Childlike Sex Dolls

[PTF]

If the dolls keeps these people off of our children let them have it...as long as no boy dolls are made.

 

[TheGoverness]

See 349.

Homosexuality occurs in nature; it is natural.

Don't like it? Don't care.

 

[maquiscat]

See 349.

If it is done by a natural being then it is natural. If you want to claim that man's structures are unnatural then you must also claim a beaver's structure, and an ant colony's structure unnatural. Any animal that digs and creates a den is creating an unnatural structure. And yes I know that the thread isn't about structures. It's called a parallel.

 

[maquiscat]

If the dolls keeps these people off of our children let them have it...as long as no boy dolls are made.

Why not? You have something against keeping female pedophiles from offending?

 

[maquiscat]

Homosexuality occurs in nature; it is natural.

Don't like it? Don't care.

Now here is a good question. Are animals who engage in same sex relations actually homosexual, or is one actually transgendered and the other recognizes it and accepts it?

 

[calamity]

How is it natural? You have to show how it is natural. Simply saying it does not mean anything.

How is it "unnatural"?

Just because you don't like gay sex doesn't mean it can't be done in perfectly natural fashion. Unnatural is an old dude taking a pill to get a woody, like Trump taking Viagra in order to **** Melania. Now that is unnatural.

 

[zyzygy]

How is it natural? You have to show how it is natural. Simply saying it does not mean anything.

We are products of nature. I can't make it any simpler for you.

 

[FastPace]

I haven't read through this whole thread, so, I don't know what was said about "unnatural." I just read the words on this last page.

Pedophilia occurs among the bonobos, and not just pedophilia but incestuous pedophilia, between mother and son. Homosexual sex also occurs among the bonobos.

When Christian theologians or philosophers make the statement that homosexuality--or pedophilia for that matter--are not "natural," they are not making a statement about what does not occur in nature, rather they are making as I understand it a philosophical claim as to what falls outside of the proper or natural order (per human reasoning). For homosexuality that has to do with the primary function of the reproductive organs. Emotions taken out of the issue, this claim is coherent with the science of biology, as it pertains to the evolutionary design of the body (function and purpose of an erect penis shooting sperm and the vagina--the anus has different function and purpose by evolutionary design, like the eyeballs and teeth).

Pederasty was as well accepted centuries ago as every letter in the LGBTQ acronym is. Objection to any of these things has mostly to do with social conditioning. Even in the 1800s USA adult male sex with prepubescent as well as teenage boys was fairly tolerated. It was widespread throughout the US Navy then--but so was homosexuality in the US Navy then. And supposedly, New York City had a thriving market for little boys dressed up as girls, mostly Irish boys I think. And what's more interesting is that grown women and grown men of New York City--and the police--supposedly held those young boy-child prostitutes in more contempt than the adult men that paid to have sex with them.

 

[Oborosen]

Where is your proof? Do please try to provide actual proof and not fall back on the tired "common sense" argument.

My only argument for proof is that actual sex dolls have been used throughout the years to treat other individuals of certain disorders. Some of which are used to re-acquire tactile contact in the brain, from over indulging in things like internet pornography.

Other instances are from personal abuse, domestic abuse, and building physical empathy with human targets.

The wide range of applications for such dolls outside of sexual relief, is a very possible outcome and these dolls do show such promise as well.

If memory serves, such dolls have been in use in Japan for almost a decade.

 

[Oborosen]

Wrong. It is 100% natural.

I can probably think of five books from the top of my head that mention same sex relations between animals in the wild.

So yes, he was 100% wrong.

Goats for example can be life long gay partners.

 

[maquiscat]

My only argument for proof is that actual sex dolls have been used throughout the years to treat other individuals of certain disorders. Some of which are used to re-acquire tactile contact in the brain, from over indulging in things like internet pornography.

Other instances are from personal abuse, domestic abuse, and building physical empathy with human targets.

The wide range of applications for such dolls outside of sexual relief, is a very possible outcome and these dolls do show such promise as well.

If memory serves, such dolls have been in use in Japan for almost a decade.

The dolls can indeed be used in a variety of manners resulting in many different outcomes. And yes indeed there will be those who will springboard from these dolls to actual children. But just like you don't take a drug off the market that would save 5 people but might make one an addict, you wouldn't automatically remove this tool if it can be shown to help more than it didn't. And yes all things have a potential to be abused, right up to tv and the internet.

