Gay Cure MERGED

I don't think that's what he believes.. at least, not about straight people.

 

I dont think the physiological love and the emotions that follow it are 'all' there you can certainly find a higher love after that.
Heck.. there are people who show great acts of love for people they have never even met in person - or just met in person!
I think about the Pastors and Parents in the New Orleans 'Superdome' who gathered large groups of families and kids and then led the sections into songs and hymns.
Just amazing love happened in there.

But the biological and physiological impulses and bonds in a sexual relationship are most definately real.
I suggest that is exactly what gays experience and try to keep going even though they are not quite the intended combination.
Is there higher love added to this - sure.
Does it 'work right'.
I suggest that it rarely can or is done with a great deal of damage along the way.

 

I read all E70's anti-gay posts, and I feel he isn't trying to prove a point, but to explain the 'truth', to teach us, and 'inshallah', save our souls. Gay is bad, mkay? This is his position. So, if I read him right, he want's to explain that 'truth' to those who he sees as misguided. I support gay rights, 100%, and I support Erasmus70's right to disapprove, but I differ in that I feel content to let others live their lives as they choose. If they are gay, right on, I accept them as they are. If being gay is wrong, which I don't think, then Erasmus70 will have to do better than what I have read so far if I am to change my view. Nothing he has said has in any way lessened the strength of the conviction of my pro-gay view.

 

homoSEXUAL/heteroSEXUAL.. the word SEX meaning GENGER. Not sex/coitus.

Erasmus, I think your not getting the point. Maybe this is something that you will never understand, and thats ok. you dont have to understand homosexuality. Your striaght. So dont concern yourself with other peoples affairs. Live your life and let others live.
I love women, you love women.
lets rejoice in our similarties instead of dwelling on the differences.

 

Im suggesting that everyone is 'straight' and everyone is 'heterosexual' in that they are intended to be with a member of the opposite sex, sexually.
You 'Can' put a round peg in a square hole and you can even say 'look it fits' but that doesnt mean its what you 'Should' try and do.

Wheres the research for my suggestion?
Between your legs.
If you have a penis, testicles and produce sperm (along with a dozen other things specifically FOR a vagina) then that is called conclusive evidence where you are to be going.
Reverse that around for those with a vagina, womb, ovaries and what not.

Surprise.. Ovaries are not designed and exists for a hand!

[please do not interupt the conversation with exceptions to the rule as they only prove a rule exists in the first place. there are very very exceedingly rare examples of 'hermaphrodites' etc so please shut your piehole thanks]

 

Bravo! Well put, thanks for the wise words, TheMistress. I try to find common ground with all people, though sometimes that is quite hard. I bet you a nickel that the member your post is intended for will not be able to accept that your sexuality is as normal as his. Not that that matters to me. I like Ben Franklin's advice quote, "Never give advice, the wise don't need it, and fools won't take it."

 

.
Erasamus70, your proof seems to revolve around your loathing of human genitalia. And thanks for the excellent exception to your ideas on gods plan, hermaphrodites, which aren't the only example that disproves your rule. There's a punk song with the chorus, "God doesn't always make the best god damned plans, now does he." It makes me laugh because it rings true, and is true of genitalia. Many animals have a tremendously difficult time copulating, to the point that most couplings fail to even pass seed.

Humans actually seem to be quite mismatched. The clitoris is placed out of the way, so that women require a hand in order to be stimulated to climax during sex. Also men with too long of a penis have done damage to the cervix. The anal cavity is much more accommodating. Men have a prostate gland, which is highly stimulated by anal sex. It is the only internal organ with such a response. There is absolutely no intelligent design reason for why it is so receptive to a stimulation that doesn't occur in male to female sex. Actually, the organ couldn't be better designed for male to male sex. I can attest to orgasms obtained by prostate stimulation alone.

You are groping at the terrible straws of bigotry. It is sad to witness your venom and hatred. What on earth did they do to you? You need help to get over it.
.

 

intended by who?

 

No they dont. virtually all males can have successful intercourse with virtualy all females on the planet. So successfully that its considered 'really really incredible' and people constantly try or want to do it a lot.

Total nonsense.
Sounds like something you heard no a 'sexpert' radio show hosted by some lady.

Total nonsense.
I already said beforehand that giving examples of people (in this case retarded or drug impaired people) only proves the rule.
The Cervix will loudly protest being bumped that hard and there is zero reason to continue doing it.
This is actually the very reason we have 'pain' sensations and they work perfectly in case of this exception.

So wrong its not even funny.

No. You might have a psychological 'fetish' for this but in reality the prostate gland is an internal organ NOT INSIDE THE ANUS btw and I have no idea what exactly you mean by 'is the only internal organ with such a response'.
Huh?

Well a doctor can enter your rectum and palpate the the prostate gland in such a way as to push out seminal fluid.
That is what is happening btw... its not an 'orgasm'.

I could go on a tear about how this is exactly what certain people have been wanting you and others to believe since the start of the 'Male Gspot' hoax/propaganda campaigns but...


