Nigeria denies fundamental rights to homosexuals

[Liriena]

Vaginas can tear too. Poor things.

It's worth pointing out that when doing large vaginal insertions, lube is a must to prevent that.

But I guess Vashta will say you shouldn't be using large sex toys because it's "unnatural" due to requiring the use of lube to be safe.

Evidently, women with small vaginas were not meant to have sex with men with thick penises. Ergo, we must ban vaginal intercourse involving disproportionate genital sizes.

[Vashta Nerada]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannibalism

No response?

Sorry, it's rather difficult to respond to several people at once. If cannibalism is perfectly fine in other parts of the world, why can't I eat a person here in the "free and moral" West? Something a little funny about the meat?

[Luveria]

I am opposed to oral sex. Your penis goes in a vaginal, not a mouth. And they use lube when the woman either doesn't produce enough herself, or they don't want to wait. That's why we have foreplay, to get her "ready" for sex. Basic information you should already know.

Why do you think the penis should only go in a vagina? You're appealing to nature.

As humans naturally have been having oral sex for many thousands of years, that's quite natural as humans are a product of nature.

[Luveria]

It's worth pointing out that when doing large vaginal insertions, lube is a must to prevent that.

But I guess Vashta will say you shouldn't be using large sex toys because it's "unnatural" due to requiring the use of lube to be safe.

Evidently, women with small vaginas were not meant to have sex with men with thick penises. Ergo, we must ban vaginal intercourse involving disproportionate genital sizes.

Ooooh so that's why women become lesbians.

[Vashta Nerada]

It's worth pointing out that when doing large vaginal insertions, lube is a must to prevent that.

But I guess Vashta will say you shouldn't be using large sex toys because it's "unnatural" due to requiring the use of lube to be safe.

Evidently, women with small vaginas were not meant to have sex with men with thick penises. Ergo, we must ban vaginal intercourse involving disproportionate genital sizes.

Vagina also tear when women have kids. Ergo, should we now stop having kids?

[Luveria]

Evidently, women with small vaginas were not meant to have sex with men with thick penises. Ergo, we must ban vaginal intercourse involving disproportionate genital sizes.

Vagina also tear when women have kids. Ergo, should we now stop having kids?

Yes.

[The Scientific States]

Why do you think the penis should only go in a vagina? You're appealing to nature.

As humans naturally have been having oral sex for many thousands of years, that's quite natural as humans are a product of nature.

I'm aware of that. However, he keeps saying "well it's unnatural for the penis to go inside something else." That's an appeal to nature, which is funny, because it's not unnatural for a penis to go elsewhere.

[Luveria]

As humans naturally have been having oral sex for many thousands of years, that's quite natural as humans are a product of nature.

I'm aware of that. However, he keeps saying "well it's unnatural for the penis to go inside something else." That's an appeal to nature, which is funny, because it's not unnatural for a penis to go elsewhere.

Masturbation is unnatural because it circumvents the process of a penis needing a vagina to satisfy itself!

[Vashta Nerada]

Why do you think the penis should only go in a vagina? You're appealing to nature.

As humans naturally have been having oral sex for many thousands of years, that's quite natural as humans are a product of nature.

Of course. But I still believe it to be wrong, not on moral grounds, but on the grounds that it just doesn't seem right to me. Anal sex is something entirely different.

[San]

Evidently, women with small vaginas were not meant to have sex with men with thick penises. Ergo, we must ban vaginal intercourse involving disproportionate genital sizes.

Vagina also tear when women have kids. Ergo, should we now stop having kids?

since that's essentially what your logic boils down to, i'm sure you can provide the answer yourself.

[Liriena]

I am opposed to oral sex. Your penis goes in a vaginal, not a mouth. And they use lube when the woman either doesn't produce enough herself, or they don't want to wait. That's why we have foreplay, to get her "ready" for sex. Basic information you should already know.

No, a penis goes wherever it wants to go as long as it's all consensual.

And wherever it goes, so long as both the penis and where it goes are both, by definition, natural objects, it's perfectly natural intercourse.

Really, Vashta Nerada is trying to re-define the word "natural".

[The Scientific States]

As humans naturally have been having oral sex for many thousands of years, that's quite natural as humans are a product of nature.

Of course. But I still believe it to be wrong, not on moral grounds, but on the grounds that it just doesn't seem right to me. Anal sex is something entirely different.

What moral grounds? How is it immoral.

And how is anal different. Have you ever thought that there a reason that there are pleasurable nerve endings in the anus?

[Dragoria]

No response?

Sorry, it's rather difficult to respond to several people at once. If cannibalism is perfectly fine in other parts of the world, why can't I eat a person here in the "free and moral" West? Something a little funny about the meat?

Have you seen the chemicals humans pump into their bodies on a regular basis?
Hell, "purified" water from water treatment plants causes male frogs to lay eggs because so many chemicals are left over from human urine.
"Western" people are walking toxic waste dumps. If I were a cannibal, I sure as shit wouldn't eat that.

[Liriena]

Evidently, women with small vaginas were not meant to have sex with men with thick penises. Ergo, we must ban vaginal intercourse involving disproportionate genital sizes.

Vagina also tear when women have kids. Ergo, should we now stop having kids?

Congratulations. You just exposed the flaws in your own argument's structure.

