Just owning page 5. Back to the shit slinging now!

I love this place.

No homo.

I love this place, even with all the homo's.

You are correct, it isn't normal. It's entirely fucked up. But you still treat the person with love and respect.

Until they go all gay activist and shit. In that case, fuck em.

LOL.  So now any sexual activity not intended to further the species is unnatural, and "biological misuse," whatever the fuck that means.

ETA: I don't try to argue with anyone who simply doesn't understand, or even doesn't approve of, homosexuality (and I'm not sure that I really "understand" it, at an intuitive level, either).  But you've jumped the shark with the "biological misuse" thing, especially when you try to present it as fact.

My main problem with threads like this is that all of the best jokes tread dangerously close to the CofC edge.

That's why I'm not commenting on shit in regards to the topic. I'm just enjoying the shit show!

Sorry I assumed everyone got the memo. The only thing that's flawed is your thinking. I'm not concerned with two dudes sexing each other up and subscribe to the live and let live belief, but to say it is a natural act and biologically normal is just foolish.

Yeah, I've got a gay nephew too. Doesn't change who I am or who he is. He's happy, I'm happy. 

No, any sexual activity between the same sex is unnatural. Men and women can produce life. A man and another man cannot. Are you not admitting this as fact?

I'm just running through the first page of replies. So far, two guys agree with you, Tesseract - the wannabe confederate and the caveman. Does that tell you anything? Everyone else seems to think you need to grow the fuck up.

Yes

I find it funny that you expect people here to understand who the Sacred Band and Plutarch were.

OP is tarded, Insecure and has abandon his own thread. Go figure.

OP, you are going to have a rough life, and I won't feel bad for you.

So you never masturbate or get a blow job? Because that's not what those parts are designed for either.

Does he have dementia?

I'm trying to tell myself that you're not this dense, and are either just trolling or are unable to admit that you've lost an argument.  In any case, I'm not going to keep chasing your constantly moving goalposts.

You can blather on all you want about "unnatural" and "biological misuse."  The fact remains that some people are gay, by their nature (as opposed to your nature).  You can't change them, and your polemic isn't going to change anyone's mind.  

Just coming back to this thread, after reading the replies I think you may be on to something.

Seems that to some here history began in 1776, and science stopped at the same time.

Holy shit, I thought to were joking

uhh, phrasing, dude?

Sounds hot

You seem familiar

Sure they are if the end result is to continue to be attracted and aroused my your mate that can reproduce and raise offspring which will go on to create and raise their own offspring. Thus continuing life.

This video will help you figure out if you're gay or not  

https://youtu.be/EtiFyvzFEOs?t=1m7s

He's right, you know.

If your niece was genetically infertile, would you think of her as a freak and disown her because she can’t continue life?

Not sure why you feel so triggered all of a sudden. This is a safe place. I'm having a respectful dialogue with many people about this subject. I don't care one bit where you stick your dick or what you take in your ass. My point is that homosexuality is unnatural from a biological standpoint and there is no argument you can attempt to make that can dispute that.

Where have I called anyone a freak or said anyone should be disowned?

Pretty good all things considered.

Depending on his age, it's not etched in stone that a kid who comes out as 'gay' is in fact, gay. Some go through a period of disorientation or experimentation...claim they're 'gay' to be cool and instantly part of the 'in' crowd. Others claim it out of rebellion or because that's what they THINK their parents want of them.... only to change later when on their own.

But to hear the current PC hyperventilating police speak, you'd think EVERYTHING but homosexuality is fluid, while being gay is some unchangeable, monolithic, one-size-fits-all, quality of life when it's just not.

So there's that.

But if he's sexually active and in the gay sub-culture (of which there are dozens of sub-sub-cultures), the big question is.... how promiscuous is he? Because that's the primary vector of disease.

It's sort of like having a nephew admit to smoking tobacco. OK fine. whatever. But if he admits to smoking a pack or 2 per day....yeah, that's a problem and no loving uncle would ignore it. You'd certainly not be a 'hater' of him to pull him aside and suggest he cut back to half a pack or only a few per day.

Now, tobacco has IMMEDIATE PHYSIOLOGICAL benefits - it calms people, it tends to reduce hunger and can be a socializing agent. But the long term health effects are pretty nasty (and become expensive). So it's about priorities - long term health vs. short term benefits. To suggest someone consider consequences is not "hate" and only in the area of sexuality do people suddenly become incapable of discerning this fact.

So.... if he claims to be 'gay' what does HE mean by that?

That he's aroused by men but otherwise doesn't do anything?
That he's aroused by men and has 1 boyfriend with whom he makes out, does mutual masturbation and oral/anal sex?
That he's aroused by men and gets off via sex with complete strangers regularly?

Approaching it as a pure health issue - no morality, no religion, the latter is far more dangerous to his long term health than the alternatives and opining that the CDC is correct in warning people about the inherent risks of MSM sex is not anti-science or anti-human-rights or dehumanizing in the least. It's to be concerned about his health.

It used to be that people who cared for others' health weren't shouted down as 'haters'. And indeed, when people spontaneously combust with over the top vitriolic exaggeration "you must hate me" or "you must think i've no human rights" all in response to a suggestion that certain behaviors carry inherent risk that are best avoided..... the problem is with them, not with those warning them of dangers.

