• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

If someone only molest young boys is he gay, a pedohile or both. [W:417]

If someone only molests young boys is he gay, a pedohile, or both


  • Total voters
    68
And all the gays are entertaining us with your EXCUSES for deviant behavior. What is really funny is how defensive you become

In other words, you can't define any of them. It is quite entertaining watching you be so defeated that you won't even DARE attempt to define the terms. Perhaps you really don't know what they mean. Watching you squirm and spin is certainly interesting.
 
translated, you know it is deviant behavior and could nlt think of anything else to say

Translated, you don't know what any of the terms being discussed mean and you are just posting random stuff to try to hide this fact. Here's a clue: it's not working. :lol:
 
If the 'someone' is male and is molesting young boys, then he is undeniably homosexual… Which is of course a sexual orientation which deviates from the biological norm… thus is sexually abnormal, on that score alone. That its sexual cravings requires taught skin and fresh features is just a deeper version of a similar malady.

A large percentage, if not most pedophiles are not born child molesters. They're grown through the obsession with pornography, wherein the host of adult fare has been normalized; meaning they no longer find arousal through such and, as a result are left to the grand taboo of children.

But to answer the question, yes… males seeking sexual gratification with other males are deviant; sexually abnormal.

Another one who doesn't understand basic definitions and has not read research. Sexual orientation and pedophilia are not congruent. Most men who molest boys are heterosexual. Molestation is a separate issue from one's ADULT sexual orientation. So, no... you are incorrect.

As far as homosexuality being abnormal... if you are referring to a statistical analysis, then it is as abnormal as left-handedness and genius. If you are referring to it being a disordered sexual orientation, then you are completely incorrect. Research shows that homosexuality is not disordered... not any more than heterosexuality.
 
The net result being otherwise known as 'the design'.



False… If the design did not provide for stimulation, the design would not provide for such. Grab a clue…

The biological design serves the function of perpetuation of the species… . It's all about ins and out sport. Penis, serves as an out. The Anus serves as an out. See the problem?

Oral stimulation serves the means of … (wait for it) STIMULATION… and where that function serves the biological design (See: Above) it serves nature.

Homosexuality may also serve nature. Sadly, it serves reason that where homosexuality reduces the likelihood for procreation, then it follows that such would serve nature where there exist untenable stresses on the population. (see: The Population Bomb. Ehrlich cir. 1968-70)

Where such would be the case, prolific increases in homosexuality would be a harbinger of potential catastrophe… therefore normalizing such can only promote the potential for catastrophe… (in case ya missed it: THAT's BAD! Meaning the normalization of sexual abnormality is a BAD IDEA!)



HYSTERICAL! On every level and in every sense of the word.

It is an indisputable FACT that homosexuality deviates from the biological design of the species… If EVERY SINGLE HUMAN BEING ON THE PLANET BELIEVED TO THE CORE OF THEIR SOLE THAT IT DID NOT, that would in NO WAY alter the FACT that it does. Understand, there is absolutely NO CORRELATION between the number of people that believe a given position and the potential that the given position is valid and or true.

I hope that helps…

Procreation is a separate issue from sexual orientation. This is very basic stuff. Please educate yourself on this issue.
 
Procreation is a separate issue from sexual orientation. This is very basic stuff. Please educate yourself on this issue.

Truly?

I'm dubious, but to be sure, we should test the hypothesis to see if it is valid, then discuss our findings.

Now when I am tasked with such a quandary, I have found that the best process is to break down the relevant concepts to determine their fundamental traits. That way we can see if, in fact, the elements merely share commonality or if they are intrinsically bound together… which would mean that, where the elements are untethered, they become distinct.

So, to get started we must identify the issue.

Procreation/sexual orientation or Procreation -v- Sexual orientation.

Having done so, we should now define the terms.

Procreation: to produce young; to reproduce: to perpetuate the species.