[Luveria]

As humans naturally have been having oral sex for many thousands of years, that's quite natural as humans are a product of nature.

Of course. But I still believe it to be wrong, not on moral grounds, but on the grounds that it just doesn't seem right to me.

Then you have no reasons at all to believe it's wrong.

Anal sex is something entirely different.

The inconsistent standards fallacy.

[The Scientific States]

I'm aware of that. However, he keeps saying "well it's unnatural for the penis to go inside something else." That's an appeal to nature, which is funny, because it's not unnatural for a penis to go elsewhere.

Masturbation is unnatural because it circumvents the process of a penis needing a vagina to satisfy itself!

He probably believes that.

His logic isn't a fail, he just lacks logic.

[Blutlanden]

I can see a nation promoting socially conservative values, but fourteen years of prison for homosexuality? That isn't right. While I do believe that homosexuality should not be embraced, I do not believe that homosexuals should be thrown into prison simply for a sexual orientation.

[Liriena]

Evidently, women with small vaginas were not meant to have sex with men with thick penises. Ergo, we must ban vaginal intercourse involving disproportionate genital sizes.

Ooooh so that's why women become lesbians.

Obviously.

[Luveria]

No, a penis goes wherever it wants to go as long as it's all consensual.

And wherever it goes, so long as both the penis and where it goes are both, by definition, natural objects, it's perfectly natural intercourse.

Really, Vashta Nerada is trying to re-define the word "natural".

These cultural fascists...

[Gravlen]

I missed that bit. Why wouldn't sanctions accomplish anything?

When the US threatened that, Nigeria responded by saying the US is a nation filled with "Abnormals" that are trying to export homosexuality.

I think you're confusing Uganda and Nigeria, because when the president of Uganda vetoed the anti-gay bill on his desk he said:

In his lengthy letter to Uganda’s parliament, reported on Friday by a Ugandan newspaper, Mr. Museveni denounced gays as “abnormal” and “disgusting” people who often practise homosexuality “for mercenary reasons.” He was alluding to a popular Ugandan theory that young people are financially induced into homosexuality.

Some women, he claimed, become lesbians because of “sexual starvation” after they failed to marry. He added: “It could be that the Western societies, on account of random breeding, have generated many abnormal people.”

Adopting a philosophical tone, he said: “The question at the core of the debate on homosexuality is: What do we do with an abnormal person? Do we kill him/her? Do we imprison him/her? Or do we contain him/her?”

On a related note: This bears quoting from the article as well:

Western protests against the Ugandan anti-gay bill were undoubtedly a factor in Mr. Museveni’s decision to oppose the law, since Uganda is heavily dependent on foreign aid. Among the many protests was a strong warning from British billionaire Richard Branson, who called for businesses to boycott Uganda.

EDIT:
Forgot to pimp my link: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/ugandan-presidents-veto-of-anti-gay-bill-a-rare-victory-for-homosexual-africans/article16384374/

[The Scientific States]

Evidently, women with small vaginas were not meant to have sex with men with thick penises. Ergo, we must ban vaginal intercourse involving disproportionate genital sizes.

Vagina also tear when women have kids. Ergo, should we now stop having kids?

That's essentially what your arguments have been.

Congrats for proving yourself wrong for the umpteenth time.

[Vashta Nerada]

Proved wrong by those seeking to promote homosexuality. That's like having Nazis trying other Nazis. Of course they'll prove it "wrong". If weren't wrong, then they wouldn't be about to say homosexuality was right.

Homosexuality has been proved not a choice, and it's been proven "natural."
Homosexuality had never been proven "unnatural."

I'm wondering why you're so damn stubborn, as we keep proving you wrong, and you keep contradicting yourself. We've shown you that your arguments are null and void, but you cling to them.

I'm stubborn because I have four, five separate guys telling me my view is wrong and their's is inherently right because their way is the moral, scientifically proven way it should be. I'd much rather stick to what has been stated to be natural. When we get some more guys from my side, I'd be happy to continue, but for now, I can stand and fight six guys at once. I'm not Chuck Norris.

[Luveria]

Ooooh so that's why women become lesbians.

Obviously.

But I've seen lesbians with very roomy vaginas so that can't be true.

[Aeken]

No response?

Sorry, it's rather difficult to respond to several people at once. If cannibalism is perfectly fine in other parts of the world, why can't I eat a person here in the "free and moral" West? Something a little funny about the meat?

Your point was that law, morals, religion, and culture made humans superior in their consideration of homosexuality because it 'wasn't natural'. Cannibalism developed from those four things. These ad hominems are rather annoying.

[Vashta Nerada]

My logic is based on the fact that I view sex as something that only a man and a woman should perform together. I view it as both a bonding and reproductive act. The penis and vagina work will together because that's how they were made. Unless you can prove that the anus is for reproduction and won't rip and tear without the aid of man-made lubricants, I stand by my "astoundingly poor" logic.

1) anal sex isn't exclusively homosexual
2) homosexual sex isn't exclusively anal
3) sex is often for casual purposes
4) none of this holds any relevance to how homosexuality is inherently ebul
5) you're also ignoring everything you said in your prev post

Its difficult to respond to six people at once. I'm not sure what it is that I'm ignoring from my previous post, so you'll have to clarify that.