 

[maquiscat]

I haven't read through this whole thread, so, I don't know what was said about "unnatural." I just read the words on this last page.

Pedophilia occurs among the bonobos, and not just pedophilia but incestuous pedophilia, between mother and son. Homosexual sex also occurs among the bonobos.

When Christian theologians or philosophers make the statement that homosexuality--or pedophilia for that matter--are not "natural," they are not making a statement about what does not occur in nature, rather they are making as I understand it a philosophical claim as to what falls outside of the proper or natural order (per human reasoning). For homosexuality that has to do with the primary function of the reproductive organs. Emotions taken out of the issue, this claim is coherent with the science of biology, as it pertains to the evolutionary design of the body (function and purpose of an erect penis shooting sperm and the vagina--the anus has different function and purpose by evolutionary design, like the eyeballs and teeth).

Pederasty was as well accepted centuries ago as every letter in the LGBTQ acronym is. Objection to any of these things has mostly to do with social conditioning. Even in the 1800s USA adult male sex with prepubescent as well as teenage boys was fairly tolerated. It was widespread throughout the US Navy then--but so was homosexuality in the US Navy then. And supposedly, New York City had a thriving market for little boys dressed up as girls, mostly Irish boys I think. And what's more interesting is that grown women and grown men of New York City--and the police--supposedly held those young boy-child prostitutes in more contempt than the adult men that paid to have sex with them.

While you may be correct about Christian theologians and philosophers seeing these things as unnatural on a philosophical level, most laymen Christians making such claims are making the claim as being outright unnatural and try to claim any deviant behavior among animals is an aberration, not a natural (relatively) rare occurrence. Emotions are very much part of the issue for them.

 

[Oborosen]

The dolls can indeed be used in a variety of manners resulting in many different outcomes. And yes indeed there will be those who will springboard from these dolls to actual children. But just like you don't take a drug off the market that would save 5 people but might make one an addict, you wouldn't automatically remove this tool if it can be shown to help more than it didn't. And yes all things have a potential to be abused, right up to tv and the internet.

And don't get me started on the internet... its like staring into the abyss and then the abyss stares back, but in German.

 

[FastPace]

While you may be correct about Christian theologians and philosophers seeing these things as unnatural on a philosophical level, most laymen Christians making such claims are making the claim as being outright unnatural and try to claim any deviant behavior among animals is an aberration, not a natural (relatively) rare occurrence. Emotions are very much part of the issue for them.

That may be so, maq, but so are the pro homophiles--emotionally invested that is.

Even for a homosexual--who is same sex addicted--if this was purely a matter of intellectualizing and learning about scientific explanations as to the evolutionary design of the human body, the function and purpose of the erect penis ejaculating sperm and the moist vagina, then the purely rational conclusion is that you exercise the right you always had which was and remains to date and/or marry a member of the opposite sex.

But they have a compulsion they can't break free from--or at least few of them do. Because they enjoy the chemically produced euphoria they get in their brain when they go with trying to satisfy that desire they are in bondage too. This is the same case with the pedophile and the pederast. It's the same case with the homosexual. It's the same case with anyone who is into whatever sort of thing "gets them off" or aroused.

The homosexual and pedophile has greater excuse than the "normal" heterosexual that advances homosexuality for their own emotional need. That need may be to be accepted into the "cool" clique. That need may be something else or multiple things including an increasing descent into sexual sin themselves which is really manifested in them once you notice they take up emotional zeal to promote feminist prejudice against perfectly normal and healthy male heterosexual arousals as disordered and promote LGBTQ--all letters in it--as perfectly ordered.

The male and female feminist screech in offense at seeing with their own eyes scantly clad women on calendars. Yet in that same emotional outrage they demand heterosexual men that take offense at seeing two men--let alone nearly nude--tongue kissing each, better damn well get with the new religious program and take zero offense.

It may be that offense to pedophilia and homosexuality are defense mechanisms developed through proper and ordered sexual development. And that development coming through as they say in Christianity the good man loving all morally good things of God, rather than recoiling from them as the man whose mind is darkened by sin and sees any law or rule by God as a burden. In other words the more steeped in sin you are the more and more you prefer sin and the more resentful you are of the moral order: such as a man being restricted to one wife rather than two or four or fifty or unlimited numbers. The heterosexual married swingers resent monogamy too.

Harming homosexuals or pedophiles goes against the moral order, too, however, except supposedly that right given to "legitimate authority" who can hand down punishment be it caning, incarceration, or hanging by the neck. So, what I'm saying is even if a guy is offended by two men kissing or a homosexual guy walking about his business, he has no moral right to harm that person. This is where the Protestant movie The Shack comes in. Beating up a homosexual, cheating on your wife, stealing a car, lying to the IRS, heterosexual premarital sex, masturbation are all equal to homosexual sex and pedophilia in that they all are sins. So, what makes you better than the homosexual? The Orthodox get this too. It's the Catholics who constructed this "okay sins" vs "not okay sins" with their venial vs mortal thing.

But what the Orthodox and Catholic theologian or philosophers might intellectually grasp that many Protestants don't is the effects of sin. Even if one repents the effects of the sin still exist. So, the effects may not be equal and some graver than others. The effects of the homosexual couple is small relative to the car thief and still greater the pedophile.

So, just based on the effects it is reasonable for homosexuality to be legal and car theft and pedophilia to be illegal.

 

[Lursa]

That may be so, maq, but so are the pro homophiles--emotionally invested that is.

Even for a homosexual--who is same sex addicted--if this was purely a matter of intellectualizing and learning about scientific explanations as to the evolutionary design of the human body, the function and purpose of the erect penis ejaculating sperm and the moist vagina, then the purely rational conclusion is that you exercise the right you always had which was and remains to date and/or marry a member of the opposite sex.

But they have a compulsion they can't break free from--or at least few of them do. Because they enjoy the chemically produced euphoria they get in their brain when they go with trying to satisfy that desire they are in bondage too. This is the same case with the pedophile and the pederast. It's the same case with the homosexual. It's the same case with anyone who is into whatever sort of thing "gets them off" or aroused.

How is any of that desire, chemical response, euphoria, inability to break free from, any different than for a heterosexual? Can you break free from your compulsion to be attracted to women?

Straight people feel great desire, euphoria, have all the same chemical responses to lust and sex, and are unable to 'break free from their attraction to the opposite sex'.

Straight people sometimes have unhealthy sexual addictions too. But just being heterosexual and experiencing all the things you named is not unhealthy, it's normal. As it is for gays.

Can you answer my questions, in bold?

 

[FastPace]

How is any of that desire, chemical response, euphoria, inability to break free from, any different than for a heterosexual? Can you break free from your compulsion to be attracted to women?



Can you answer my questions, in bold?

Yes I can answer your question in bold. Heterosexuality is an addiction. Just like pedophilia or homosexuality.

One thing, I don't subscribe to this notion people are completely heterosexual or completely homosexual or even completely bisexual in some 50/50 ratio. I will accept most people tend to being heterosexual--almost entirely (at least given no social dynamics, such as 20 to life in prison, has placed pressures on their "100 heterosexuality"). And I'll accept some, not all, homosexuals tend to being almost entirely attracted to members of their same sex.

The growing rise of the pansexual--which is simply "opening your mind" rather than discriminating sexually against a person due to their biological sex or opposite gender identification or no gender or multiple gender identification--is a direct challenge to dogma held that people can only be born with some set of sexual attractions.

Male-on-male sex far exceeds (far, not a little) female-on-female sex anyways. Given the nature of male sexual arousal through testosterone levels, maybe that should be no surprise. Perhaps somewhat correlated with that is the rate at which men by far rape both men and women and children. Little do most Americans know but the US military is one of the institutions in which males have increased odds of being either "sexually abused" or forcibly raped. If I recall correctly the statistics point to three major institutions: military, prisons, and all boy schools.

In fact the US Veterans Administration Hospitals treat over 30,000 male veterans for sexual abuse they received while in the military. Compared to the 19,000 female veterans the VA treats for sexual abuse they received in the US military. The former has higher numbers but the latter is a hire rate due to being a larger percentage of its population. Nonetheless, the US Government with its de facto state owned mainstream media does not advertise this info like they do sexual abuse of women in the US military (by men--women are also sexually abused, harassed, and raped by butch lesbians in the military but that does not make "news").

But you are correct about the multitudes of things heterosexuals can get into sexually that deviate from the norm (likewise with homosexuals as well). I've gotten into some of them. Hence, why I know what I'm talking about. It's also why I know almost every single heterosexual male is a liar--even to themselves. And the most prone heterosexual males to "experiment" with or "experience" one day something homosexual are those that are pro-homosexul and like, "Oh, it's no big thing." Any body that has that moral disposition towards screwing a 7 year-old child, has no defense mechanism of repulsion, is more an more inches closer to letting a 7 year-old child perform oral sex on them than they think.

Repulsion--be it to hanging blacks from trees, raping women, sodomizing boy children, or homosexuality--may work as a defense mechanism. I say may. I'm not saying it does or always does.

Of course, some very homophobic people might have internal struggles with homosexual attractions themselves. Might. But even if they do so what. There can be honor in battling our "demons." Or at minimum it is choice o do so. That is their right to do so. Another may say... nah, I'll fill happier, more at peace, with no longer struggling with this and just coming to accept it and find someone I enjoy being around and having sex with. Their right to.

Look... I'm one of the biggest sexual sinners. Porn whatever. I have no done everything or gotten into even 90% of the incredibly huge number of sexual fetish out there, but I have gotten into quite a number of them. Eh, I remember the first time by accident, misdirect on the internet when I clicked some link (it took me to some porn site not the site that was listed) and found myself on a free online porn site. And it had these massive number of categories listed for sexual fetishes to watch videos of or see pictures of. I was blown away by the sheer number. I eventually popped my cherry on transexual porn with that. Prior to that I knew people like that existed but thought nothing much of it. But porn expanded my sexual horizons. Online porn that is.

People that say or pretend they could never expand their sexual draws or attractions or however you want to put it are bald face liars. Either that or simply unaware. One can be lured down a number of paths, it only takes an "open mind."

 

[Lursa]

Yes I can answer your question in bold. Heterosexuality is an addiction. Just like pedophilia or homosexuality.

All you did is repeat yourself. You provided no medical or psychiatric peer-reviewed sources.

You're wrong...unless you can prove you are right.

And you avoided answering my questions directly:

How is any of that desire, chemical response, euphoria, inability to break free from, any different than for a heterosexual? Can you break free from your compulsion to be attracted to women?

Straight people feel great desire, euphoria, have all the same chemical responses to lust and sex, and are unable to 'break free from their attraction to the opposite sex'.

Straight people sometimes have unhealthy sexual addictions too. But just being heterosexual and experiencing all the things you named is not unhealthy, it's normal. As it is for gays.

Can you answer my questions, in bold?

Could you 'stop' being heterosexual? If not, then why would you believe that someone could stop being gay?

 

[RamFel]

I

Homosexuality occurs in nature; it is natural.

Don't like it? Don't care.

OK by me, as long as I know the real truth.

Thanks

Bye

 

[FastPace]

All you did is repeat yourself.

I answered your question. You basically asked me if heterosexuality differed--as in not being an addiction--and I told you no that heterosexuality is an addiction.

You provided no medical or psychiatric peer-reviewed sources.

You're wrong...unless you can prove you are right.

Go to college an enroll in a course in logic. None of that you mention makes some claim "right."

I remember when I was a child and some medical study came out claiming steroids does not increase muscle size in bodybuilders, that it was just all in their heads.

Of course science was wrong--and peer review doesn't make any claim true :roll:--and it only takes a little common sense to figure out your sexual attractions are addiction if in fact you will not die being celibate yet you still have a compulsion (an obsession).

And you avoided answering my questions directly:



Could you 'stop' being heterosexual? If not, then why would you believe that someone could stop being gay?

I'm heterosexual and a crack addict--and alcoholic (the two substance addictions they refer to as "dual addictions")--they are the same thing. My heterosexuality is no different than my crack addiction other than it is a weaker addiction than crack addiction. Crack produces an orgasmic feeling, as in sexual orgasm feeling, or sexual euphoria, and I would say it is about 10 times stronger an orgasmic feeling than the best orgasm any heterosexual or homosexual could have. Is crack addiction a sexual orientation then?

I don't care what the medical community says. Most of them never smoked crack or got hooked on it. They are ignorant--as ignorant as when they pontificated "we have no evidence anabolic steroids increases muscle mass (by the way, every bodybuilder using steroids knew otherwise and they weren't doctors or scientists). And so, in their sheer ignorance they can pontificate heterosexuality is not an addiction. Does not make them right.

Could I stop being "heterosexual"? I don't know... could I stop being a crack addict and an alcoholic? I would reframe the question: can I as a heterosexual, crack addict, and alcoholic become other things besides that.

I've had homosexual sex by the way. It is quite common in drug addiction world particularly with crack owing to its sexually orgasmic feeling for many. Likewise it is very common for so-called 100% lesbians to have sex with men for crack. If your eyes are blue try miraculously changing them to brown to get crack cocaine? Your homosexuality or heterosexuality is nothing like your damned eye color. If it were lesbians would not be sleeping with men for crack.

How heterosexuality can differ from crack addiction, alcoholism, homosexuality, pedophilia is that if it is temepred then it is ordered and a healthy good.

So, yeah, I have the arrogance to defy the "powerful" and "all knowing" of this world by having the audacity to conceptualize addiction differently. Many of you hypocrites had the audacity decades ago to conceputalize homosexuality differently than the almighty powerful, and you thereby proclaimed it a good and healthy thing. But as hypocrites you get your butts up on your shoulders when I conceputalize addiction differently. That being that addiction need not be thought of as only, always something that ends in destruction and reduced health. I'm saying people get addicted and some addictions may in fact be healthy. Like getting addicted to jogging, getting addicted to eating a well balanced diet etc. On the other hand... one can get addicted to lesser and greater unhealthy things even destructive things.

No, I don't care if the almighty in academia and science disagree with me.






Let's take a case example of homosexuality and a person that just can't stop.


Priest paid his male ‘sex master’ from collection plate: lawsuit | New York Post



Article dated: December 10, 2015

Their suit alleges he used the money to act out unholy fantasies as a sexual “slave,” blowing $1,000 at a time on bondage-and-discipline sessions where a “homosexual sex ‘master’ ” — identified in court papers as Keith Crist — “would force Father Miqueli to drink Keith Crist’s urine.”

Further info into how deep the gay play scandal and $$$ embezzlement runs in this New York City case:

EXCLUSIVE TELL-ALL INTERVIEW—NYC Gay Priest Embezzlement Scandal

 

[Lursa]

I answered your question. You basically asked me if heterosexuality differed--as in not being an addiction--and I told you no that heterosexuality is an addiction.



Go to college an enroll in a course in logic. None of that you mention makes some claim "right."

I remember when I was a child and some medical study came out claiming steroids does not increase muscle size in bodybuilders, that it was just all in their heads.

Of course science was wrong--and peer review doesn't make any claim true :roll:--and it only takes a little common sense to figure out your sexual attractions are addiction if in fact you will not die being celibate yet you still have a compulsion (an obsession).






I'm heterosexual and a crack addict--and alcoholic (the two substance addictions they refer to as "dual addictions")--they are the same thing. My heterosexuality is no different than my crack addiction other than it is a weaker addiction than crack addiction. Crack produces an orgasmic feeling, as in sexual orgasm feeling, or sexual euphoria, and I would say it is about 10 times stronger an orgasmic feeling than the best orgasm any heterosexual or homosexual could have. Is crack addiction a sexual orientation then?

I don't care what the medical community says. Most of them never smoked crack or got hooked on it. They are ignorant--as ignorant as when they pontificated "we have no evidence anabolic steroids increases muscle mass (by the way, every bodybuilder using steroids knew otherwise and they weren't doctors or scientists). And so, in their sheer ignorance they can pontificate heterosexuality is not an addiction. Does not make them right.

Could I stop being "heterosexual"? I don't know... could I stop being a crack addict and an alcoholic? I would reframe the question: can I as a heterosexual, crack addict, and alcoholic become other things besides that.

I've had homosexual sex by the way. It is quite common in drug addiction world particularly with crack owing to its sexually orgasmic feeling for many. Likewise it is very common for so-called 100% lesbians to have sex with men for crack. If your eyes are blue try miraculously changing them to brown to get crack cocaine? Your homosexuality or heterosexuality is nothing like your damned eye color. If it were lesbians would not be sleeping with men for crack.

How heterosexuality can differ from crack addiction, alcoholism, homosexuality, pedophilia is that if it is temepred then it is ordered and a healthy good.

So, yeah, I have the arrogance to defy the "powerful" and "all knowing" of this world by having the audacity to conceptualize addiction differently. Many of you hypocrites had the audacity decades ago to conceputalize homosexuality differently than the almighty powerful, and you thereby proclaimed it a good and healthy thing. But as hypocrites you get your butts up on your shoulders when I conceputalize addiction differently. That being that addiction need not be thought of as only, always something that ends in destruction and reduced health. I'm saying people get addicted and some addictions may in fact be healthy. Like getting addicted to jogging, getting addicted to eating a well balanced diet etc. On the other hand... one can get addicted to lesser and greater unhealthy things even destructive things.

No, I don't care if the almighty in academia and science disagree with me.






Let's take a case example of homosexuality and a person that just can't stop.


Priest paid his male ‘sex master’ from collection plate: lawsuit | New York Post



Article dated: December 10, 2015



Further info into how deep the gay play scandal and $$$ embezzlement runs in this New York City case:

So really, you dismiss all the science and *facts* on this and go on your own experience. Uh huh.

And you post something about a gay sex addict. Funny, there are straight sex addicts too. Straight people have sexual compunctions that they cant (or maybe can) control too. And plenty of scandals where they pay off people to hid their indiscretions like cheating on their spouses and being into S&M.

So you just repeated yourself, again, providing no substance of fact. You can imagine whatever you want...doesnt make it reality. No one's gong to believe you over the consensus of the medical and psychiatric communities....nor the actual individuals themselves...some of whom would not choose to be gay if they were not born that way...as society has treated them in a most vile manner for the most part.

 

[FastPace]

So really, you dismiss all the science and *facts* on this and go on your own experience. Uh huh.

The science is equivalent to the earth is flat.

So you just repeated yourself, again, providing no substance of fact. You can imagine whatever you want...doesnt make it reality. No one's gong to believe you over the consensus of the medical and psychiatric communities....nor the actual individuals themselves...some of whom would not choose to be gay if they were not born that way...as society has treated them in a most vile manner for the most part.

You act as if I have no sexual orientation. As if only homosexuals and transsexuals and queers (for the Q in LGBTQ) can know what they were born.

My sexual attraction is to women. But how they hell would I know if I was "born that way" unless 2 days out the womb I was getting erections looking at women's breasts? In fact, I distinctly recall when I was very young I wanted nothing to do with girls, and was not sexually attracted to them. But at some point that changed. So, I reject this who notion people always have known 1, 2, 12th day out the womb what their "sexual orientation" was.

And really... I don't give a damn what homosexuals would not wanted to have been. Plenty of alcoholics and crackheads didn't choose to be alcoholics and crackheads. Many of them claim they were "born that way" too. No one is born heterosexual, homosexual, queer, transsexual, alcoholic, a child molester, a Republican, communist, or like Raquel D a white black woman trapped in a white woman's body.

Otherwise... why tear down a Christopher Columbus statue? For all we known maybe "he felt" and therefore was a midget, Amerindian, woman?






In science they say all you need to do to disprove something (science focuses more on disproving than proving things--in fact it claims it never proves anything but only increases confidence in a proposition) is one example, just one, contradicting the proposition. So it frequently gives the example:

"All birds are white."

You don't need to observe two or two billion non-white birds to disprove that claim. All you need on all of planet earth--according to science--is just one single case of a non-white bird.

So, if you observe one black bird let alone fifty blacks birds the claim all birds are white is shown to be false.

So, I'm saying, all you need is one homosexual on all of planet earth to date women, develop a sexual attraction to women, to prove the claim no homosexual could ever develop an attraction to the opposite sex is false. But as I told you before. I do not believe anyone is 100% heterosexual or 100% homosexual. So, I don't even start with the ingrained dogma of that conceputalization.

Here is one homosexual on all of planet earth making a claim just as I have that homosexuality is an addiction. Never even heard of this guy until I just watched this video partly last night and today.

