers and points if he holds the door for me or helps me with my coat. These small public gestures make my sexual preference obvious, but I pay no price for it, whereas same-sex couples often do.
I agree that it's in poor taste to run around blabbing about your sex life, and graphic public displays of affection shouldn't be engaged in by ANYONE, regardless of orientation, but there are countless little things that people in relationships do for one another that aren't distasteful or graphic, and I see no reason why gay couples shouldn't be able to engage in those behaviors publicly without fear of repurcussions. I don't know what kind of gay people you've been associating with, but my gay friends only want to be able to do the same sorts of things that I do.
Here here!
The start of your last sentence was rich.
>>>>
>
...a lover and a fighter.
"I'm at least half a bum" Rocky Balboa
So it might (would IMHO) help family life, but your perception of marraige is more important than helping families? If I'm putting words in your mouth I apologize, but I don't see how the institute of marriage is more important the the success of the family.
I won't say you are puting words in my mouth (at least not intentionally), but you are definitely misunderstanding me. Marriage and family go hand in hand. The family begins with marriage, and there is no denying that when mariage suffers, so does the family. I never said family was less important than marriage. I don't see how allowing gay marriage would, IN GENERAL, benefit the decaying respect for marriage OR the family.
"When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
I won't say you are puting words in my mouth (at least not intentionally), but you are definitely misunderstanding me. Marriage and family go hand in hand. The family begins with marriage, and there is no denying that when mariage suffers, so does the family. I never said family was less important than marriage. I don't see how allowing gay marriage would, IN GENERAL, benefit the decaying respect for marriage OR the family.
But why does gay marriage make any difference in "when marriage suffers, so does the family" as compared to straight marriage? I just think for kids that having two loving parents (of any kind) at home is better for them then having a single parent, or unstable family or whatever. If a gay couple want to adopt or (somehow) have a child, I think that the kid will be better off then a lot of children out there. I just don't think that marriage and family are totally inclusive, as you don't need a successful marriage to raise a good children, and there are plenty of happy marriages that don't result in a family.
My whole life
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
Comments
Okay, so it's harmful in that manner. there are straight couples who show their love without sexual actions, but I understand what you're saying. So, it's harmful if you're a male. What about a female? Also, if you aren't making this decisions, why does it concern you?
females who use "toys" (straight or gay) also get streached out. especially young; sexually active girls. by the time they reach their late 20's; they no longer enjoy sex because they don't feel it. it doesn't concern me.....until i have to hear about it. i don't care if you poke your dog; but i don't want to hear about it.
some things discust some people. i have a friend who will vomit if i ask her for a peanut butter and sardine sandwitch with mayo. she doesn't have to see it and i wouldn't eat it.
we were having dinner once and she uses hazelnut flavor in her coffee. i told her it smelled like a mans locker room and she almost lost it.
i can't watch people eat mushrooms. why someone would pick something out of a pile of crap and eat it is beyond me.
most of the people who know me don't know if i'm gay or straight. it doesn't come up in conversation. yet i know everyone who is gay because they talk about it. that's my point. i don't care what you do but if you constantly bring it up for discussion; you'll get others opinions.
Prism!
I'm not homosexual. Why do pro-homos accuse non-homos of being homos to try to agitate them? Isn't that kind of degrading to homos?
Unless they were using some kind of extra large dildo, would they get stretched out by a regular sized one? Straight females who have sex don't normally get stretched unless having sex regularly with a large penised male do they?
I think stretching occurs from over-use and of course massive objects. That's why they have benoi balls.
it's just the hetro-phobes lashing out. like nazis with swastikas on they're foreheads.
i've worn out a couple but that's another thread.
I must admit, this is something I've also questioned and never quite understood. Those gay guys people often refer to as "flaming". There is no real way of explaining it to me other than its a big act. No one is that gay! It would be like extremely wealthy men all talking like Mr. Howell from Giligan's island. No one really talks like that!! Turn it down a little.
yes, you're on to me, as I hate straight people soooo much that my children hatched from eggs in a field. I hate to disappoint you but i'm a woman that's sexually attrached to men. i just hate to see people discrimated against because of who they love when they love another consenting adult no matter if they're male/female, male/male or female/female.
angels share laughter
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
I get what you're saying here I also don't like to see people discriminated against. Let's not confuse love with sexual attraction. I'm a man. There are other men that i truly love. There are two or three men that i love so hard i would willing lie down in traffic for.
They're called FRIENDS!
So if you're in love with someone you aren't sexually attracted to them? And if you are sexually attracted to them, you aren't in love with them?
Not necessarily.
so if you were to wind up in a sexual/love relationship with one of these friends(I'm not say that YOU personally would) then it would be okay for people to discriminate against you?
angels share laughter
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
So it might (would IMHO) help family life, but your perception of marraige is more important than helping families? If I'm putting words in your mouth I apologize, but I don't see how the institute of marriage is more important the the success of the family.