I believe I am dumber for having read that

No you're just uneducated. No worries.

Attached File


First thing I thought of lol

Full retard.

LOL... moving goalposts, "triggered," "safe place"... yep, you're trolling, and doing an embarrassingly shameful job of it.  I don't know why I've wasted my time here.

This has to be a troll post.

I doubt there's a single person on either side of this argument that wouldn't agree that what you wrote was pure drivel

Now get back under your bridge...

You people are too emotionally and physically invested in this argument to the point where no one can have a discussion with you. We can agree to disagree, but if you look back through this thread I've not once said anything derogatory about your kind.

Biological misuse?

Son, your contributions to this thread are about as useful as a dick flavored lollipop.

Lol. That's why I didn't bother engaging him. Like I said, it's always a waste of time and effort with these people. They never change their minds and I swear to fuck they're intentionally denser than neutron star. 

The Centers for Disease Control have extensive studies and pages on their website charting how, relative to the heterosexual population, certain groups who are defined by their freely chosen behaviors have higher rates of cancers, infections and diseases than the general population.... so there does seem to be a qualitative difference between what two men or two women do with their bodies and what most male/female couple does with theirs.

Of course the CDC always throws in a line about "homophobia" but it's obviously a PC addition as the opinions of random 3rd parties don't effect disease or cancer transmission unless you are a magical thinker.

There also seems to be a disconnect in the debate or a failure to distinguish a few things.

Normal/abnormal is statistical. It means nothing essentially about the morality of a given behavior. For the Pashtun tribe in Pakistan, pedastry is 'normal'.

"Natural vs. 'unnatural' are not about "what animals may do" or "what humans CAN do" but about what behavior contributes to the flourishing not just of the individual but of the evolutionary process..... does X behavior contribute to the successful transmission of genes to the next generation and the generation after that? After all, the argument against incest is about the effects on THEIR offspring and the next offspring....

If we had an island full of polygamists, we'd eventually have first and second counsins and half siblings mating and THEIR offspring would become more and more impaired. COULD they have sex? Sure. But would their sexual mating produce VIABLE or healthy offspring? Increasingly....no.

Much of the debate seems to hinge on whether the point of life is individual pleasure, period.....or whether our lives and therefore our sexual behavior have greater, multi-generational significance. If you think life is all about packing as much pleasure for oneself as possible...then quite a few behaviors that are disapproved of become "rational". But if the point of life is not just our joy, but the joy and health of children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren....then suddenly our smoking, drugs, alcohol, and sexual proclivities take on a different light entirely.

In my experience with this issue, if kids come out as "gay" and their parents encourage them, MOST won't have kids so the evolutionary family tree ends. But some do have surrogate children. But there's baggage (most families seem to be lesbians raising kids). The baggage shows up in their kids' teen years as the 2 moms get into knots trying to explain why their kids shouldn't do drugs, but should 'experiment' widely with sex.... there's no built in reason to NOT experiment in any direction. No direction at all other than 'if it feels good, do it, even though that's not what we advise in any OTHER field of human behavior.

It remains to be seen how successful this generation will be with their grand kids but so far it doesn't look good.

What is becoming more and more apparent though is that the "homophobia is the main cause of all negative personal outcomes" hypothesis is collapsing as most 19-26 year olds who are gay have lived their entire emotional lives in a world that heaps praise on them in ways most other kids don't enjoy. It'll be hard to explain continued suicidal ideations, substance abuse, promiscuity, depression when there are no significant individuals in their lives being "haters". It's already happening that people are starting to look at the stats and conclude that 'society' or occasional less than enthusiastic neighbors' opinions just aren't that powerful and if there are continued problems it's due to genetic and intrinsic issues of the individuals themselves.

So they need love and they need friendship and they need encouragement to live healthier lives... but like with smoking 2 packs a day, they probably don't need encouragement to keep going full speed...

Homosexuality has been seen as a natural response (in many organisms) to a dense population, exposure to certain toxins, and/or lack of receptive mates. Think of it as (one of) nature's population mitigation device(s), weeding out the least masculine of males from the gene pool.

Are those words too big for you or what, son?

Interesting theory. I'll try to read up on it. The last sentence would certainly apply to many in this thread.

You could always not be a fag and be a good uncle. Guessing not from the tone of your post.

It's childish to sling insults when others don't share your beliefs.

To stick to the “advance the species” meme your advancing, play by your rules if you will.

our species produces a roughly equal number of men and women.  Clearly more women are required for optimum sexual reproduction due to gestational duration.  This poses an evolution question of “what to do with the extra males?”  In some species murder/expulsion works, humans are however a relatively weak (for their size) animal dependent on numbers and social bonds.  It would be highly reasonable, with adequate resources, to value males into a clan or group that provide strength and knowledge but do not pose genetic competition for limited females.

thus, gay men, would be evolutionarily advantageous for the heterosexual male and females genetic lineage. If a few of these men are children of the females, or should the heterosexual male die and the homosexual men reproduce the genes propagate and the species advances.

or so

Good parties, cheap drinks and probably kept me out of a jail a few times . Good in my book.

The ignorance is astounding.