What is your opinion on LGBT+ marriage?

[Communal concils]

Just abolish marriage. It's such a useless institution in western civilization. It's original role as a agreement to reproduce is gone, so marriage it's self its a useless institution. Also , Love is not simply love, it's role is for reproduction.

Ah. So it is little more than a chemical reaction?

I guess I can hit your head right now, as pain is also a chemical reaction.

Okay.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

You didn’t read the article if that’s what you have to say. Of course, after reading the things you’ve said here, I didn’t expect you to. No worries.

What the article does states is that sex is not solely about reproduction. It’s about a whole host of other things.

Complexity. Learn it.

I did read it. The summary is that humans have sex because nature wants cooperation.To me, this cooperation exist because of a desire to reproduce. People have a tendency to not have reproductive sex, I think that people that do this have an unaware desire to attempt reproduction.

Yep, you didn’t read it. Because that’s not the summation of the article. Cooperation =|= reproduction.

Complexity. Learn it.

[Communal concils]

1. I simply said that people have contradiction interest.

2. I have no problems with discriminating against conservatives. They are stuck to a fake God. A sense of never wanting to adapt, they want o stay with a perceived status quo.

Lol.

What exactly do you us to adapt to?

A conservative can simply adapt by giving up their beliefs.

[The New California Republic]

People have a tendency to not have reproductive sex, I think that people that do this have an unaware desire to attempt reproduction.

Judging by the way some people do it, I really don't think so.

[Kannap]

1. Dunno what you're trying to say here, really. It's all nonsensical rambling.

2. Imagine thinking all conservatives are homophobic bigots. Wow.

1. I simply said that people have contradiction interest.

2. I have no problems with discriminating against conservatives. They are stuck to a fake God. A sense of never wanting to adapt, they want o stay with a perceived status quo.

1. That's not what you simply said that launched this whole tangent.

2. You have no problems discriminating, full stop. As has been evidenced in this thread. Beyond that, I'm not surprised you hate conservatives too.

[The New California Republic]

A conservative can simply adapt by giving up their beliefs.

That isn't adapting; that's capitulation...

[Kannap]

Feel free to read the next post I made in that line of conversation.

Curiously, laws against homosexual marriage never specifically targeted homosexuals. They targeted marriages to other people of the same sex. By your account that's fine, since "You can't marry other people of your same sex" was applied equally to all.

I'm not going to argue semantics of a case that the Supreme Court decided in 2015. By your logic, laws against interracial marriage were fine, since they prevented all citizens from marrying somebody of another race.

[The New California Republic]

I did read it. The summary is that humans have sex because nature wants cooperation.To me, this cooperation exist because of a desire to reproduce. People have a tendency to not have reproductive sex, I think that people that do this have an unaware desire to attempt reproduction.

Yep, you didn’t read it.

Doesn't surprise me in the least.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Either way, since same sex couples can indeed reproduce if they wish to (IVF/surrogacy), CC’s idea of banning their intercourse is moot.

[Kannap]

You didn’t read the article if that’s what you have to say. Of course, after reading the things you’ve said here, I didn’t expect you to. No worries.

What the article does states is that sex is not solely about reproduction. It’s about a whole host of other things.

Complexity. Learn it.

I did read it. The summary is that humans have sex because nature wants cooperation.To me, this cooperation exist because of a desire to reproduce. People have a tendency to not have reproductive sex, I think that people that do this have an unaware desire to attempt reproduction.

Just gonna strike out the part of your post that is invalidated by the fact that you didn't read the article and therefore you don't get to summarize an article you didn't read.

[Kannap]

Lol.

What exactly do you us to adapt to?

A conservative can simply adapt by giving up their beliefs.

Imagine that. You can also adapt, very simply, by giving up these awful ideas that sex is for reproduction only and love doesn't exist.

[Bienenhalde]

It would seem fair if you think sex is solely for reproduction. And asserting that sex is not solely for reproduction does not automatically prove it to be true.

Yes it would SEEM fair, it wouldn't actually BE fair.

Except it's patently not, though. Sex doesn't stop feeling good if you're not reproducing, nor does it become impossible if you can't reproduce. Recreational sex is a vital part of healthy human psychology, unless you're asexual, I guess.

Even if something feels good, that does not mean it is healthy or that it is something people inherently have a right to.

[Kannap]

Either way, since same sex couples can indeed reproduce if they wish to (IVF/surrogacy), CC’s idea of banning their intercourse is moot.

