|
5 Nov 2004, 12:52
|
#1
|
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 2,442
|
Should homosexuality instead be enlarged to recreational sex addicts?
A question just occurred to me.
People will often argue about how having same sex relations isn't natural... in those same respects isn't having sex with someone of the opposite gender without intentionally seeking to concieve a child also unnatural?
Should Homosexuality be abolished and instead reclassified as Recreational Sex Addicts? Should only those who indulge in sex to procreate the species be allowed to argue against what is 'natural' ?
|
|
|
5 Nov 2004, 12:53
|
#2
|
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 433
|
Re: Should homosexuality instead be enlarged to recreational sex addicts?
Both have been found in nature to limited degrees.
|
|
|
5 Nov 2004, 12:55
|
#3
|
Aardvark is a funny word
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: I'm No Nino Rota
Posts: 5,923
|
Re: Should homosexuality instead be enlarged to recreational sex addicts?
can we PLEASE have the word 'nature' added to the filter
__________________
Efficiency, efficiency they say
Get to know the date and tell the time of day
As the crowds begin complaining
How the Beaujolais is raining
Down on darkened meetings on the Champs Élysées
|
|
|
5 Nov 2004, 12:55
|
#4
|
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 433
|
Re: Should homosexuality instead be enlarged to recreational sex addicts?
Is that the nature of the filter?
|
|
|
5 Nov 2004, 12:56
|
#5
|
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 2,442
|
Re: Should homosexuality instead be enlarged to recreational sex addicts?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Summanus
Both have been found in nature to limited degrees.
|
But with regards to how we are biologically designed, can recreational sex be considered unnatural?
Do peopel who engage in homosexuality are only as immoral as those who indulge in heterosexual sex with no intention to conceive?
|
|
|
5 Nov 2004, 12:58
|
#6
|
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: in the archives
Posts: 123
|
Re: Should homosexuality instead be enlarged to recreational sex addicts?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phang
can we PLEASE have the word 'nature' added to the filter
|
only if we can add the following:
republican
israeli
creationist
davinbrahm
anyway, i tend to agree with you, lets just destroy the words bisexual and homosexual from common use and make it to what you said, die phang
|
|
|
5 Nov 2004, 13:00
|
#7
|
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: in the archives
Posts: 123
|
Re: Should homosexuality instead be enlarged to recreational sex addicts?
homosexual sex is not immoral, it is simply sex between two people. morality is what WE make it
people not using condoms when they dont intend to conceive is immoral
|
|
|
5 Nov 2004, 13:00
|
#8
|
Banned
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Further to the right
Posts: 19,441
|
Re: Should homosexuality instead be enlarged to recreational sex addicts?
If you feel pleasure while procreating you're sinning against god true story.
__________________
Some might ask what good is life without purpose but I'm anticipating a good lunch.
|
|
|
5 Nov 2004, 13:00
|
#9
|
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 433
|
Re: Should homosexuality instead be enlarged to recreational sex addicts?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sunday8pm
But with regards to how we are biologically designed, can recreational sex be considered unnatural?
Do peopel who engage in homosexuality are only as immoral as those who indulge in heterosexual sex with no intention to conceive?
|
If those morals are those which make it wrong in the eyes of religion, it's between them and God, not them and me. I haven't a problem with civil unions, but strictly speaking, 'marriage' as an institution is a Church thing.
I'd actually argue that it would make those engaging in extra-marital sex as bad, for lack of a definitive knowledge of the rules. If its inside marriage, you can't complain
|
|
|
5 Nov 2004, 13:03
|
#10
|
Lonely analytic
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 2,390
|
Re: Should homosexuality instead be enlarged to recreational sex addicts?
much much fagotry
*just had to say it, it´s been about four years now...
__________________
For real
|
|
|
5 Nov 2004, 13:04
|
#11
|
share the <3
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Location: Location:
Posts: 2,709
|
Re: Should homosexuality instead be enlarged to recreational sex addicts?
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonnyBGood
If you feel pleasure while procreating you're sinning against god true story.
|
catholic
it is the 5th of the 11th month
__________________
Sophie is hotter than you
though ive gone off her now; the way Susanna Reid squirms around on sml is, however, awesome
|
|
|
5 Nov 2004, 13:35
|
#12
|
Freedom Fanatic
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Doing evil deeds in the name of freedom
Posts: 680
|
Re: Should homosexuality instead be enlarged to recreational sex addicts?
Mortality is what I say is right and Immorality is what I say is wrong.
Also could we also ban Nazi, liberal, communist, freedom, Muslims, Islam, democracy and France from the forums
Then we can all talk about rainbows and sunshine since there is nothing wrong in the world
__________________
The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference.
|
|
|
5 Nov 2004, 13:38
|
#13
|
Para Keet
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Scotland
Posts: 96
|
Re: Should homosexuality instead be enlarged to recreational sex addicts?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sunday8pm
A question just occurred to me.
People will often argue about how having same sex relations isn't natural... in those same respects isn't having sex with someone of the opposite gender without intentionally seeking to concieve a child also unnatural?
