Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm a straight guy and I'm all for gays getting every right a straight person currently gets. The thing about gays is that it is considered taboo in most religions.
That's due to the spread of lies and misunderstanding of it. The religions that generally condemn it are those that historically only saw it in an abused setting, not in a monogamous, loving setting.
Quote:
Consequently gaity has had centuries of hurdles to overcome. Also, for many straight people, visionalizing gay sex especially between two men, is not overly pleasant. Some people do not want their children associating with adults who would do such a thing. You have to understand, in the eyes of many people, bunny rabbits are cute and possums are ugly. This despite the fact that it's the rabbits that are the greater nuisance.
And while I can understand while some people might find it kinda gross, that's no need to mistreat and discriminate against gays just because it's not your thing. Many gays find heterosexual sex rather gross (even some heterosexuals don't find it particularly attractive).
It's all based on social constructs and patriarchal upbringing. The fact that so many straight men find 2 beautiful women making out or having sex to be really hot, and then are repulsed and violent towards 2 men doing the same proves the macho, male dominated social construct that led to that view.
Um, more heterosexuals have anal and oral sex than gays, so flawed logic there anyway.
And who said those are "unnatural"? Just because it's not procreative doesn't make it unnatural. Are you really that clueless? Evolution does not work at the individual level. Only populations need to reproduce, not every individual within a population. Some members of a population not reproducing is a good thing, it's called population control.
Your completely ignorance over the fundamentals of biology, and your complete unwillingness to educate yourself make arguing with you completely pointless.
You'd much rather insult and attack gays, then pull your head out of the sand.
This post is embarrassingly stupid. Human population control comes in many forms, but homosexuality is not one of them. You're trying to tie two things together that have absolutely no scientific or historical basis whatsoever. There's not a scientist out there who would proclaim that "population control" is an underlying purpose for homosexuality. And you actually have the gall to call someone else out for "ignorance?"
The natural product of sex is reproduction. Sometimes there is no reproduction. But the "potential" for reproduction is there with natural sex.
But that's not the only purpose of sex, even in the animal kingdom.
Quote:
What would happen if every sexual event yielded reproduction? What would the world be like?
Imagine that world. To prevent reproduction people use contraceptives.
Is someone saying that homosexual sex is the "natural" contraceptive because there's no way reproduction can occur so it's normal?
Yes, evolutionarily speaking, homosexuality is one of nature's means of controlling population levels. I've read that some animal species have more homosexuals than heterosexuals.
Oral sex can be performed by anyone regardless of their sexual orientation. Some people don't like it, some do. Oral cancer as the result of infection with HPV is on the upswing as well.
The thought of anal sex makes my skin crawl. Anal cancer is also on the upswing (in women - same culprit HPV).
Frankly, I think women give in to the demands of their men for their pleasure, more than for their own. Not to mention that many men love porn, and anal sex is depicted in a lot of porn. So some women will give in to their partner's demands and "pretend" as if they enjoy something knowing deep down inside that it is vile. It's about "bonding".
Spoiler
Furthermore, if I had a guy asking me for anal sex, I'd wonder where he'd been and where his true sexual attraction lies. Women don't have a prostate, not much sense in anything going "in" an "out" channel on a female. On a male, the anatomy is different, even though that's not an "in" channel for men either, I understand the physiology.
Not to get graphic, but even without a prostate, I'm sure some heterosexual men like anal sex, because it's tighter than the vagina and therefore causes more friction. Especially if your wife had children, guys sometimes don't get as much pleasure out of vaginal sex.
However, in men, there is the prostate. And some medical professionals actually view the rectum as a sex organ. The prostate is the male "G-Spot". If anal sex were unnatural from a biological perspective, you'd have a hard time explaining why that area, especially in men, is full of nerve endings that can only be stimulated sexually.
Why did God surround the anus and prostate with very sensitive, sexually stimulated sensory nerves if they can never be used in "natural" sex?
I don't know why anal sex would be an issue with lesbians, unlike gay men. Of course I'm no expert and some of this stuff I find downright perplexing. Oral/anal sex has me mystified. What could be the attraction? The old golden shower also has me baffled. Where's the pleasure?
Now if you'll excuse me, my dominatrix is waiting, and she's looking even more angry than usual.
Well, oral sex obviously feels good. It's wet, warm, and the tongue can do wonders.
As for anal sex, have your wife/girlfriend give you a prostate massage and you'll understand
Um, more heterosexuals have anal and oral sex than gays, so flawed logic there anyway.
And who said those are "unnatural"? Just because it's not procreative doesn't make it unnatural. Are you really that clueless? Evolution does not work at the individual level. Only populations need to reproduce, not every individual within a population. Some members of a population not reproducing is a good thing, it's called population control.
Your completely ignorance over the fundamentals of biology, and your complete unwillingness to educate yourself make arguing with you completely pointless.
You'd much rather insult and attack gays, then pull your head out of the sand.
Population control. I love it. And you call me ignorant. The rest of your post is BS. I know what is natural and what is unnatural. The animal argument does not hold water either.
Population control. I love it. And you call me ignorant. The rest of your post is BS. I know what is natural and what is unnatural. The animal argument does not hold water either.
Why doesn't the animal argument hold water? Because you refuse to accept the evidence and observation, because it would shatter your ignorant worldview?
Female fecundity and social bonding are believed to be the 2 main contributions of homosexuals to a population.
Regardless, homosexuals exist everywhere. Grow up, and get over it, or go move to Iran where you can enjoy a daily game of "hang the gays".
Population control. I love it. And you call me ignorant. The rest of your post is BS. I know what is natural and what is unnatural. The animal argument does not hold water either.
If 'what you know' is entirely derived from some historical work of fiction that some people have chosen to believe is 'God's word,' we have long left the realm of intelligent conversation.
Btw. Refrigerators are unnatural. Cars are unnatural. TV is unnatural. Antbiotics are unnatural. What kind of bogus argument is 'something in unnatural and therefore bad?'
Why doesn't the animal argument hold water? Because you refuse to accept the evidence and observation, because it would shatter your ignorant worldview?
Female fecundity and social bonding are believed to be the 2 main contributions of homosexuals to a population.
Regardless, homosexuals exist everywhere. Grow up, and get over it, or go move to Iran where you can enjoy a daily game of "hang the gays".
Don't be ridiculous. Just because I think something is unnatural and not normal does not mean I want to hang gays. I do not hate gays, but I do think gay sex is wrong and not natural.
I've noticed much vitriol directed at gay people for the last year or so, being somewhat ambivalent on the issue i havent given it much thought but now that it seems to be a political issue especially from the right i've been wondering why do people care whether some one is gay or not and why is it important politically?
To me whether some one is gay or not is about as relevant as whether some one has blonde hair or brown hair.
Did i miss the memo as to why this issue is important?
This is an issue for heterosexual megalomaniacs in dire need of emotional validation to reassure themselves they're heterosexual. Apparently if there's no law to diminish the worth or lend a license to anyone to abuse gays, they just might slip over to the other side and become indoctrinated.
Wish I could find the link, but somewhere in a southern courtroom appeals against gays were made to womankind, who apparently needs to see gay men as competitors for their men folk leaving them stuck in lonely hearts clubs, from which, this white knight will generously assault gays at every turn to protect these fair maidens. What's more pathetic? The man saying it in a court room thinking he's fooling anyone or the culture of these women that believe it?
Gays ruined Anita Bryants marriage. Or did SHE?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
