- Joined
- Dec 30, 2012
- Messages
- 1,234
- Reaction score
- 164
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Socialist
Why not make Amanda Seyfreid clones? Clones are the way to go for sure.
Homosexuality has existed throughout history and throughout nature. It wasn't ****ing "created" by modern society.
It is actully the part i want to tease the readers and discover their thoughts and worlds about it.
the part that makes you feel unfinished is actually waiting to continue with you.
Sure it is. You and yours insisted it wouldn't be the next civil/human/perverted right.
Irony: Heterosexual dominance in the Histroy, social life etc. let you write those sentences when you try to make a point about homosexuality.
Anyway, Is there any example that homosexuality has given that comfort?
You actually miss the gist of your own argument, anyway.
The benefits of heterosexuality and homosexuality become important; at this point you have to deal with the comfort that heterosexuality gives when you replace it with homosexuality... clear now?
Btw, I am not afraid of looking foolish in the eyes of the ignorant.
Marriage is not a need. Procreation maybe, but marriage is not a prerequisite for that. It makes for better lineage tracing, yeah, but not required to maintain population.
If i remember correctly in ancient greek populaion, there was no marriage, individuals had sexual intercourse between eachother, even childeren did that with their biological ''parents'', and the same childeren were taken care of by all people in that society.
?
Well you failed and show your low level of intelligence when you inserted the word "created" shortly after suggesting things have changed. Even with your foolish errors, your intent is clear, you feel threatened by homosexuals having marriage rights. Get over yourself, it's only going to get better as each state loses it's "right" to discriminate based on sexual preference.
:lamo
I doubt that his state will be having sodomite "marriage" anytime soon.
:lamo
I doubt that his state will be having sodomite "marriage" anytime soon.
Given that sodomy is any sexual activity other than penis/vagina sex, there are already many sodomite marriages in every state. Care to try again?
You do know that anal sex is popular amongst heterosexuals? Many gays do not indulge in it.
Given that you know what I mean, no.
I believe that you are among those who claim that "marriage" has only one definition and that others should not seek to change it. Are you now hypocritical that you want to change the definition of sodomy to not include straight couples who engage in other than penis/vagina sex? People who do so are indeed sodomites and they have marriages as you wish it were defined. Thus your statement is proven untrue.
Heterosexual couples can engage in the perverted practice of sodomy, but a marriage between a man and a woman is not inherently ordered to sodomy (a man and a woman can engage in both natural intercourse and sodomy)
Although I would grant that if one or both of the spouses at the time of marriage intended to exclusively engage in sodomy, the marriage would be invalid.
If you engage in sodomy, you are a sodomite. It does not matter if you also engage in "regular" sex as well. If both people are sodomites and are in a marriage together, then it's a sodomite marriage. You doubted that his state was going to have sodomite marriages anytime soon. All states allow sodomite marriages, a fact that you cannot refute.
Yes, ignoring what one's opponent actually meant helps win an argument.
What is your point?Human beings are social entities like some other living entities; Some animals live in groups in nature for food, protection, breed etc.However, thanks to the intelligence, Human beings do not have to follow that path instinctively.
In today's world the marriage has changed a little bit. Women and men created another option, homosexuality.
However, A state/country needs to meet some basic needs to stay alive, just like animals.
I'm not sure as to the exact point of the OP but I'll give my opinion on marriage:
Marriage is a social construct which takes the form of a signed contract. It gives certain benefits and certain responsibilities to those that hold it. I don't see it as a basic need for a state/country to stay alive. I also don't see an inherent difference between two people (whether m/m, m/f, f/f) in love with that signed piece of paper and without it. The only difference is how society views them.
If you are relieved now, Could you please read that post of mine again and think over it?
Marriage, intelligence, instinct, food, child, security, social life, country etc are the key words here.
If i remember correctly in ancient greek populaion, there was no marriage, individuals had sexual intercourse between eachother, even childeren did that with their biological ''parents'', and the same childeren were taken care of by all people in that society.
Why do you think they had given up that policy and started to seek for another one?
I'm beginning to think you are SICK
Women and men created another option, homosexuality.
If i remember correctly in ancient greek populaion, there was no marriage, individuals had sexual intercourse between eachother, even childeren did that with their biological ''parents'', and the same childeren were taken care of by all people in that society.
Why do you think they had given up that policy and started to seek for another one?
You do not remember correctly.
You do not remember correctly.