Fast forward to approximately the 16:09 mark of the video when the woman begins speaking. She talks about him, then they show a clip of him speaking in his own words. Nota bene, he compares homosexuals to alcoholics and drug addicts, and goes on to say "we are a nation of addicts." This guy was a militant homosexual for 30 years of his life. Now says he is happier than ever having given that up. I think he as girlfriend or wife. I can't recall--has slipped my mind.



So, for years I was vehemently hated (apparently they didn't have "love" and "care about my feelings" or "about mental health" among Americans, or low life drug addicts like me, who can never know anything like the rest of you supreme beings who Jesus is just so impressed with every day) by establishment conservative and liberal Catholics. But I always said one day I would be vindicated. And now more and more "peasant Catholics" are rising up challenging the storyline of the elites. This former homosexual is saying what I said.

If homosexuals weren't addicts--like crackheads and gambling addicts that loose jobs, money, status, risk violence--then if life is so bad as being homosexual why not simply stop? As in why doesn't the crackhead and gambling addict simply stop? Why the hell get humiliated by Joe P and the mafia, why get beat up by them owing money yet again, why get your knees broken? Why not just stop?


Video Warning: Language:

 

[Lursa]

The science is equivalent to the earth is flat.





You act as if I have no sexual orientation. As if only homosexuals and transsexuals and queers (for the Q in LGBTQ) can know what they were born.

My sexual attraction is to women. But how they hell would I know if I was "born that way" unless 2 days out the womb I was getting erections looking at women's breasts? In fact, I distinctly recall when I was very young I wanted nothing to do with girls, and was not sexually attracted to them. But at some point that changed. So, I reject this who notion people always have known 1, 2, 12th day out the womb what their "sexual orientation" was.

And really... I don't give a damn what homosexuals would not wanted to have been. Plenty of alcoholics and crackheads didn't choose to be alcoholics and crackheads. Many of them claim they were "born that way" too. No one is born heterosexual, homosexual, queer, transsexual, alcoholic, a child molester, a Republican, communist, or like Raquel D a white black woman trapped in a white woman's body.

The bold shows that you are the one using "the earth is flat" science.

Or course heterosexuality is a sexual orientation. Did you choose to be attracted to women? As an adolescent or adult?

(Your references to feeling sexual attraction as a young child show just how poorly you have understood this topic, period.)

 

[FastPace]

The bold shows that you are the one using "the earth is flat" science.

Eh, no. I took some university courses in physical (biological) anthropology, biology, anatomy and physiology. A forensic anthropologist for example, called in investigate a mass grave which is presumed to have the skeletal remains of abducted left-wing protestors murdered during some period of a right-wing dictatorship in Latin America, can often objectively, that is scientifically, identify the sex of the former persons from their skeletal remains.

So, if Caitlyn Jenner was abducted and buried, and 100 years from now here skeletal remains where found, it is likely a forensic anthroplogist even if they did not know the identity of the person could objectively say they skeletal remains are that of a person that was male, between the ages of x and y, and was roughly B height.

Homosexuals united and connect themselves to all under the LGBTQ acronym. Which is telling. There is no H for Heterosexual in there. Rather... the L's, G's, and B's of the acronym see themselves as more mentally similar to T's and Q's than to heterosexuals. Nota Bene, homosexuals therefore truck in the T's and Q's and any other letters of the future they will attach to the acronym. So, that if we were to view homosexual facilitation in the micro society of the Catholic clergy what would find is a disproportionate number of priest would target teenage boys (not girls as they have access to both girls and women not only in the Church but throughout the broader society including prostitutes), we will have wild gay orgies that are drug fueled in Vatican apartments, and the advancement of break down in all discipline and morals related to sex.

Or course heterosexuality is a sexual orientation. Did you choose to be attracted to women? As an adolescent or adult?

My heterosexuality is an addiction. Period. I also have a runners high addiction too. I have an addiction to coffee. I have many addictions. My alcoholism and crack addiction are the only ones that evolved into becoming what some would term "dysfunctional" as opposed to being "functionally addicted." By "dysfunctional" I mean that it began to get in the way of showing up for work, on job work performance/productivity, my reliability to many things, paying bills etc.