But science is fake, and facts are not real. So CC wins in the end.

[Communal concils]

I did read it. The summary is that humans have sex because nature wants cooperation.To me, this cooperation exist because of a desire to reproduce. People have a tendency to not have reproductive sex, I think that people that do this have an unaware desire to attempt reproduction.

Yep, you didn’t read it. Because that’s not the summation of the article. Cooperation =|= reproduction.

Complexity. Learn it.

1. I did . The article says that sex is cause from a need to bond.

2.To me= My Opinion. The second sentence is about my opinion, my criticism. Sexual lust forces people to "cooperate". however, reproduction and raising children requires a sexual bond. The article was saying people have sex because of a need to bond. However,sexual bonds are designed for reproduction. It rejects that sex is cause from the need to reproduce, however nature clearly shows that sexual bonds are meant to conceive children( unless there is something wrong with the animal).

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Yes it would SEEM fair, it wouldn't actually BE fair.

Except it's patently not, though. Sex doesn't stop feeling good if you're not reproducing, nor does it become impossible if you can't reproduce. Recreational sex is a vital part of healthy human psychology, unless you're asexual, I guess.

Even if something feels good, that does not mean it is healthy or that it is something people inherently have a right to.

Except sex has been proven to have health benefits.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Either way, since same sex couples can indeed reproduce if they wish to (IVF/surrogacy), CC’s idea of banning their intercourse is moot.

But science is fake, and facts are not real. So CC wins in the end.

Whaaaarrrrgharble.

[Communal concils]

A conservative can simply adapt by giving up their beliefs.

That isn't adapting; that's capitulation...

that's the point.

[Kannap]

Yep, you didn’t read it. Because that’s not the summation of the article. Cooperation =|= reproduction.

Complexity. Learn it.

1. I did . The article says that sex is cause from a need to bond.

2.To me= My Opinion. The second sentence is about my opinion, my criticism. Sexual lust forces people to "cooperate". however, reproduction and raising children requires a sexual bond. The article was saying people have sex because of a need to bond. However,sexual bonds are designed for reproduction. It rejects that sex is cause from the need to reproduce, however nature clearly shows that sexual bonds are meant to conceive children( unless there is something wrong with the animal).

You didn't read the article, your "summation" proved that. You simply read the subtitle and assumed what the article went onwards to say.

[The New California Republic]

nature clearly shows that sexual bonds are meant to conceive children( unless there is something wrong with the animal).

Is this a sideways stab at homosexuals? Because if it is then that is seriously fucked up.

[Kannap]

That isn't adapting; that's capitulation...

that's the point.

Sure it is, sure it is.

That's exactly the reason you used the word "adapt" despite clearly not knowing what the word meant.

[Communal concils]

I did read it. The summary is that humans have sex because nature wants cooperation.To me, this cooperation exist because of a desire to reproduce. People have a tendency to not have reproductive sex, I think that people that do this have an unaware desire to attempt reproduction.

Just gonna strike out the part of your post that is invalidated by the fact that you didn't read the article and therefore you don't get to summarize an article you didn't read.

To be mean, I'll just say your arguments are meaningless .

[The New California Republic]

That isn't adapting; that's capitulation...

that's the point.

So you are talking in Newspeak then.

[Communal concils]

1. I did . The article says that sex is cause from a need to bond.

2.To me= My Opinion. The second sentence is about my opinion, my criticism. Sexual lust forces people to "cooperate". however, reproduction and raising children requires a sexual bond. The article was saying people have sex because of a need to bond. However,sexual bonds are designed for reproduction. It rejects that sex is cause from the need to reproduce, however nature clearly shows that sexual bonds are meant to conceive children( unless there is something wrong with the animal).

You didn't read the article, your "summation" proved that. You simply read the subtitle and assumed what the article went onwards to say.

assumptions, that's an assumption.

[Bezkoshtovnya]

Just gonna strike out the part of your post that is invalidated by the fact that you didn't read the article and therefore you don't get to summarize an article you didn't read.

To be mean, I'll just say your arguments are meaningless .

Right because calling you out on the fact you clearly didnt read it despite saying you did is being mean or meaningless.

[Kannap]

Just gonna strike out the part of your post that is invalidated by the fact that you didn't read the article and therefore you don't get to summarize an article you didn't read.

To be mean, I'll just say your arguments are meaningless .

Since you have no better reason, I'll settle for because you want to be mean, bit of weak one but it'll float.