Sexual: relating to the instincts, physiological processes, and activities connected with instinctive physical attraction designed to promote intimate physical contact between individuals; See: biological imperative; (The biological imperative is the perpetuation of the species)

Orientation: the determination of the relative position of something or someone

So we find that procreation is served through the sexual process, therefore the relative position of one's sexual orientation, would be intrinsic to the potential for procreation.

But, I think I understand what you're saying. It appears to be a rationalization, designed to justify the cultural normalization of the sexual abnormality, which, in this instance would be that OKA: homosexuality. Given the potential for cultural catastrophe, in doing so, I just don't understand why one would say it.

Would you be so kind as to explain?
 
The net result being otherwise known as 'the design'.
False… If the design did not provide for stimulation, the design would not provide for such. Grab a clue…
Getting a clue is a good idea, but I am afraid you are lacking. Stimulation can be done by either gender
The biological design serves the function of perpetuation of the species… . It's all about ins and out sport. Penis, serves as an out. The Anus serves as an out. See the problem?
Good point, but thus is only in regards to anal sex, something widely practiced by heterosexuals.
Anal Sex More Popular Than Possibly Expected Among Heterosexual Couples: Center for Disease Control and Prevention Report
since I am almost certain you will not look at the link i will state the pertinent information. 44% of heterosexual males engage in anal sex and 36% of heterosexual females have engaged in anal sex.
now estimating that 4% of people are gay, and that half of those are women, and possibly 25% or more of homosexual men do not engage in anal sex you are talking to about 1.5% of gay people and about 40% of heterosexuals.

This is just completely ignorant on your part
Oral stimulation serves the means of … (wait for it) STIMULATION… and where that function serves the biological design (See: Above) it serves nature.
nobody engages in sexuality to serve nature.
Homosexuality may also serve nature. Sadly, it serves reason that where homosexuality reduces the likelihood for procreation, then it follows that such would serve nature where there exist untenable stresses on the population. (see: The Population Bomb. Ehrlich cir. 1968-70)

Where such would be the case, prolific increases in homosexuality would be a harbinger of potential catastrophe… therefore normalizing such can only promote the potential for catastrophe… (in case ya missed it: THAT's BAD! Meaning the normalization of sexual abnormality is a BAD IDEA!)
so your bigotry is to save the world? Everything in the above statement is stupidly absurd.

HYSTERICAL! On every level and in every sense of the word.
seems you need a dictionary. You are hysterical if anybody is. People that run around like chicken little screaming about the end of the world being caused by gay people are hysterical.
It is an indisputable FACT that homosexuality deviates from the biological design of the species… If EVERY SINGLE HUMAN BEING ON THE PLANET BELIEVED TO THE CORE OF THEIR SOLE THAT IT DID NOT, that would in NO WAY alter the FACT that it does. Understand, there is absolutely NO CORRELATION between the number of people that believe a given position and the potential that the given position is valid and or true.
it is not a fact, you contradict your own absurdity in this post you say that homosexuality serves a biological function than you say it doesn't. You're historical rantings are boarder lined delusional.
I hope that helps…
To further discredit you yes it did. Thanks.
 
ROFLMNAO!

Now that is ADORABLE!

You're conflating normality with perceptions of normality.



That's true… what IS a consequence is that it is an incontrovertible FACT, that the species is designed design provides for the perpetuation of the species… Homosexuality serves the antithesis of the design of human biology. Therefore, Homosexuality DEVIATES from the normality which is established BY the biological design.

Patently and as demonstrated above: Hysterically> false…



I am not surprised… And only YOU can fix that… But FTR: it was his professional life that caused the problem.
Normal is dictated by behavior only. Biology doesn't dictate what is normal, sorry.
 
Procreation is a separate issue from sexual orientation. This is very basic stuff. Please educate yourself on this issue.

