Defending the Truth

You forgot option 3...Consistantly annoying...

Naa it just makes me right when all you can post is bullshit like this. For a new big talking dude, you have yet to post anything but a lot of personal attacks. Nice bravado, but pretty impotent as far the the topic at hand. What's annoying is people pretending that homosexuality is anything other than a mistake in human development.

"What's annoying is people pretending that homosexuality is anything other than a mistake in human development."
The reason we can't argue with fxashun. He has possession of the Way Things Are Supposed To Be. I assume it's some kind of jack chick tract. Anyhow, without possession of this monumental item that clearly identifies mistakes in humanity, we're just flapping in the wind.

Fxashun, of course, will take this as some sort of concession to his "argument".

I don't proclaim victory or anything like that. I don't know why I have been accused of doing that in the past...repeatedly. That's just one of the many lies.
There IS a way that humans are supposed to be. And there is NOTHING that indicates humans or anything else is supposed to "be" gay any more than have 5 arms and a nose on the foot. There's no argument because there is nothing to argue. It all boils down to "because we want to" or "because we exist". And there are plenty of things that "exist" that are f'd up.

There is only one way for humans to be? Do you have a copy of the human design specification? Did you write it? Or do you base this idea soley on empiricaly derived data? Why do you need a reason? The reason may exist, but not apparent to anyone at this time. I do not need a reason to explain or justify my being gay to anyone.

Does the idea of living in "a way that humans are suppose" make you or anyone else sleep better at night?

If you can explain it, it'll be news to the scientists. Maybe you ought to tell them first. They don't have a clue. I base it on the same empirical data that says a child that breathes through his mouth might have an issue, a human with no melanin has a disorder, we have no difficulty calling the other sexual perversions abnormal disorder f'd up. I don't see enough demonstrable difference between the deviant disordered "orientations" to somehow indicate any justification you could use. Hell any reason you could use could be used by the FLDS at the very least.

That "empirical data" can be found in any human biology 101 textbook that goes from biology to physiology to instinct and covers all aspects and interrelation of all of them in humans. Homosexuality and the others are a obvious and vast disconnect in the symbiotic relationship.

Naa, but it gives me hours of entertainment discussing this on the internet while I watch TV.

Absolutely.

LOTS of people sleep better and feel more confident when someone is telling them they are living right.

It's one of the unspoken founding principles of organized religion.

Point A: There are *physiological* reasons for men to feel pleasure when receiving anal sex. When the prostate is massaged, it creates pleasure for the man. It can also make him ejaculate unwittingly.

So why do men feel pleasure in such a fashion, fxashun?

Point B: We've been here before. What tells you the way people are "supposed to" function, fx? What criteria do you use to decide, specifically.

For the same reason anti freeze tastes good, exstacy stimulates you pleasure centers, and some people derive pleasure from cutting themselves. Everything that feels good isn't good for you. If we were supposed to manipulate the prostate penally or digitally, the homosexual, or heterosexual for that matter would have evolved a facilitation for it. Just as if we were supposed to drink through our noses, which some people can do, something about the body would indicate as such.


Check your biology 101 textbook. You use the same method that tells us that we use ears for hearing and no Q-tip storage.

You look at the genders. You see how they compliment each other sexually from an outward appearance is basically the start. Then you can move to the involuntary actions of sexual arousal and apply them to the latter.

Then you can look at the outcome and how the body has evolved specific facilitation for everything from the attraction, signaling that attraction, facilitating the actual sex, facilitating the outcome of the sex. Homosexuality is like a pregnant man. And not that freak in the news lately.

Now since you asked me. What makes you think that homosexuality ISN'T just a f'up in human gestation. And I'd like you to carry homosexuality from instinct to partner, evolved indication by facilitation as any other natural urge, and purpose.

Huh. So we have the physiological capacity for it but it's still unnatural? Since there's meaning behind all our body parts (apparently), then men are -supposed- to feel pleasure from their prostate, right? Doesn't the biology dictate that?

So Biology 101 is your criteria for how humans are supposed to act. Gotcha.

You're talking about sexual reproduction, not sex. Yes, it would be extremely unnatural for one men to get pregnant when he's been bottoming out for another man. Am I the first to break it to you that that's NOT what they're trying to accomplish?

So how does your Biology 101 textbook explain that sex without the purpose of reproduction is unnatural? I mean, I'm sure the Pope would agree but I'd assumed we were both more rational than he is.

I don't see any reason to. People's sexuality is hardly consistent. Everyone has certain kinks or pleasures. It's a jungle in there, fx, and sex with another man is just another facet. Saying that putting your dick in a woman's mouth is more natural than putting it in a man's mouth is silly. Why would it be?

Personally I think everyone is born basically bisexual and personal experience coupled with cultural expectations determine the rest. Look at the Emperors of China, any harem of old, the Greeks, etc. That's not an idea I expect you, or anyone else, to take up, though.