What is it?I Wear Pants;1579886 wrote:That's not what alcoholism is.
From Mayo Clinic: Alcoholism is a chronic and often progressive disease that includes problems controlling your drinking, being preoccupied with alcohol, continuing to use alcohol even when it causes problems, having to drink more to get the same effect (physical dependence), or having withdrawal symptoms when you rapidly decrease or stop drinking. If you have alcoholism, you can't consistently predict how much you'll drink, how long you'll drink, or what consequences will occur from your drinking.ernest_t_bass;1579895 wrote:What is it?
That is a stupid comparison as well. Sex, in my opinion, is meant for procreation, not pleasure. Many species do the secks for procreation only, not for pleasure. Humans do the secks for pleasure and procreation. In a procreation sense, gay sex is unnatural, therefore "abnormal."I Wear Pants;1579897 wrote:And anyway your comparisons are still pretty shitty. A more apt comparison would be that you're someone who doesn't prefer cheeseburgers to pizza but your son prefers cheeseburgers to pizza. Because of this you do not support him. That would be completely silly. So is not supporting your son because he likes guys.
You only have sex for procreation? Dlazz?ernest_t_bass;1579907 wrote:That is a stupid comparison as well. Sex, in my opinion, is meant for procreation, not pleasure. Many species do the secks for procreation only, not for pleasure. Humans do the secks for pleasure and procreation. In a procreation sense, gay sex is unnatural, therefore "abnormal."
Anything that isn't what a majority does is abnormal, doesn't mean you have to make a good/bad right/wrong classification out of it.ernest_t_bass;1579907 wrote:That is a stupid comparison as well. Sex, in my opinion, is meant for procreation, not pleasure. Many species do the secks for procreation only, not for pleasure. Humans do the secks for pleasure and procreation. In a procreation sense, gay sex is unnatural, therefore "abnormal."
No. Humans do it for pleasure, but the act of sex on a broader scale (re: every species that does the secks) is for procreation.like_that;1579911 wrote:You only have sex for procreation? Dlazz?
Assuming you're against gay marriage, to be consistent, you must be against allowing people too old to have children to marry.ernest_t_bass;1579907 wrote:That is a stupid comparison as well. Sex, in my opinion, is meant for procreation, not pleasure. Many species do the secks for procreation only, not for pleasure. Humans do the secks for pleasure and procreation. In a procreation sense, gay sex is unnatural, therefore "abnormal."
My biblical beliefs state the good/bad, right/wrong classification.I Wear Pants;1579913 wrote:Anything that isn't what a majority does is abnormal, doesn't mean you have to make a good/bad right/wrong classification out of it.
I don't think the state should have anything to do with whether or not someone wants to recognize their union, nor whether or not they could get insurance. Now, gay marriage in a religious sense... yes.queencitybuckeye;1579917 wrote:Assuming you're against gay marriage, to be consistent, you must be against allowing people too old to have children to marry.
So when your dog is humping your leg he's doing it to hopefully make the first human leg-dog hybrid?ernest_t_bass;1579916 wrote:No. Humans do it for pleasure, but the act of sex on a broader scale (re: every species that does the secks) is for procreation.
Quote where I said "only humans."Fly4Fun;1579944 wrote:So when your dog is humping your leg he's doing it to hopefully make the first human leg-dog hybrid?
Or when a monkey masturbates he's doing it in hopes of procreating with his hand?
Sorry, but humans aren't the only species that "enjoy" sex and engage in acts that are only for procreation.
Furthermore I remember reading somewhere that hundreds of different species have been observed to have same gender sex (gay sex).
The whole "only humans" thing isn't true.
With the "only humans" your point would have been incorrect, without it you have no point.ernest_t_bass;1579951 wrote:Quote where I said "only humans."
We do treat fat people as abnormal. People get fat because the eat beyond survival.I Wear Pants;1579913 wrote:Anything that isn't what a majority does is abnormal, doesn't mean you have to make a good/bad right/wrong classification out of it.
Also, food in most species is for survival and not pleasure. Should we start treating seasonings and anything that makes food a pleasure experience vs a survival one as things to be disapproved of?
like_that brings up a good point as well, you're probably lying about your view on sex since I'm assuming you've had sex without the intention to procreate.
Wat!?I Wear Pants;1579953 wrote:With the "only humans" your point would have been incorrect, without it you have no point.
We treat obesity as something undesireable because it has causes health issues. Not because it is abnormal.WebFire;1579958 wrote:We do treat fat people as abnormal. People get fat because the eat beyond survival.
Unprotected gay sex has caused STD's in men to increase.I Wear Pants;1579969 wrote:We treat obesity as something undesireable because it has causes health issues. Not because it is abnormal.
PROTIP: Homosexual men should use condoms.ernest_t_bass;1579973 wrote:Unprotected gay sex has caused STD's in men to increase.
STDs among heterosexuals has increased at various times, is your point, whatever that is, the same?ernest_t_bass;1579973 wrote:Unprotected gay sex has caused STD's in men to increase.
Yeah, but have you ever had gay butt sex without a condom?Heretic;1579974 wrote:PROTIP: Homosexual men should use contraceptives.
Problem solved. Seems more of an issue with personal stupidity (thinking "we're not going to have kids, so why bother?") than an issue with them doing a bad, bad thing by being how they are.
And seems like the leap of logic anyone with a brain capable of deductive reasoning should be able to figure out, as opposed to being someone getting their own personal collection of diseases or actually using as a reason why it's all wacky for people to have a certain orientation.
I mean, maybe it's just my general intellectual superiority speaking, but to me, it's simple thinking that says you use some sort of protection if you're fuckin' for any reason other than procreation. If you don't, you're risking something regardless of gender or orientation.
Sure!queencitybuckeye;1579975 wrote:STDs among heterosexuals has increased at various times, is your point, whatever that is, the same?
In addition to "festering shithole", this site is also known as a "discussion board". We're discussing our various beliefs.ernest_t_bass;1579978 wrote:I'll say it again, I just don't get why it bothers people how I, because of my beliefs, feel about something, as long as I harm no one. I can believe whatever I want, right? ... yet that bothers so many. Why do you even give a fuck? Honest question?
Uhhh, did this become the point where you realized your argument is based on fallacies and personal belief systems such as religion which aren't grounded in logic and decide it's time to just take things way off the tracks?ernest_t_bass;1579976 wrote:Yeah, but have you ever had gay butt sex without a condom?
Michael Sam apparently has the belief that he's gay and that's okay. And yet that seemed to bother you enough to state that you wouldn't be supportive of that as a father and discuss that statement at length. Why do you even give a fuck? Honest question?ernest_t_bass;1579978 wrote:I'll say it again, I just don't get why it bothers people how I, because of my beliefs, feel about something, as long as I harm no one. I can believe whatever I want, right? ... yet that bothers so many. Why do you even give a fuck? Honest question?
