Defending the Truth

If we dealt with all things in a "real world" kind of way. Women would be selling ass on all street corners, people would be going top speed down the freeway, some immigrants will raise goats in their front yards and slaughter them in the backyard and hanging them from the balcony, there would be no borders since they are symbolic anyway, and the statutory age would be set at first menstruation period for girls, since that is the "real" sign of sexual maturity.

Your "real-world" way sounds much less realistic and less civilized.

Phhhfft... PTUI!
There, I think I have managed to get your words out of my mouth.

I didn't say ALL things, I said THIS particular thing. Trying to apply the same standard to ALL things and situations will make ANY standard look silly.

And regarding this particular thing, I didn't say there should be NO guidelines, I said the guidelines should be slightly more liberal than they are now.

Those ideas you suggested up there are your ideas, not mine. You have gone to a crazy extreme that I didn't even SUGGEST. And I agree with you, your ideas are less realistic and less civilized.

Now, if you would like to discuss my ideas on their own merits, rather than trying to conflate them with unrelated sensationalism, I'd be happy to do so.

I beg to differ...You specific quote was, with no limitations...

I think it's better to deal with things and people in a real-world way, than in an idealized, wishful thinking way.

You didn't give any caveats until the BS nature of that statement was revealed. You did SUGGEST exactly what I said. Next time maybe you ought to be more careful. Because when the homosexual morality is already in question with Tristan advocationg lying to the Red Cross and you thinking sexual exploration is a good thing, then you really can't leave those kinds of things up to interpretation. Then we'll be right back to where some people think we are with the Bible.

It should be obvious when we are talking about a subject that my comments refer to the subject, not to the entire world.
Do you really think I was talking about slaughtering goats?

I suggested nothing. You inferred it.
The fault is yours. Be a man and admit it.

Show me the part where you limited your statement. I don't see it. Why don't you be a woman and admit you put your foot in your mouth.

Hmm I wonder is that a form of foot fetish? Anyway....

As I said, there is no need to limit my statements. It should be obvious when we are talking about a subject that my comments refer to the subject, not to the entire world.

Am I really expected to address my views on slaughtering goats when I make every post? Be real.

But, fine, let me be more clear, and add in the words that I thought were too obvious to need to be said.

When it comes to matters of sexuality, I think it's better to deal with these things and with people in a real-world way, than in an idealized, wishful thinking way. The former can be effective, where the latter most definitely is not.

Better now?

Let's see...
If we dealt with matters in a "real world" way, then we wouldn't outlaw polygamy, since it is the best way to raise a family in this economy.

We wouldn't outlaw prostitution, since it is "the oldest profession".

We wouldn't outlaw zoophilia, since people in the "real world" are doing it "in the closet" and it doesn't hurt anyone. It's not fair to punish all of them like animal abusers. We separate the rapists from the general population. Why can't the same be done for them?

Actually, your "real world" still has holes it seems. Might wanna try again.

For the third and final time, my comments were on the topic we were discussing, which was your point about children of gay couples being more or less sexually adventurous.

I will give you a little credit though. This time, your attempt to distract from the topic at hand isn't quite so far afield, since at least you aren't talking about your inferred opinion on my position regarding slaughtering goats anymore.

Might wanna try again.

Your statement...

"When it comes to matters of sexuality, I think it's better to deal with these things and with people in a real-world way, than in an idealized, wishful thinking way. The former can be effective, where the latter most definitely is not."

Which you specifically modified so I could better understand it, was what my post referred to. So unless you want to even more thoroughly modify it so that it will more accurately reflect the very narrow range of thinking that it takes to justify your argument, you are welcome. But as you can seeing, the argument that supports homosexuality, yet refutes other sexual "arrangements" is quite a narrow one indeed.

You my dear are the one that might want to try again to limit the argument yet one more time.

No. I said it was the third and final time.
I wasn't making an argument, or justifying anything. I was expressing my opinion.

But, whatever. I'm done playing this time-wasting semantic game of yours.
You have clearly been spending too much time with 'gary.'

We both know exactly what I meant, but you've made it clear you can't or won't address my point, and that's fine.

When you are out of your mood, we can try communicating again.