Ok ok. Point is this,
1.)Paleocon is clearly an authoritarian, and wants to base peoples personal choices such as the right to marry, and no sex he finds "odd" based on his perception and opinion. If you dont want to stick your penis there, dont do it. If your wife doesnt want to do it, then you dont have to do it. If you dont want to marry a man, dont.
2.)You want to ban a flag... A flag....
3.)You seem not to care about levels of authority, and liberty in this country. Why can we clearly violate constitutional rights in one way, but not another? One circumstance but not another? Where does the line of authority drawn in your world?
1) No, I want sexual acts contrary to nature banned. If a married couple wishes to consenually do something not contrary to nature, it should be legal even if it is, distasteful.
2) That flag is a symbol of evil.
3) The law of nature limits authority.
1. If we can do it without technology... it is natural.
2. The gay flag? Evil? I hope you are joking...
3. That doesn't even make sense...
1. Wrong.
2. Yes, it's evil.
3. Why not?
Humans carrying out non sexual acts that arent meant to reproduce but for purely pleasure are not natural? Fellatio isnt natural? Homosexual sex isnt natural?1) No, I want sexual acts contrary to nature banned. If a married couple wishes to consenually do something not contrary to nature, it should be legal even if it is, distasteful.
Evil is a subjective term. And ones view of evil is subjective.2) That flag is a symbol of evil.
Meaning what... ?3) The law of nature limits authority.
Humans carrying out non sexual acts that arent meant to reproduce but for purely pleasure are not natural? Fellatio isnt natural? Homosexual sex isnt natural?
Evil is a subjective term. And ones view of evil is subjective.
Meaning what... ?
Vaginal intercourse is meant to reproduce. But there are several problems here:Non-sexual acts are nt supposed to be for reproduction. Sodomy is unnatural because it diverts sex away from its purpose.
You said a rainbow flag is evil... To label a flag that consists of colors that make up the rainbow as "evil" is subjective.No, I haven't made any subjective arguments.
You advocate it all the time. What is "natural" about banning cloth laid out in certain colors on something commonly referred as a flag?Meaning that authority can't violate the natural law.
Vaginal intercourse is meant to reproduce. But there are several problems here:
1.)we have found way to stop the natural effects/risks of vaginal intercourse (pregnancy) birth control, condoms, (aka contraceptives). Should contraceptives be outlawed becasuse it diverts sex form its original natural purpose? I mean essentially what we have done as humanity is said, "**** this feels good, and its fun, I wish there was a way we could ensure or severly limit the risk of having a child if I dont want one, or not ready for one, oh **** we do have these things! (condoms)". Should we outlaw them?
2.)There are more sexual acts other than vaginal intercourse
You said a rainbow flag is evil... To label a flag that consists of colors that make up the rainbow as "evil" is subjective.
You advocate it all the time. What is "natural" about banning cloth laid out in certain colors on something commonly referred as a flag?
You know contraceptives have been around for 15,000+ years? Where does your definition of "natural" start?1)Yes, contraceptives should be outlawed.
You know oral sex has been around since ancient egypt?2) which are deviations.
How is a rainbow flag naturally evil? How is it evil?I didn't make an argument based on my own experiences, so no.
You said you favor to be drawn by the law of nature meaning, "authority can't violate the natural law.".... Whats unnatrual about the rainbow flag?What is against nature about it?
You know contraceptives have been around for 15,000+ years? Where does your definition of "natural" start?
You know oral sex has been around since ancient egypt?
How is a rainbow flag naturally evil? How is it evil?
You said you favor to be drawn by the law of nature meaning, "authority can't violate the natural law.".... Whats unnatrual about the rainbow flag?
The new argument against gay equality: Same-sex marriage kills - The Washington Post
Myself, I think this argument is as crazy as an outhouse rat.
Anyone wish to disagree?
That what was once seen as natural is not longer natural. We have found ways to control nature, and sexual reproduction. We have found ways to enjoy the pleasure of sex while extremly mitigating the consequence of reproduction. Afterall is is natural to find pleasure in sex is it not?I don't see what relevance these ages have.
Why is something that represents a natural phenomenon (a rainbow) evil? It also have many different meanings, has a traditional use for peace (is peace evil), also indigenous cultures in Latin America. Gay marriage is just one of them. And how is a man and a man or a woman and a woman getting married evil?It's evil because it promotes evil. Obviously this only applies to the modern pro-gay usage.
That I fail to see how banning a piece of cloth arranged in certain colors is natural... You havent even explained that one. Also how is banning something based solely on your opinion of "what is natural" at all actually natural/law of nature?What's unnatural about banning it?
That what was once seen as natural is not longer natural. We have found ways to control nature, and sexual reproduction. We have found ways to enjoy the pleasure of sex while extremly mitigating the consequence of reproduction. Afterall is is natural to find pleasure in sex is it not?
Why is something that represents a natural phenomenon (a rainbow) evil? It also have many different meanings, has a traditional use for peace (is peace evil), also indigenous cultures in Latin America. Gay marriage is just one of them. And how is a man and a man or a woman and a woman getting married evil?
That I fail to see how banning a piece of cloth arranged in certain colors is natural... You havent even explained that one. Also how is banning something based solely on your opinion of "what is natural" at all actually natural/law of nature?
1) No, I want sexual acts contrary to nature banned. If a married couple wishes to consenually do something not contrary to nature, it should be legal even if it is, distasteful.
2) That flag is a symbol of evil.
3) The law of nature limits authority.
What makes me severly mitigating the chances of having a child when I am not financially or emotionally ready to care for a child by using a condom during sex "taking the good away"?It's natural to find pleasure in good things such as sex. It's bad to take the good away.
Why not? Why does it matter if they have sex and you view it cant have a "legitimate sexual act" in your opinion? Why does marriage and your opinion of a "legitimate sexual act" matter? Aterall isnt marriage in its form "unnatural"? I mean I can still have legitimate sex (because based on your opinion its when you can reproduce) when im not married.. What does sex have to do with marriage? And how is marriage natural?Those other usages are not evil. Members of the same sex cannot perform a legitimate sexual act.
But you said the state derives its authority from natural law. So you need to explain how its natural then...It's within the authority of the state.
Then yes for the sodomy.
The new argument against gay equality: Same-sex marriage kills - The Washington Post
Myself, I think this argument is as crazy as an outhouse rat.
Anyone wish to disagree?
One vote for sodomy by Paleocon!
WTF? Gay marriages do not produce children, thus they do not cause any abortions. If these religious asshats want to stop abortion, they should be fighting against heterosexual sex. What a bunch of idiots.
So I can be investigated if someone accused me and my partner having consensual anal sex? So I can be investigated if someone accused me and my partner having partaking in sexual fetish actions that involve feet (like a foot job)?
Did they catch you in the act?
The new argument against gay equality: Same-sex marriage kills - The Washington Post
But comes now Gene Schaerr, unsuccessful lawyer for Utah in that state’s case against same-sex marriages, to file an amicus brief with the Supreme Court on behalf of “100 scholars of marriage.”
To wit: Legalizing same-sex marriage devalues marriage and causes fewer heterosexual couples to marry, which leads to a larger number of unmarried women, who have abortions at higher rates than married women. As a result, Schaerr wrote, “nearly 900,000 more children of the next generation would be aborted as a result of their mothers never marrying. This is equal to the entire population of the cities of Sacramento and Atlanta combined.”