He is inferior in this conversation. First he went on a tangent about anal sex, which is a practice among heterosexuals far more than homosexuals
Anal Sex More Popular Than Possibly Expected Among Heterosexual Couples: Center for Disease Control and Prevention Report

Than he suggested I am hysterical by typing in all caps (the equivalent of screaming) several grade school biological concepts that he didn't even get correct. He doesn't know what normal means.

He has completely discredited himself.

I wouldn't expect him to learn about human behavior he seems bent on staying in his prison of false knowledge.
 
ABC said:
If the 'someone' is male and is molesting young boys, then he is undeniably homosexual… Which is of course a sexual orientation which deviates from the biological norm… thus is sexually abnormal, on that score alone. That its sexual cravings requires taught skin and fresh features is just a deeper version of a similar malady.

A large percentage, if not most pedophiles are not born child molesters. They're grown through the obsession with pornography, wherein the host of adult fare has been normalized; meaning they no longer find arousal through such and, as a result are left to the grand taboo of children.

But to answer the question, yes… males seeking sexual gratification with other males are deviant; sexually abnormal.

Another one who doesn't understand basic definitions and has not read research. Sexual orientation and pedophilia are not congruent. Most men who molest boys are heterosexual. Molestation is a separate issue from one's ADULT sexual orientation. So, no... you are incorrect.

As far as homosexuality being abnormal... if you are referring to a statistical analysis, then it is as abnormal as left-handedness and genius. If you are referring to it being a disordered sexual orientation, then you are completely incorrect. Research shows that homosexuality is not disordered... not any more than heterosexuality.

False… every male that engages in sexual pursuits with those of their own gender are sexually abnormal, presenting the underlying tendencies of the behavior known as homosexuality.

That is not even remotely debatable, as the facts are indisputable.

The argument is a rationalization which concludes that because the individual has previously or predominately engaged, sexually, with those of the distinct gender, that this indicates a normal sexual orientation. Which would be reasonable and may well have been true at one time; except for the evidence that through whatever influence; be it genetic (for which there is NO evidence, but which stands as the current popular conventional wisdom) or be it environmental; wherein the individual was subjected to a prepubescent sexual encounter with a person of their gender… influencing their sexuality toward that with others of their gender, and in particular, a desire for those in early development, or a trained response, as a result of normalizing out any means to be stimulated by others in their peer group, due to a saturation of pornographic stimulation… the fact remains that the individual is presently seeking sexual gratification with individuals of their own gender.

With regard to 'research', valid examples of such are quite rare, with most being drawn from a cesspool of subjective political activity, which is designed to promote the results which were inevitably 'drawn'.

The psychological arts, in terms of science, are rife with fatally flawed processes and are heavily influenced by popular culture.

You may disagree and that's fine. I am less interested in your feelings on that, than the reasoning you can produce in support of your position.

For instance, my reasoning holds that the term 'disorder' is no more relevant to this discussion than is 'person' is to the discussion of human life, as such relates to those individuals working through the earliest stages of human development. Such terms are a political device which are subjectively defined as a means to influence popular opinion.
 
Last edited:
Normal is dictated by behavior only. Biology doesn't dictate what is normal, sorry.

False… Normality is established by the design of the species.

To wit: the design of the mammal is one wherein the individual is encouraged to procreate through a series of hormonal stimulations, which induce the desire for coitus. Coitus encourages conception, which provides for the highest potential that the species will survive, due to the volume of such instances dictated by the design.

Such requires the male to fertilize the eggs born by the female… therein establishing the biological norm.

Perhaps you're conflating the biological imperative with cultural normality… No one that I am aware of is arguing that cultural normality rests in the illusion common to individual perceptions. To the contrary, the issue, is that the cultural normalization of sexual abnormality, sets aside the certainty that such abnormalities are an indicator of a larger problem relevant to the collective and it's environment. Normalizing such can only lead to the rejection of any sense of such, thus promoting the probability that such would be missed or otherwise dismissed, leading to cultural catastrophe.