But such "dysfunction" is a paradox in one's addiction, because absent dysfunction and resulting suffering, rare is the case one has sufficient motivation to arrest their addiction. So, no homosexual, heterosexual, or cigarette smoker goes through such severe withdrawals that they defecate on themselves, lay in pain and agony, legs hurting, like the heroin addict does going through withdrawal. So, consequently, it is in many ways harder to give up homosexual sex, heterosexual premarital sex, cigarettes, or eating junk food constantly than it is heroin. Because one can always be "functional" if they are cheating on their wife with multiple beautiful women over the years, or if they are a man and love being sodomized and love to deep throat erect penises.

I suspect this is one problem with pedophiles is that it starts off masturbating after work--and they are still fully "functional" people. Thus, being a functional addict is something of a double edged sword. In fact, in the right environment, other doing just as you, you may not even realize you are addicted. But then you deliver a liver problem. Or you contract HIV.

I want to point out I doubt pedophiles have chosen to be pedophiles. That is a curse I doubt one wished upon themselves. Yet it is a curse--an addiction--they carry the burden of. So, the LGBTQ like the crack addict ought be thankful they don't have the cross of being a pedophile.

As for when I became sexually attracted to the opposite sex... I do not recall the exact age. I was still in grade school though. But I distinctly remember prior to the 1st grade, while going to Day Care, I did not like girls (sexually or even to play with--I think I recall saying, "Girls are stupid").

 

[FastPace]

(Your references to feeling sexual attraction as a young child show just how poorly you have understood this topic, period.)

No, I said I was not sexually attracted to girl--or women's breasts--7th day out the womb. And I understand sexuality just fine, as well as any 12 year-old running around talking about they were born gay.

A 7 year-old boy says he is a girl, his parents dress him up as a girl, and both the 7 year-old and the parents are like God Almighty and perceive all these "deep truths." Then you have you people that indirectly claim after during 4 years in Marine Corps, having sex with males and females post military, studying biology in college, I have zero clue about my own sexuality let alone another persons. But any 7 year-old boy that agrees with you all, and falls under the holy label of LGBTQ, knows so damn much about themselves and the whole world. :roll:

I don't give to rats behind what some jerk off in Congress, the Catholic Church, the LAPD, or some liberal scientist says. And unlike them you can't blackmail me or intimidate me into joining your new parrot cult. You got guns, knives, sticks, and rope then go get them. I'll point the tree out for you. I did more years in hell as a crackhead then most you people went without the "torment" of a week without sex with another person. I'll out last you. I'm tougher, stronger, faster, and smarter. I'm used to "hate" and an "unfair" world. I'm built for it.

So, you go tell Pope Francis it. McCain and Hillary. I don't give a [F word] about hate. Or war. And I don't give a [F word] about how many of them die (or cry). Including all those laid dead or crying in Las Vegas.

 

[FastPace]

LGBTQ

What does the "Q" (Queer) stand for? Must be "science" that brought it about and not peoples personal experience who claim not to be "heterosexual" if Lursa's pontification on "truth" holds true.

But I suspect science will follow behind the glamor, money, politics, and demands of the LGBT-Q's and carry out studies aimed at giving conformation that the Q'ism is a result of being born that way. (Makes you wonder you the Muslim woman below could be on a self discovery journey and trying to *figure out* where to fit in and *how to identitfy* herself).




But wait! wait! it is pure blasphemy to challenge the sacred dogma of addiction as handed down for decades. All and any addiction is bad. Addicts made themselves become addicted. Addicts are bad. Therefore LGBTQ are not addicts because like the Q's one was Q even 3 days out the womb.

Full article: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2015/06/01/lgbtq-questioning-queer-meaning/26925563/

"Queer is anything that exists outside of the dominant narrative," Cleo Anderson, a 26-year-old intern at GLAAD, a prominent gay rights group, told USA TODAY Network. Anderson identifies with the term.

I love this paragraph here too... developed from pure science:

"Queer means that you are one of those letters (LGBT), but you could be all of those letters and not knowing is OK," she said.

What Is Queer? A Queer Muslim Explains the Q in LGBTQ | Queer Girl

Oh what does she mean the identifications will grow more numerous over time :3oops:? Oh my, how can that be, the un-addicted Democrats, with their Luciferian conservative Catholic conspirators have implied nothing more will be added within the LGBTQ or LGBTQ+ acronyms, for they are the epitome of temperance and only follow behind science rather than leading science.