- Joined
- May 19, 2006
- Messages
- 156,720
- Reaction score
- 53,497
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
And all the gays are entertaining us with your EXCUSES for deviant behavior. What is really funny is how defensive you become
translated, you know it is deviant behavior and could nlt think of anything else to say
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.
You are gay
Moderator's Warning: |
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.
Getting a clue is a good idea, but I am afraid you are lacking. Stimulation can be done by either genderThe 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…
Good point, but thus is only in regards to anal sex, something widely practiced by heterosexuals.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?
nobody engages in sexuality to serve nature.Oral stimulation serves the means of … (wait for it) STIMULATION… and where that function serves the biological design (See: Above) it serves nature.
so your bigotry is to save the world? Everything in the above statement is stupidly absurd.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!)
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.HYSTERICAL! On every level and in every sense of the word.
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.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.
To further discredit you yes it did. Thanks.I hope that helps…
Normal is dictated by behavior only. Biology doesn't dictate what is normal, sorry.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.
Procreation is a separate issue from sexual orientation. This is very basic stuff. Please educate yourself on this issue.
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.
Normal is dictated by behavior only. Biology doesn't dictate what is normal, sorry.
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.
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?
Is white skin abnormal?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.
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.
Nope, bisexual.
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.
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?
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.
Case in point, you lose again.
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. 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.
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.
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.
nor·mal**
/ˈnôrməl/
Adjective Conforming to a standard; usual, typical, or expected.
Noun The usual, average, or typical state or condition.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?