In short, it's just a very bad idea.
 
He is inferior in this conversation. First he went on a tangent about anal sex, which is a practice among heterosexuals far more than homosexuals
Anal Sex More Popular Than Possibly Expected Among Heterosexual Couples: Center for Disease Control and Prevention Report

Than he suggested I am hysterical by typing in all caps (the equivalent of screaming) several grade school biological concepts that he didn't even get correct. He doesn't know what normal means.

He has completely discredited himself.

I wouldn't expect him to learn about human behavior he seems bent on staying in his prison of false knowledge.

Either present the evidence which supports the above assertions, wherein your above accusations are directed toward me, or concede that your assertions are false, through your failure to do so.

FYI: Either way works for me.
 
False… Normality is established by the design of the species.

To wit: the design of the mammal is one wherein the individual is encouraged to procreate through a series of hormonal stimulations, which induce the desire for coitus. Coitus encourages conception, which provides for the highest potential that the species will survive, due to the volume of such instances dictated by the design.

Such requires the male to fertilize the eggs born by the female… therein establishing the biological norm.

Perhaps you're conflating the biological imperative with cultural normality… No one that I am aware of is arguing that cultural normality rests in the illusion common to individual perceptions. To the contrary, the issue, is that the cultural normalization of sexual abnormality, sets aside the certainty that such abnormalities are an indicator of a larger problem relevant to the collective and it's environment. Normalizing such can only lead to the rejection of any sense of such, thus promoting the probability that such would be missed or otherwise dismissed, leading to cultural catastrophe.

In short, it's just a very bad idea.

nor·mal**

/ˈnôrməl/

Adjective Conforming to a standard; usual, typical, or expected.

Noun The usual, average, or typical state or condition.

Nothing in there about your opinion on what is the propose of such anatomy.

What you are describing above is procreation. There is a difference between procreation and sexuality. Gay people procreate that same way straight people do.

In short, i don't believe the world will end over for percent of people not procreating the way you think they should. Saying otherwise sounds hysterical. Gay people have been around since the dawn of man, it must be part of the "design" your madness and rantings about catastrophy is the only thing that is different.

Gay people exist, we will not go away because you use backward logic. You just need to deal with it. Or jump in a lake.
 
Is white skin abnormal?

Interesting question. It is just a minority of mankind that has white skin, which could, using the sort of reasoning we see in this thread, make it a deviation from the norm, and therefore deviant by definition.

And, given the popularity of tanning salons, the case could be made that whiteness is a choice.
 
False… Normality is established by the design of the species.

To wit: the design of the mammal is one wherein the individual is encouraged to procreate through a series of hormonal stimulations, which induce the desire for coitus. Coitus encourages conception, which provides for the highest potential that the species will survive, due to the volume of such instances dictated by the design.

Such requires the male to fertilize the eggs born by the female… therein establishing the biological norm.

Perhaps you're conflating the biological imperative with cultural normality… No one that I am aware of is arguing that cultural normality rests in the illusion common to individual perceptions. To the contrary, the issue, is that the cultural normalization of sexual abnormality, sets aside the certainty that such abnormalities are an indicator of a larger problem relevant to the collective and it's environment. Normalizing such can only lead to the rejection of any sense of such, thus promoting the probability that such would be missed or otherwise dismissed, leading to cultural catastrophe.

In short, it's just a very bad idea.
Is white skin abnormal?
 
In other words, you can't define any of them. It is quite entertaining watching you be so defeated that you won't even DARE attempt to define the terms. Perhaps you really don't know what they mean. Watching you squirm and spin is certainly interesting.

Case in point, you lose again.
 
False… every male that engages in sexual pursuits with those of their own gender are sexually abnormal, presenting the underlying tendencies of the behavior known as homosexuality.

That is not even remotely debatable, as the facts are indisputable.

