Glass houses gary..........

I see garysher is still having issues with the concept of "consent" as he flails around trying to make connections with non-consensual sexual behavior. Bestiality and necrophilia are no more comparable to homosexuality than they are to heterosexuality. Get a grip.

"Consent" has nothing to do with anything. Animals don't consent to being eaten, kept as pets, or used for other tasks humans use them for. "Consent" is a legal term, not something consulted before a person is born with a deviant sexual urge. Even if they can't "consent", 2 11 year olds can "play doctor" just as well as 2 35 year olds.

I see OnTheLeft is still flailing around trying to invent diversions to avoid facing the fact that homosexuality is deviant sexual behaviour, along with other sexual deviancies like bestiality and necrophilia.

Strange how you want to impose the concept of "consent" on bestialists but not on pet owners or meat eaters?

How convenient.

And dead people can't give consent.

Next.

Quote:

I see OnTheLeft is still flailing around trying to invent diversions to avoid facing the fact that homosexuality is deviant sexual behaviour

Homosexuality isn't the orientation of the majority, however it's perfectly normal. Why don't you just fess up and admit that gay people wig you out? Otherwise why would you be so fixated on what other people do with their genitals?

Quote:

along with other sexual deviancies like bestiality and necrophilia.

Incorrect. Critters and corpses can't consent. Non-consensual sex is illegal as well as immoral. Your irrational and repulsive comparisons make it more than evident your goal is to annoy, not to actually make a cogent argument.

well, some people are just so bitterly lonely that any attention from people on the internet is preferable to the pathetic loneliness of their real-life existence - even if it's negative.

being hated must be an improvement over being overlooked and ignored

Gary: I didn't edit your post. That will my final word on the subject since it's clear to everybody but you.

I also posted a link to you untenable position. Rather than accusing me of changing your words, maybe you could just own up and say you've changed your argument?

Furthermore, you can call me what you will. Having no respect for your ability to think coherently on this subject, it really doesn't matter.

Baloney: Please note that he used your example of menopause against you but never actually responded to its use in context to his argument. Gary is excellent at obfuscation, if nothing else

pensacola: For the purposes of enlightenment, yes, I am married. and yes, my wife knows I'm bisexual. I told her on the second date.

FX: As I was saying earlier, you're doing nothing here than launching off the assumption that "the desire to have sex with a man" is deviant. It's not an axiom, it's not been been proven and invalidates the arguments as it is begging the question. "Why are homosexual acts deviant?" "Because homosexual desires are deviant." Okay. Show that homosexual desires are deviant.

All that's irrelevant though. I don't know why you just don't post a dictionary definition. Deviant: deviating from the norm. There. Homosexual behaviour is deviant according to the definition of the word. So what? I've been deviating from the norm all my life.

I think you've been trying to use "deviant" to mean "not functioning properly, according to nature". Now _there_ is a statement you have to prove.