Reverse cowgirl.
Advertisement
by Anachronous Rex » Thu Jul 25, 2013 11:47 pm
by Grave_n_idle » Thu Jul 25, 2013 11:48 pm
by Anachronous Rex » Thu Jul 25, 2013 11:51 pm
by Vazdania » Thu Jul 25, 2013 11:52 pm
by Liriena » Thu Jul 25, 2013 11:55 pm
I am: A pansexual, pantheist, green socialist An aspiring writer and journalist | Political compass stuff: Economic Left/Right: -8.13 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.92 For: Grassroots democracy, workers' self-management, humanitarianism, pacifism, pluralism, environmentalism, interculturalism, indigenous rights, minority rights, LGBT+ rights, feminism, optimism Against: Nationalism, authoritarianism, fascism, conservatism, populism, violence, ethnocentrism, racism, sexism, religious bigotry, anti-LGBT+ bigotry, death penalty, neoliberalism, tribalism, cynicism ⚧Copy and paste this in your sig if you passed biology and know gender and sex aren't the same thing.⚧ |
by Dyakovo » Thu Jul 25, 2013 11:58 pm
The Misotheist Reich wrote:Liriena wrote:So? How does that change the fact that we, as a civilization, have bypassed those limitations?
So what? The "heterosexual community" provides, and all relevant parties are happy! Children find a loving home in same-sex couples, same-sex couples get to discover the delights of parenthood, and society as a whole benefits from the reduced strain on the state's services for abandoned children and the increase in the rate of children raised in stable, loving homes.
Reality itself requires us to grant same-sex couples the possibility of marrying and raising children, otherwise we'll only get millions of children and adults living in indignity, and the mental and physical health of society as a whole will continue suffer from it.
Your sugar-coated perversion of the concept of "Nature" is irrelevant. The law has to deal with reality, and do so in terms that are efficient and reasonable for the greater good. Your proposals, as well as the ideas behind them, do not match that criteria, and deserve no validation under the law.
Homosexuals do not deserve children. The chose a path that stopped from letting them continue their legacy. They need to beg the straight for their children. Why must they have children any way? Those children will grow up frightened, and confused in a world that hates them. I would rather face a firing squad then be born into a homosexual family. Why would any one want to torture this worlds youth so ruthlessly.
by Anachronous Rex » Fri Jul 26, 2013 12:00 am
by Ze Destroyers » Fri Jul 26, 2013 12:00 am
Abritus wrote:Why should they marry at all i ask you after all they can't raise a family outside of adoption and when it comes to adoption a child needs a mother and a father....I mean yeah sure 'EQUALLITY" and all of that scooby-doo liberal idiocracy but really why do they want to get married at all, are they after the benefits that comes from marriage and adoption i mean they don't really care about any kind of equallity do they?
They are just after their own agenda and the liberals are using them as strawmen against their opponents for their own gain and i personaly disagree with same sex marriage because it's just a silly idea that offers society nothing of value except for a libtardic rastafaresque college boy version of 'FREEDOM' and 'EQUALLITY' and all of that social retardation and what not.
Why don't they settle for same-sex unions?
Do they really have to bash the church and people's faith worldwide to prove a retarded point?
by Vazdania » Fri Jul 26, 2013 12:02 am
by Northern Dominus » Fri Jul 26, 2013 4:10 am
Pretty racy stuff for biblical times. I don't think the pharisees would have approved of it...
by Grenartia » Fri Jul 26, 2013 4:37 am
Anachronous Rex wrote:I estimate that something like 30% of opposition to homosexuality is so that they can feel dirty when they do it.
The Misotheist Reich wrote:Same Sex Marrige should be illegal. I my self am not a christian, but I think that two members of same sex getting married is not right. 1. It does not make any sense. 2. Plus if we do allow gays to get married in more places imagine what would happen. Now say you have a nation of 200 million people. 3. 55% of your nation is homsexual. 4. That means 55% of your people cant produce children. Your nation suffer depopulation. If 45% of your population have kids. Whos say that kids that are born arent going to homosexual. That means population will ever so die. My conclusion is homosexualism is a gene not a life choice. A gene that without the properties of sterillization does its job through ensuring that the host has no offspring by being attracted to a member of the same sex. This is just a theory, not fact. Dont be mad at me please. Im not trying to "troll" anyone in any way. I am just stating a theory I have.
Lithosano wrote:The Misotheist Reich wrote:
Really? Two men can reproduce? Two women can reproduce? I am talking about natural childbearing. Not adoptions, or surrogates. I am taliking real child birth.
Appeal to Nature with a good helping of Moving The Goalposts.
What makes "natural" reproduction better? What's wrong with adoption or surrogacy, especially given the sorry state of many adoption agencies?
Dyakovo wrote:The Misotheist Reich wrote:If homosexualism is a gene. You dont have to be homosexual to carry the gene. You dont have to be color blind in order to carry the gene. How would we know if the gene is spread evenly. Bound your family tree wont provide any answers. This gene is something to be feared. Because homosexualism has been on the rise. The anwers for why that is happening? How do we know who is containated with the gene. How do we know if our children have it? If it does exist of course. It is scary in a way. Global depopulation is scary.
Again, human sexuality is far too complex to be controlled by one gene.