False. Unless you are speaking statistically, homosexuality is normal. These facts are not even remotely debatable as the facts are indisputable


The argument is a rationalization which concludes that because the individual has previously or predominately engaged, sexually, with those of the distinct gender, that this indicates a normal sexual orientation. Which would be reasonable and may well have been true at one time; except for the evidence that through whatever influence; be it genetic (for which there is NO evidence, but which stands as the current popular conventional wisdom) or be it environmental; wherein the individual was subjected to a prepubescent sexual encounter with a person of their gender… influencing their sexuality toward that with others of their gender, and in particular, a desire for those in early development, or a trained response, as a result of normalizing out any means to be stimulated by others in their peer group, due to a saturation of pornographic stimulation… the fact remains that the individual is presently seeking sexual gratification with individuals of their own gender.

There is nothing that you said above that has any basis in reality or evidence. Nothing but your own suppositions which are pretty worthless.

With regard to 'research', valid examples of such are quite rare, with most being drawn from a cesspool of subjective political activity, which is designed to promote the results which were inevitably 'drawn'.

Translation: the valid research sinks my position, so I will just dismiss it since I can't refute it. SOP for those on your side of the issue.

The psychological arts, in terms of science, are rife with fatally flawed processes and are heavily influenced by popular culture.

Similar translation to the other translation.

You may disagree and that's fine. I am less interested in your feelings on that, than the reasoning you can produce in support of your position.

For instance, my reasoning holds that the term 'disorder' is no more relevant to this discussion than is 'person' is to the discussion of human life, as such relates to those individuals working through the earliest stages of human development. Such terms are a political device which are subjectively defined as a means to influence popular opinion.

Your "reasoning" doesn't seem to understand the meaning of the word "disorder". Let's see you define it.

And please elaborate on what you mean by the earliest stages of human development.
 
Truly?

I'm dubious, but to be sure, we should test the hypothesis to see if it is valid, then discuss our findings.

Now when I am tasked with such a quandary, I have found that the best process is to break down the relevant concepts to determine their fundamental traits. That way we can see if, in fact, the elements merely share commonality or if they are intrinsically bound together… which would mean that, where the elements are untethered, they become distinct.

So, to get started we must identify the issue.

Procreation/sexual orientation or Procreation -v- Sexual orientation.

Having done so, we should now define the terms.

Procreation: to produce young; to reproduce: to perpetuate the species.

Sexual: relating to the instincts, physiological processes, and activities connected with instinctive physical attraction designed to promote intimate physical contact between individuals; See: biological imperative; (The biological imperative is the perpetuation of the species)

Orientation: the determination of the relative position of something or someone

So we find that procreation is served through the sexual process, therefore the relative position of one's sexual orientation, would be intrinsic to the potential for procreation.

But, I think I understand what you're saying. It appears to be a rationalization, designed to justify the cultural normalization of the sexual abnormality, which, in this instance would be that OKA: homosexuality. Given the potential for cultural catastrophe, in doing so, I just don't understand why one would say it.

Would you be so kind as to explain?

Your error is in your definitions. Your definition of procreation is fine, but you made a major error in defining sexual orientation. You broke up the term. The term itself has a meaning separate from the meaning of the two words, individually. Sexual orientation is a state of being and is defined as such in regards to the gender of which you are attracted. Procreation is not required and is irrelevant to sexual orientation. In fact, one does not have to be orientated or attracted towards an individual with which they procreate. If the equipment works, procreation can occur. This, as I said, is pretty basic stuff. I am surprised that it confuses you. I am glad that I could clear this up and correct your misperceptions.
 
False… Normality is established by the design of the species.

False. Statistical normalcy is defined by statistical analysis. With this, homosexuality, left-handedness, and genius are things that are not normal. In other instances, normal is a subjective description, and therefore meaningless.

To wit: the design of the mammal is one wherein the individual is encouraged to procreate through a series of hormonal stimulations, which induce the desire for coitus. Coitus encourages conception, which provides for the highest potential that the species will survive, due to the volume of such instances dictated by the design.