Should Homosexuality be abolished and instead reclassified as Recreational Sex Addicts? Should only those who indulge in sex to procreate the species be allowed to argue against what is 'natural' ?
|
Dunno...
Strictly speaking, wouldn't homosexuals/recreational sex addicts die out if they are engaging in sex but not to procreate? Everyone should be allowed to argue but I would say there is no right or wrong arguement.
__________________
[23:46] <Theamion> i still love you tho
[23:47] <Theamion> you mad scottish bint
|
|
|
5 Nov 2004, 13:40
|
#14
|
Para Keet
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Scotland
Posts: 96
|
Re: Should homosexuality instead be enlarged to recreational sex addicts?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Burbank
homosexual sex is not immoral, it is simply sex between two people. morality is what WE make it
people not using condoms when they dont intend to conceive is immoral
|
I don't get it. Are you strictly limiting this arguement to condoms or can it encompass all forms of contraception? Please justify.
__________________
[23:46] <Theamion> i still love you tho
[23:47] <Theamion> you mad scottish bint
|
|
|
5 Nov 2004, 14:02
|
#15
|
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: in the archives
Posts: 123
|
Re: Should homosexuality instead be enlarged to recreational sex addicts?
i said DIE
|
|
|
5 Nov 2004, 14:33
|
#16
|
Insanity Prawn Boy!
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: In a bush where you can't find me
Posts: 2,474
|
Re: Should homosexuality instead be enlarged to recreational sex addicts?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MeridianStar
Strictly speaking, wouldn't homosexuals/recreational sex addicts die out if they are engaging in sex but not to procreate?
|
you're assuming of course that homosexuality/sex addiction is genetic, of which there is no definate proof
__________________
They shall not grow old, as we who are left grow old:
Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning
We shall remember them.
|
|
|
5 Nov 2004, 14:40
|
#17
|
Para Keet
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Scotland
Posts: 96
|
Re: Should homosexuality instead be enlarged to recreational sex addicts?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Demon Dave
you're assuming of course that homosexuality/sex addiction is genetic, of which there is no definate proof
|
Honestly, I never thought of it that way. There's no proof to the contrary either, mind you. Nature, nurture etc etc.
__________________
[23:46] <Theamion> i still love you tho
[23:47] <Theamion> you mad scottish bint
|
|
|
5 Nov 2004, 15:00
|
#18
|
Aardvark is a funny word
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: I'm No Nino Rota
Posts: 5,923
|
Re: Should homosexuality instead be enlarged to recreational sex addicts?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Demon Dave
you're assuming of course that homosexuality/sex addiction is genetic, of which there is no definate proof
|
it's clearly not genetic. a 'gay gene' would face the problem of diminishing returns and would mean that there wasn't a constant figure of about 10-15%. The most credible theory is a slight neurochemical imbalance caused by a swollen node in the brain (i forget which) that basically alters the brain centers for sexual attraction and so forth. The claim that it's a choice made on a conscious or near-conscious level of operation is popular yet, would you believe, promoted almost completely exclusively by heterosexuals and primarily Christians.
__________________
Efficiency, efficiency they say
Get to know the date and tell the time of day
As the crowds begin complaining
How the Beaujolais is raining
Down on darkened meetings on the Champs Élysées
|
|
|
5 Nov 2004, 17:02
|
#19
|
Jolt's best friend
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,101
|
Re: Should homosexuality instead be enlarged to recreational sex addicts?
this has often confused me.
people, although seemingly not most of GD , say they care about a person's person's personality, rather than their looks. surely this therefore makes them bi? and yet it doesn't seem to work out that way.
answers on a postcard
-mist
__________________
<Karmulian> subtle as a kick in the nuts as always
|
|
|
5 Nov 2004, 17:03
|
#20
|
Gone
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 14,656
|
Re: Should homosexuality instead be enlarged to recreational sex addicts?
Sunday is unnatural.
|
|
|
5 Nov 2004, 17:11
|
#21
|
Rawr rawr
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Upside down
Posts: 5,300
|
Re: Should homosexuality instead be enlarged to recreational sex addicts?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mist
this has often confused me.
people, although seemingly not most of GD , say they care about a person's person's personality, rather than their looks. surely this therefore makes them bi? and yet it doesn't seem to work out that way.
answers on a postcard
-mist
|
You confuse me too.
__________________
"Yay"
|
|
|
5 Nov 2004, 17:14
|
#22
|
Gone
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 14,656
|
Re: Should homosexuality instead be enlarged to recreational sex addicts?
I don't care about people's personalities. I care about the size of their cocks.
|
|
|
5 Nov 2004, 17:22
|
#23
|
WANNASEEMYNEWCHAINSAW
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Éire
Posts: 2,738
|
Re: Should homosexuality instead be enlarged to recreational sex addicts?
With regards to personalities, they come into play sexually when you find someone at some level attractive.
If you find a woman alright but really like her personality, then you'll actually want to bone her more than if she was alright but a total pain in the arse and boring.
If you don't find men arousing then no matter how nice the guy is you'll never want to bone him.
__________________
I came, I saw, I shouldn't mix pleasure with carpentry.
|
|
|
Thread Tools |
|
Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
|
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 22:36.
| |