.. You left out some horrible consequences here. While you might think its 'natural' to have a finger or erection push into the anus (which is not lubricating unless its by blood or feces?) then taking a sharp turn and by pushing throught the rectal lining and into the prostate gland - causing the seminal fluid to push itself out is all 'Normal'...
You should first know that there are some other problems - for starters, despite your belief a penis is made to fit into an anus, the penis does not have an ability to defend itself from fecal matter being pushed into it.
Its called 'bad'.
The acids in the rectum are also very bad for a penis but I suppose you can just deny that if you want.
Despite your belief that the anus is made for pooping AND being entered by a sperm depositing penis - it doesnt have ovaries.
In fact, semen is not beneficial to a rectum.
Worse yet - the lining of the rectum (which you insist should be pushed through) is absolutely not like the lining of a vagina.
It tears very easily actually and in case you were wondering this is why AIDS spread very quickly - semen easily getting into the blood stream through tears in the lining.

Anyways.. the whole feces thing should be enough to put the breaks on the theory of yours.
I think the fact there are no ovaries in the anus would be another problem for you there.

This makes me wonder about your views of my position in life and where Im coming from?
You think Anal sex is 'natural' and even insinuate that it is superior to regular sex. You have even suggested that Im the one with a problem. That my thinking is 'unnatural'. So let me give you a chance to clarify your beliefs about my lifestyle:

Would you agree that There is something very unhealthy about Christianity?
If so:
Would you say The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death and When better understanding has become widespread - Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity?

Another question .. considering you believe homosexuality is not only protected by government (actually it is, I know) but maybe even to be condoned (ie Marriage etc) then would you see to it that the Churches cannot spread around teachings in conflict with the interests of the Government?
(if that was possible of course)

Your answers appreciated?

 

Ahem..

 

So your argument comes down to sex should be limited to the natural function of the anatomical parts. Ok that is a viewpoint - so that leaves us with penis in the vagina sex. No oral or anal sex for anybody. There are also sound infection control reasons (density of bacterial colonies on the hand vs. the sex organs) not to be having hand to sex organ contact. Also from an infection control standpoint oral kissing is a major disaster. That is what surgical masks are far. So down with kissing and masturbation. However, there are those STD’s to think about. The are spread by penis/vaginal sex. O but wait if we only have one sex partner each during out lifetime. That goes for each and everyone of you or it will not work. Then the STD’s will disappear. Now there is a certain amount of risk with each act of intercourse (especially once you have eliminated foreplay for health reasons) do not forget to keep your hands of those breasts also, there is some new information that mammograms may be harmful so we better not be playing with those either. I guess the only solution would be to limit sex to heterosexual vaginal intercourse done without foreplay only as needed for reproduction. Is that what you would like us to sign up for?

PS Since it is a quote from you, I would like to ask permission to add “a willing victim of those sorts” to my sig. I kind of like the ring of that.

 

I personally wouldn't. But I can understand why people would. I'm not a parent myself (thank fuck), but I'm pretty sure that most people, if you asked them, would say they wanted a "normal" child. After that, it's just a question of how far you pursue that normality.

 

Perhaps. But you'd be going against nature by curing its defects anyway.

 

Fleas aren't defects though, are they. More to my point, if there's one thing that characterises nature, it is its refusal to stick to one design, its tendency towards "defects" rather than direct copies. As I understand it, homosexuality is as much part of nature as an opposable thumb or a cleft palate. On those grounds, it seems facetious to declare something unnatural simply because it is undesireable.

It's not uncommon in a species, particularly an over-populated one, for an increase in those who do not reproduce. Nature even produces frogs whose genders change in accordance with what is beneficial to the population.

I'm not having a go or anything, but to me, the argument that homosexuality is unnatural seems like a dead end: not only do huge amounts of things human beings do could be considered unnatural by the same yardstick, the definition of "nature", "natural" etc. varies from person to person and from generation to generation.

 

So you're that happy with your definition of what's natural then?

For the record, human beings aren't the only species who, in their natural environment and uninfluenced by outside agency, engage in recreational (i.e. non-reproductive) sex. So it wouldn't really be "manipulating" the statement to say that, in nature, sex isn't just for reproduction. In fact it seems that, whenever a population becomes dominant enough to have any spare time, they very often engage in "unproductive" variations of their "natural" behaviour.

But, as someone above said, if you think sex which doesn't at least attempt to make babies is unnatural and that unnatural things shouldn't happen, you're setting yourself up for a very grim existence.

 

Same as a guy getting his rocks off inside your girlfriend's ass, then?

 

Right, and it does absolutely no harm to the rest of you earthly inhabitants. God didn't put me on this earth to satisfy you. But if gay makes me happy, maybe that makes me a more pleasant person and that means I'll stop and help you pick up your groceries when your bag tears in the parking lot, rather than honk my horn and laugh. And that is good for the rest of you earthly inhabitants. (oh, and btw, thanks for counting me out of the race.)

You people confuse power and control with happiness. You believe that if you have complete control over my life that god will smile on you and you will be happy. That's just sick. Life doesn't work that way. You never find peace and happiness like that.

 

CAESAR (recovering his self-possession). Pardon him. Theodotus: he is a barbarian, and thinks that the customs of his tribe and island are the laws of nature.

 

Agreed, God mad everything I think even if some people think it's good or bad.

 

moral theories are teleological theories that claim that human actions, motives, institutions, distributions of social benefits/burdens, and the like, are right if, and only if, they maximize overall happiness or welfare.


I think that J.S. Mill was the big guy behind this but I am not sure.
​