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
A family generally does not benefit from divorce unless there is abuse or neglect going on. Children are put under immeasurable amounts of stress during and, as a result of, divorce. Further, it has been statistically proven that children who have gone through divorces tend to be less equipped to handle life in general. Again, there are exceptions when one parent is clearly a negative influence on the child. In which case, the child is certainly better off with the other parent. But, "irreconcilable differences" alone do not justify destroying the stability and dual parenting that children need in order to become well-rounded adults. I'm just quoting Dr. Laura, though. I don't know for sure if it's right or wrong.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
But you can't conceive offspring through gay sex.
http://www.godhatesfags.com/fags/fag.html
Nor can you with the use of birth control, which is banned by the church. That's why there is no difference between homosexual sex and heterosexual sex with birth control.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
If we are looking at homosexuality through the Vaticans eyes, then yes there is a difference, homosexuals are Sodomites. I don't think people that use birth control are considered sodomites, perhaps though.
According to your link, what makes the sodomites "bad" are the following:
The first and the last reasons aren't really reasons. They're consequences. Only the middle reason is actually a reason. The sodomites were "burning in lust" because homosexual sex is performed for the sole purpose of having sex just for the sake of having sex. That's what makes it lustful. When a man and a woman have sex without birth control, it can't really be said for sure that they aren't or are trying to reproduce. So, god gives them the benefit of the doubt.
But, homosexuals can't be given the benefit of the doubt. So, that's the only difference.
But, back when the bible was written, there was no such thing as birth control. Even when the guy "pulls out", there is still a chance of pregnancy, so "pulling out" is not birth control.
I'm sure if birth control were around during the time when the bible was being written, users of birth control would be viewed as perpetrating the same "lustful" behavior as the sodomites.
Also worth mentioning here is that god refers to the sodomites as "burning sticks." Yes, it is a metaphor. But, could this be a metaphor for the lack of lubrication involved in homosexual sex? Remember, lube wasn't around back then.
So, not only does god not approve of homosexual sex because it is undoubtedly "lustful", but he is also disgusted by the idea of unlubed sex. That is probably why rape is also a sin.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
Jesus Fucking Christ. I can't believe you would use Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church website as a source for anything. Fucking disgusting.
It's funny though, right?
Hey man, I don't know what god thinks. But I know he is omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent so when he referred to gay sex as sodomy, I'm sure he knew about the future existance of lube and birth control.
Anyway, I don't give a shit. I just think it's a mental disorder, I could care less what god thinks about it.
See, this is just a word of advice. It is impossible to use Fred Phelps in defense of any of your arguments and then claim not to be homophobic. Phelps' loony followers are homophobia incarnate. I know you dislike that label, so just some friendly advice. These people are so filled with hate they picket funerals of soldiers killed in action yelling insults at the grieving parents and holding signs like "Thank God for IEDs" and "Thank God for Dead Soldiers". At Matthew Sheppard's funeral they had signs reading "No Fags in Heaven" and "God Hates Fags" (which is the name of Phelps' website).
Not a lot funny about any of it.
I agree that it's in poor taste to run around blabbing about your sex life, and graphic public displays of affection shouldn't be engaged in by ANYONE, regardless of orientation, but there are countless little things that people in relationships do for one another that aren't distasteful or graphic, and I see no reason why gay couples shouldn't be able to engage in those behaviors publicly without fear of repurcussions. I don't know what kind of gay people you've been associating with, but my gay friends only want to be able to do the same sorts of things that I do.
The start of your last sentence was rich.
>
...a lover and a fighter.
"I'm at least half a bum" Rocky Balboa
http://www.videosift.com/video/Obamas-Message-To-American-Indians
Edmonton, AB. September 5th, 2005
Vancouver, BC. April 3rd, 2008
Calgary,AB. August 8th, 2009
I won't say you are puting words in my mouth (at least not intentionally), but you are definitely misunderstanding me. Marriage and family go hand in hand. The family begins with marriage, and there is no denying that when mariage suffers, so does the family. I never said family was less important than marriage. I don't see how allowing gay marriage would, IN GENERAL, benefit the decaying respect for marriage OR the family.
But why does gay marriage make any difference in "when marriage suffers, so does the family" as compared to straight marriage? I just think for kids that having two loving parents (of any kind) at home is better for them then having a single parent, or unstable family or whatever. If a gay couple want to adopt or (somehow) have a child, I think that the kid will be better off then a lot of children out there. I just don't think that marriage and family are totally inclusive, as you don't need a successful marriage to raise a good children, and there are plenty of happy marriages that don't result in a family.
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln