Originally posted by shavixmirAlways the empiricist!
No. Your spelling is wrong.
The thing is, right, is if you've never eaten salmon, how on earth do you know if you don't like it?
See.
So, what I propose you do is suck jizzim and have someone's hard-on stuffed up your anus and then once you've actually experienced something, come back and rephrase your question, sharing your experience with us, backed up by some paperwork.
Originally posted by XanthosNZIf no other animals were homosexual, then that would be cited as evidence of the unnaturalness of human homosexuality.
"Homosexuality isn't natural"
"Here's a whole list of animals in nature and homosexuality"
"Well animals are just animals!"
😕
However, the fact that some animal are homosexual is not cited as evidence of the naturalness of human homosexuality.
It's spot the asymmetry time!
Ok, so we've concluded that homosexuality is quite natural, and it's
not "bad" in the sense that it's perfectly harmless. Being disgusted
is not enough to call it bad, as you can always turn your head in the
other direction when homosexuals kiss in public. What we're left with then is...
...Morality...
...which is really quite arbitrary. If someone grows up without having
moral lessons taught xe may come up with some moral behaviour on xer
own, but it's not necessarily so. That means morals are something we're
taught from childhood, and as it becomes second nature to us we tend to
think of it as quite natural (even though it may not be).
Usually the idea behind having a set of moral guidelines to follow is to
allow us to coexist and work together such that our living standards can
improve. But to have a set of moral standards that prevents people from
being who they really are, even though they're not a threat to anyone, is
counter productive. I'd even go so far as to say that if the majority
impose such a moral double-standard on minorities it can be directly
harmful to them in both a psychological and emotional way, hence the
morality (not homosexuality) is now "bad" as it serves to harm people.
Originally posted by xsYou've seen so such conclusion? What does that mean? 😛
I've seen so such conclusion.
We've concluded that many animals, just like many humans, engage in
homosexual behaviour. Nemesio has also pointed out that "natural"
behaviour is not the same as "normative" behaviour. So, someone can
be quite natural yet deviate from the masses (the masses which may
also be quite natural). In short, natural doesn't mean that every single
living thing must adopt the exact same behaviour or like the exact same
things. In fact, I would call that quite unnatural.
Now, have we concluded that if you are a homosexual you can be just as
natural as the heterosexual?
Originally posted by stockenRight or wrong, active male homosexuality is disgusting when considered with reference to the main function of the anus.
You've seen so such conclusion? What does that mean? 😛
We've concluded that many animals, just like many humans, engage in
homosexual behaviour. Nemesio has also pointed out that "natural"
behaviour is not the same as "normative" behaviour. So, someone can
be quite natural yet deviate from the masses (the masses which may
also be quite natural). ...[text shortened]... concluded that if you are a homosexual you can be just as
natural as the heterosexual?
Originally posted by JeeHa ha ha ha 😵
Well my gran ma used to tell me that I had to wash the eggs before thats were they came from.
Did she lie to me 🙁
Who can you trust! 😕
Ask yourself this, from which hole do women deliver their babies? The real
arse or the front arse?
Edit: Whoops! I kinda swallow my own laugh here. You're right
Jee. Birds do lay their eggs from their cloaca (which is synonymous
to our anus). 😳
Sorry. 😕
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bird
Originally posted by stockenYou just seem to be a defender of the faith,so to speak, and I was curious to know whether or not you were an active practioner and if so which role you assumed.
What makes you think I'm either? And if you find sodomy so disgusting why
would you even want to know?