Such requires the male to fertilize the eggs born by the female… therein establishing the biological norm.

Procreation is irrelevant to sexual orientation.

Perhaps you're conflating the biological imperative with cultural normality… No one that I am aware of is arguing that cultural normality rests in the illusion common to individual perceptions. To the contrary, the issue, is that the cultural normalization of sexual abnormality, sets aside the certainty that such abnormalities are an indicator of a larger problem relevant to the collective and it's environment. Normalizing such can only lead to the rejection of any sense of such, thus promoting the probability that such would be missed or otherwise dismissed, leading to cultural catastrophe.

In short, it's just a very bad idea.

Since procreation is irrelevant to sexual orientation, nothing above has any relevancy.
 
Your error is in your definitions. Your definition of procreation is fine, but you made a major error in defining sexual orientation. You broke up the term. The term itself has a meaning separate from the meaning of the two words, individually. Sexual orientation is a state of being and is defined as such in regards to the gender of which you are attracted. Procreation is not required and is irrelevant to sexual orientation. In fact, one does not have to be orientated or attracted towards an individual with which they procreate. If the equipment works, procreation can occur. This, as I said, is pretty basic stuff. I am surprised that it confuses you. I am glad that I could clear this up and correct your misperceptions.

LOL!

Would you be so kind as to provide the board with other exceptions, wherein the meaning of a term, such as: "Sexual Orientation" is wholly isolated from the words of which the phrase is otherwise intrinsically rooted?

Does it not occur to the member that, where one must go to such lengths as to detach the meaning of the words used to describe something, that the concept being conveyed MUST be fraudulent?

For Instance, I like to race. I truly enjoy the competition of one Rocket Ship against another. MAN! I am telling you that I can't get enough of flying through space at incredible speed, particular at low altitude, feeling the wind against my face… Rocket ships, or "Missiles" if ya will, just get my juices flowin'. The thrill of feeling the engine power up, as the tension of the launch mechanism stresses to hold back the fury of the machine which I have built with my own two hands, is like no other.

Now having said that I'd like to show you a photo of my Rocket Ship…

photo_11819042_the-cheerful-girl-and-tricycle-cartoon.html


But please understand, that the term "Rocket Ship" does not convey the ideas which would otherwise be asserted through the use of "Rocket" and "Ship"… I just think that when I use that term, people will get the idea passed along by the defining traits of the term, which is somewhat more flattering than TRICYCLE!

Now does that make me a dishonest person, just because I use a term which has no correlation to the words used to comprise the term? No.. I don't think so, because for you to conclude otherwise makes YOU judgmental of me and THAT IS YOUR problem, not mine…

I am an "HONEST" person… which FTR: when I use the word "Honest" I mean to convey the idea of being free of deceit and exuding truthfulness, despite knowing that I am full of deceit and practice untruthfulness.

.
.
.

Now with that said… is there ANYTHING getting through at all, in terms of the calamitous nature of your position, wherein you claim a given term, which you further claim has no correlation to the words used in the term?
 
False. Statistical normalcy is defined by statistical analysis. With this, homosexuality, left-handedness, and genius are things that are not normal. In other instances, normal is a subjective description, and therefore meaningless.



Procreation is irrelevant to sexual orientation.



Since procreation is irrelevant to sexual orientation, nothing above has any relevancy.




"Sir, do you know why I pulled you over?

"No sir Officer, I can't imagine… please tell me, cause I am late for an appointment."

"Well, you were doing 140 MPH through that school zone, posted at 25mph"

"No Sir, I was not. I was doing no such thing. You see, I do not use a numeric scale as an indicator of speed. I prefer the use colors. I was right at the edge of pink and I feel that THAT was about right for me. So, you may feel that I was speeding, but you are wrong."

"Get out of the car, hands first… You're under arrest."