The Misotheist Reich wrote:Rocopurr wrote:Excuse me, kiddo, want to borrow my glasses? You don't seem to be very good at readin the posts of this thread... As multiple people said, homosexuals can reproduce.
AND RAWR I'M MORE GAY THAN NOT. FEAR ME FOR I POLLUTE CHILDREN'S MINDS AND MAKE GROWN MEN CRY.
Yes I understand, and respect your viewpoint. 1. But you need two very different reproductive organs in order to have a child. 2. I am talking about natural childbirth. Natural childbirth is the thing these homosexuals need in order to have a child. So they must go to the heterosexual community.
The Misotheist Reich wrote:Liriena wrote:So? How does that change the fact that we, as a civilization, have bypassed those limitations?
So what? The "heterosexual community" provides, and all relevant parties are happy! Children find a loving home in same-sex couples, same-sex couples get to discover the delights of parenthood, and society as a whole benefits from the reduced strain on the state's services for abandoned children and the increase in the rate of children raised in stable, loving homes.
Reality itself requires us to grant same-sex couples the possibility of marrying and raising children, otherwise we'll only get millions of children and adults living in indignity, and the mental and physical health of society as a whole will continue suffer from it.
Your sugar-coated perversion of the concept of "Nature" is irrelevant. The law has to deal with reality, and do so in terms that are efficient and reasonable for the greater good. Your proposals, as well as the ideas behind them, do not match that criteria, and deserve no validation under the law.
1. Homosexuals do not deserve children. 2. The chose a path that stopped from letting them continue their legacy. 3. They need to beg the straight for their children. 4. Why must they have children any way? 5. Those children will grow up frightened, and confused in a world that hates them. 6. I would rather face a firing squad then be born into a homosexual family. 7. Why would any one want to torture this worlds youth so ruthlessly.
The Misotheist Reich wrote:1. I just think that homosexuals not try, and push themselves on us straight folk. 2. So what if you cant marry? 3. Just dont force your self on me. 4. If you are boyfriends so be it. 5. Getting married is a sacred bond between a man, and a women. 6. Thats the way its supposed to be. I will leave it at that. Good night gentlemen/ladies.
The Misotheist Reich wrote:Qahadim wrote:You misunderstand the concept of forcing oneself on another. You, obviously, aren't gay. Don't marry a gay. By allowing them the privilege of marriage you aren't forced into anything. Not into accepting their values or beliefs. You, however, are forcing your values onto them by saying they can't.
Do you understand now, or should I google a child's pop up book so you can?
1. No they do not have the right. 2. What are we going to do soon legalize marrying your horse. 3. But the again according to you people, we would have to tolerate people marying horses. 4. I mean once you let one in, you got to let the other in. 5. I mean come what happened to moral value. 6. I myself am a theist misotheist, but 7. I still have strong morals. 8. This is unacceptable. 9. The only people who want the gays to get married is the gays them selves. Well guess what, literally a majority of places wont let you marry.
Liriena wrote:You were a kid on the verge of puberty. At that age, even good kids can do horrible things.
I for one would gladly forgive you, since you've turned out to be a great person.
Dyakovo wrote:The Misotheist Reich wrote:
Homosexuals do not deserve children. The chose a path that stopped from letting them continue their legacy. They need to beg the straight for their children. Why must they have children any way? Those children will grow up frightened, and confused in a world that hates them. I would rather face a firing squad then be born into a homosexual family. Why would any one want to torture this worlds youth so ruthlessly.
Homosexuality is a choice? In that case, heterosexuality must be one as well. So tell me, when, exactly did you choose to no longer desire being buggered?
by Breadknife » Fri Jul 26, 2013 5:06 am
4years wrote:Further, churches sell VDS, videotapes, books, etc. which people *gasp* have to pay for to receive.
by Breadknife » Fri Jul 26, 2013 5:14 am
Desperauex wrote:Alright go around some town, saying "Yaaaaaaaaay, no more virginity." and see if you get some looks.
by Evil the Great » Fri Jul 26, 2013 5:41 am
by Breadknife » Fri Jul 26, 2013 5:42 am
The Misotheist Reich wrote:...various...
by Breadknife » Fri Jul 26, 2013 5:50 am
Rocopurr wrote:The Misotheist Reich wrote:
Really? Two men can reproduce? Two women can reproduce? I am talking about natural childbearing. Not adoptions, or surrogates. I am taliking real child birth.
Really, really. Sperm and egg doners, a bisexual/pansexual person in a same-sex marriage could have a child, and science will find more ways.
And again, there is no proof the rates of homosexuals will rise to 55%.
by Central Kadigan » Fri Jul 26, 2013 5:54 am
Fasternia wrote:What do you think of same-sex church wedding ceremonies?
by Breadknife » Fri Jul 26, 2013 5:59 am
by Aquafireland » Fri Jul 26, 2013 7:29 am
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Adharcaili, Austria-Bohemia-Hungary, Celritannia, Click Ests Vimgalevytopia, DataDyneIrkenAlliance, El Lazaro, Jubiloso, New Temecula, Riomler, Rusrunia, Sempi Archipelago, Senkaku, Stellar Colonies, The Jamesian Republic, The South Afrikan Union, The Unity and Order, Umeria, Valentine Z, Warvick, Xind, Yasuragi
Advertisement