Do you expect your wife to submit to you?

Originally posted by stellspalfie
nope 'most' (which admittedly is not 'all', but still a huge exaggeration).

so i guess i'll see you in class.

yeah remedial class.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yeah remedial class.

robbie!! our little, bisexual. scottish fun-boy. which way are you swinging today?

Originally posted by stellspalfie
robbie!! our little, bisexual. scottish fun-boy. which way are you swinging today?

I am not bisexual as you have erroneously assumed, I have never committed a homosexual act. Today I am celibate. Why it should be of concern to you, I cannot say, perhaps my sex life is more interesting than yours despite your proclivity for ambushing your poor wife wearing super hero suits! Who are you today. Bat man? Wonder woman?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I am not bisexual as you have erroneously assumed, I have never committed a homosexual act. Today I am celibate.

if you chose to, you could do it though,right? thats what you said yesterday. this means you could get aroused over a man.if you decided to.............
..........and if you can get aroused by a man you are either bi or homosexual. i presume its bi as there is a mrs carrobie (unless you are living a lie).

perhaps my sex life is more interesting

im sure it is considering all the directions you can swing in. especially if who or what you sleep with is just a matter of deciding.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
if you chose to, you could do it though,right? thats what you said yesterday. this means you could get aroused over a man.if you decided to.............
..........and if you can get aroused by a man you are either bi or homosexual. i presume its bi as there is a mrs carrobie (unless you are living a lie).

[b]perhaps my sex life is more interesting[/ ...[text shortened]... ections you can swing in. especially if who or what you sleep with is just a matter of deciding.

what i actually said was that anyone as a free moral agent can engage in any kind of sexual act, are you disputing that? on what basis are you disputing it? If you are not disputing it then your words make no sense and you seem intent to believe nothing but your own propaganda.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
what i actually said was that anyone as a free moral agent can engage in any kind of sexual act, are you disputing that? on what basis are you disputing it? If you are not disputing it then your words make no sense and you seem intent to believe nothing but your own propaganda.

it would seem pretty obvious to most people. a free moral agent is restricted by biological make-up. i for example (unlike your good self) would be unable to get an erection if i attempted to have sex with a man.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
it would seem pretty obvious to most people. a free moral agent is restricted by biological make-up. i for example (unlike your good self) would be unable to get an erection if i attempted to have sex with a man.

So your biological make up is preventing you from engaging in all kinds of sexual acts. Is that really what you are saying?

It is in fact demonstrably false. Prisoners who are incarcerated and who may have been heterosexual their entire life may be coerced to engage in homosexual acts not by some biological causation but by mere expediency.

Why does their biological make-up not prevent them from doing so, because predisposition is not the same as causation and your vain appeal to genetics, the typical materialistic dogma is both philosophically and scientifically unsound.

Further to that if genetics was such a determining factor as you have erroneously assumed then humans could not be said to possess free will but to be at the whim of their genetic make up, is that really what you are saying?

When will the next criminal claim that he was coerced to rape someone because of his genetics, according to your theory, he should be able to make a viable defence, if its valid. Is that really the case? is it?

Originally posted by RJHinds
Some people seem to enjoy eating their boogers. Others, not so much. It may be an acquired taste. Who knows?

An acquired taste suggest that snot eaters didn't initially like it, but through group pressure and/or out of necessity forced themselves, until they eventually learned to like it. I'm sure that's not the case, anywhere in the world.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
it would seem pretty obvious to most people. a free moral agent is restricted by biological make-up. i for example (unlike your good self) would be unable to get an erection if i attempted to have sex with a man.

I am quite sure if two dandy shandy drinking ballet dancers like you and divesgeester snuggled up to each other in a cosy prison cell it wouldn't be too long before you forgot your genetic predisposition and became amorous towards each other despite your vain protestations to the contrary, after all, unlike me, you have no moral imperative not to.

Originally posted by Suzianne
This is what I hate most about some atheists in this forum.

They tend to lump all theists together in one big pile, all having the same beliefs, same preferences, same knowledge, same everything.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

What are you on about? 🙄

Originally posted by C Hess
An acquired taste suggest that snot eaters didn't initially like it, but through group pressure and/or out of necessity forced themselves, until they eventually learned to like it. I'm sure that's not the case, anywhere in the world.

Its the case with things like smoking cigarettes, people turn green the first time and then are coerced and eventually learn to like it.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
So your biological make up is preventing you from engaging in all kinds of sexual acts. Is that really what you are saying?

It is in fact demonstrably false. Prisoners who are incarcerated and who may have been heterosexual their entire life may be coerced to engage in homosexual acts not by some biological causation but by mere expediency.
...[text shortened]... eory, he should be able to make a viable defence, if its valid. Is that really the case? is it?

So your biological make up is preventing you from engaging in all kinds of sexual acts. Is that really what you are saying?

yes.

It is in fact demonstrably false. Prisoners who are incarcerated and who may have been heterosexual their entire life may be coerced to engage in homosexual acts not by some biological causation but by mere expediency.

i work in a prison environment. i can tell you, the straight guys dont have sex men due to the lack of women. there are some men who profess to be heterosexual but engage in homosexual activity (im simplify things a little) but a quick look in their files usually tells a different story.

using your prison 'logic'. if you were to take random heterosexual men and lock them up with children do you think 'mere expediency' would turn them to paedophilia?


When will the next criminal claim that he was coerced to rape someone because of his genetic

what??? genetics are not a legal excuse. if a guy rapes, then he has committed a crime regardless if its caused by genetics.

i work with several guys who commit extremely violent acts due to issues with the development of their amygdala's. they still receive prison sentences regardless if its a genetic issue.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Its the case with things like smoking cigarettes, people turn green the first time and then are coerced and eventually learn to like it.

Exactly. Clearly, unless you live in a very weird culture, this is not the case with snot eating. So, as someone who doesn't enjoy named practise, I am apparently denying the purpose of my design, by sonship's logic. Finger fits nose, snot is rich in proteins, proteins are required for survival, hence, I was designed to eat snot, and yet I have no desire to do so. Same thing with gay people. They don't want to eat sn... have sex with the opposite sex, because they're not attracted to the opposite sex, purposeful design or not. How hard can this be?

Not saying there's anything wrong with snot eaters either, of course. I may have taken this analogy just a wee bit far now. 😕

Originally posted by C Hess
Exactly. Clearly, unless you live in a very weird culture, this is not the case with snot eating. So, as someone who doesn't enjoy named practise, I am apparently denying the purpose of my design, by sonship's logic. Finger fits nose, snot is rich in proteins, proteins are required for survival, hence, I was designed to eat snot, and yet I have no desire to d ...[text shortened]... ong with snot eaters either, of course. I may have taken this analogy just a wee bit far now. 😕

Sonships basis was not made on a preference or a desire but in the physiology of the human body which is rather damning evidence for it can be empirically demonstrated that certain orifices are not suited to sexual intercourse. What this means is that certain sexual practices are contrary to nature. in fact I think the point that he was making was that desire or preference has no bearing on this, it is what it is, a phenomena of nature.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
So your biological make up is preventing you from engaging in all kinds of sexual acts. Is that really what you are saying?

It is in fact demonstrably false. Prisoners who are incarcerated and who may have been heterosexual their entire life may be coerced to engage in homosexual acts not by some biological causation but by mere expediency.
...[text shortened]... eory, he should be able to make a viable defence, if its valid. Is that really the case? is it?

I think u and Spalf should get a room