"Oh HOW wonderful, I love to arrest… I was arrested last night several times and enjoyed it very much. I am actually on my way to meet a fella who also wants to arrest me."

"Get out of the car Sir…" [This is tango 7, I need a tow-truck and an ambulance at this location…]"
 
Last edited:
False. Statistical normalcy is defined by statistical analysis. With this, homosexuality, left-handedness, and genius are things that are not normal. In other instances, normal is a subjective description, and therefore meaningless.

Normal, in the instance of sexuality, is established by the design of the human species… which provides for the male to be attracted to females. This specific and wholly incontrovertible fact, serves the purpose of the biological imperative… which FTR: is an objective standard, established by nature and is not subject antiquity due to popular whimsy.



Procreation is irrelevant to sexual orientation.

Procreation is a function of sexual behavior, which serves the biological imperative… which is served through the normality wherein the male is oriented toward sexual gratification through coitus with the female.

Procreation is discouraged through the abnormal sexual orientation wherein an individual is sexually attracted to individuals of its own gender.



Since procreation is irrelevant to sexual orientation, nothing above has any relevancy.

Procreation is only possible through the standard established by nature which promotes such. Therefore, procreation is dependent upon sexual orientation. Ergo, your argument is spurious, and as such, it >FAILS<.
 
CLAX1911 said:
Normal is dictated by behavior only. Biology doesn't dictate what is normal, sorry.


ABC sez… said:
False… Normality is established by the design of the species.

To wit: the design of the mammal is one wherein the individual is encouraged to procreate through a series of hormonal stimulations, which induce the desire for coitus. Coitus encourages conception, which provides for the highest potential that the species will survive, due to the volume of such instances dictated by the design.

Such requires the male to fertilize the eggs born by the female… therein establishing the biological norm.

Perhaps you're conflating the biological imperative with cultural normality… No one that I am aware of is arguing that cultural normality rests in the illusion common to individual perceptions. To the contrary, the issue, is that the cultural normalization of sexual abnormality, sets aside the certainty that such abnormalities are an indicator of a larger problem relevant to the collective and it's environment. Normalizing such can only lead to the rejection of any sense of such, thus promoting the probability that such would be missed or otherwise dismissed, leading to cultural catastrophe.

In short, it's just a very bad idea.

nor·mal**

/ˈnôrməl/

Adjective Conforming to a standard; usual, typical, or expected.

Noun The usual, average, or typical state or condition.

Nothing in there about your opinion on what is the propose of such anatomy.

What you are describing above is procreation. There is a difference between procreation and sexuality. Gay people procreate that same way straight people do.

In short, i don't believe the world will end over for percent of people not procreating the way you think they should. Saying otherwise sounds hysterical. Gay people have been around since the dawn of man, it must be part of the "design" your madness and rantings about catastrophy is the only thing that is different.

Gay people exist, we will not go away because you use backward logic. You just need to deal with it. Or jump in a lake.

:shock: :shock: :shock:

.
.
.

Seriously? Is anyone in this discussion guilty of demanding that 'gays should go away'? I ask because I am not aware of that having happened.

So, given the indisputable nature of that fact, the would-be argument which was offered above is a SPECIOUS load of fallacious nonsense.

:doh It's an embarrassment to the SPECIES! :3oops:

The 'Biological Design" is the STANDARD, through which Nature promotes the perpetuation of the species. That STANDARD provides for incentives which TYPICALLY induce in the male, the desire for sexual gratification USUALLY through sexual interaction with a female. This process typically results in conception… and while it does not always result in conception, conception is is the CONDITION which should be EXPECTED, as this is the purpose for which the process was designed.

Let's review:

nor·mal**

/ˈnôrməl/

Adjective Conforming to a standard; usual, typical, or expected.

Noun The usual, average, or typical state or condition.


Huh…

Now are you SURE that you can't see anything in there which MIGHT lead you to change your position here?
 
Back
Top Bottom