For any who are interested, Isaac Asimov (The popular science fiction writer) says:Ashtree said:Not to mention: do you really think Humans are going to live forever? It is fate. Eventually we will wipe ourselves out, one way or another.
I would laugh at someone also if I saw them grabbing at straws.Not-That-Bright said:lol nostradamus.
However, there are official punishments (yes, capital punishments) against homosexual marriages in some countries.robo-andie said:Nowhere is there a law against Homosexuality.
Whaaa?robo-andie said:...one of Nostradamus's prophecies...the third anti-christ (born from China) is soon to enter the world and challenge America...a large portion of America would be suffer from famine...
Thread title "Homosexuality in Australia".yoakim said:However, there are official punishments (yes, capital punishments) against homosexual marriages in some countries.
We're going to need a montage.blue_chameleon said:Whaaa?
What the flip was Nostradamus smoking?
*Calls on Team America*
I'm inclined to believe that most homosexuals are male, and so the reproduction issue is solved by heterosexual men mating females more often. Surely you consider this to be a good thing...?Gangels said:Reproduction my friend. That is their disability. How do we survive, offspring, then they survive through offspring etc. That is how they are disabled and yes, it isnt classed as a disability, but if it was, there would be many more gay rights marches out there.
Not natural dude. You can do that all you want but it still dont mean it aint a disability. Straight men who are incapable of reproducing also have a disability.robo-andie said:Being Homosexual doesn't render you incapable of reproducing. We also have this wonderful new technology called IVF.
I will also remind you, that the physical inability to reproduce (or produce sperm/ovum) can be an issue for anyone, not just homosexuals.
A homosexuals lack of desire to mate with the opposite sex does not constitute an inability to do so. And regardless of this, it is still possible (medically) for reproduction to take place without sexual intercourse.
It isn't an inability to have sex with the opposite sex, it is a preference not to. Stating homosexuality is a disability based on this is ridiculous, it's like saying someone is disabled because they don't want to eat a certain food. Preference does not equal inability. You said yourselfGangels said:Not natural dude. You can do that all you want but it still dont mean it aint a disability. Straight men who are incapable of reproducing also have a disability.
And the inability to have sex with the opposote sex does render them unable to reproduce (except for IVF), for would you fuck a dude? No, you wouldnt. Its the same for them with females. They are nowhere near attracted to it, even if you said this is your only way to save the whole of human life, they wouldnt do it. I asked Matt about this and his respnse was 'I'd rather give birth to a chair"!
So are homosexuals who are physically incapable of reproducing ie. cannot produce sperm. Do you honestly believe that just because a man has sex with another man he now can no longer produce sperm?Gangels said:Straight men who are incapable of reproducing also have a disability.
How is sex with the person you desire unnatural? Especially when it occurs in nature without human influence/intervention, and has done so since far before our civilizations.Gangels said:Not natural dude. You can do that all you want but it still dont mean it aint a disability. Straight men who are incapable of reproducing also have a disability.
And the inability to have sex with the opposote sex does render them unable to reproduce (except for IVF), for would you fuck a dude? No, you wouldnt. Its the same for them with females. They are nowhere near attracted to it, even if you said this is your only way to save the whole of human life, they wouldnt do it. I asked Matt about this and his respnse was 'I'd rather give birth to a chair"!
Ok, so your gay. If you are attracted to females as well that does not make you a homosexual, obviously. But did i say that men cant produce sperm through sex with another man. A straight man who cannot produce sperm and a gay man who isnt attracted to females does obviously not have the same disability.robo-andie said:It isn't an inability to have sex with the opposite sex, it is a preference not to. Stating homosexuality is a disability based on this is ridiculous, it's like saying someone is disabled because they don't want to eat a certain food. Preference does not equal inability. You said yourself So are homosexuals who are physically incapable of reproducing ie. cannot produce sperm. Do you honestly believe that just because a man has sex with another man he now can no longer produce sperm?
In answer to your question "would you fuck a dude". Don't assume I wouldn't, because I would, I do. I also wouldn't be so against sex with females, providing of course it was absolutely necessary to the survival of the human race, and it's not. Be realistic, men can mate with more than one person, and we will never be at a point where there are not enough willing men to do so.
Read the previous posts, they should provide you with a very thorough argument on why homosexuallity isn't unnatural.
Umm no you don't have to be attracted to people to have sex with them. So if it was a choice of being raped or killed. Most people would still pick rape.Gangels said:Obviously you missed the sarcasm. I meant that a gay man would just not have sex with a woman. As i said before, that is bi-sexuallity.
Well actually, think about the Spartans. They were all gay cayse they were made to do everything together and knew nothing of female comfort. They were gay throught the intervention of man. And so were many others.
Ok, to me, the idea of sex with a dude is the furtherst thing from my thought. Even if it meant saving my life i dont think i would do it. That is because i have absolutely no sexual attraction to a man. It is the same for a gay man, once again, if a gay man is willing to have sex with a woman, he must be attracted to her, therefore making him Bi sexual.
You do if your a guy. Its impossible to have sex with a chick if you dont have an erection. Otherwise you'll just be small and floppyXayma said:Umm no you don't have to be attracted to people to have sex with them. So if it was a choice of being raped or killed. Most people would still pick rape.
No - it just wouldn't be the chick turning you on. If you were aroused by something else you would still be able to use your erection in that situation.Gangels said:You do if your a guy. Its impossible to have sex with a chick if you dont have an erection. Otherwise you'll just be small and floppy
Wrong, an erection can be brought about purely by physical stimulation, with no interest on the male's part required. You may research this more for yourself by googling "male rape" and reading, though I get the distinct impression that you're not one for broadening your horizons.Gangels said:You do if your a guy. Its impossible to have sex with a chick if you dont have an erection. Otherwise you'll just be small and floppy