Obama and dem congress cause resurgance of Republican core values.

SM, since you insist that homosexuality is unhealthy, please tell us what is unhealthy about it?
 
Solitary said:
If homosexuals were incapable of procreation, you would be correct.

But due to the societal pressures, many, many of them try to live "normal" lives. Which includes having children....
Click to expand...
So apparently they're not really "homo" then, are they little man? They're just perverted?
 
Southern Man said:
So apparently they're not really "homo" then, are they little man? They're just perverted?
Click to expand...

LMAO!

SM, if you had learned a little more science in your time in college you would not make such foolish statements.

The nerve endings are present in gays and straights alike. Stimulation of those nerve endings gets the same results. So whether the gay man is stimulated by a male or a female is not the point, the result will be the same. And the arousal is more mental than physical, so there is no way you can say they are not "homo" (as you so compassionately put it).
 
Southern Man said:
Sodomy.
Click to expand...

When you say sodomy, you do know (I hope) that you are referring to both oral and anal sex?

And while there are some risks involved in anal sex, that risk is certainly not limited to gay men.

Also, since you are so fond of Logical Fallacies, you might look up Dicto Simpliciter.

Just an FYI, not all gay men have anal sex. And its not something that lesbians are known for.
 
SM, you know the link you keep posting concerning Logical Fallacies?

Have you actually read it thoroughly?

Here is a passage from the site you use as a reference:

"Nature, appeal to. This is the fallacy of assuming that whatever is "natural" or consistent with "nature" (somehow defined) is good, or that whatever conflicts with nature is bad. For example, "Sodomy is unnatural; anal sex is not the evolutionary function of a penis or an anus. Therefore sodomy is wrong." But aside from the difficulty of defining what "natural" even means, there is no particular reason to suppose that unnatural and wrong are the same thing. After all, wearing clothes, tilling the soil, and using fire might be considered unnatural since no other animals do so, but humans do these things all the time and to great benefit."

Doesn't that shoot down arguments you have used? lmao


"Argumentum ad antiquitatem (the argument to antiquity or tradition). This is the familiar argument that some policy, behavior, or practice is right or acceptable because "it's always been done that way." This is an extremely popular fallacy in debate rounds; for example, "Every great civilization in history has provided state subsidies for art and culture!" But that fact does not justify continuing the policy."

Doesn't that counter your argument concerning gay marriages ruining a 5,000 year old institution?
 
Solitary said:
LMAO!

SM, if you had learned a little more science in your time in college you would not make such foolish statements.

The nerve endings are present in gays and straights alike. Stimulation of those nerve endings gets the same results. So whether the gay man is stimulated by a male or a female is not the point, the result will be the same. And the arousal is more mental than physical, so there is no way you can say they are not "homo" (as you so compassionately put it).
Click to expand...
Perhaps your little man gets a rise from being close to a man, little man, but that's not normal.
 
Southern Man said:
Both unhealthy.
Click to expand...

Both unhealthy?

Are you saying that oral sex is unhealthy as well? As long as both people are healthy and disease free, it is not unhealthy. If one (or both) have an STD, then any unprotected sex is unhealthy.

And believe it or not, there are far more straight people having oral sex than gays.
 
Southern Man said:
Perhaps your little man gets a rise from being close to a man, little man, but that's not normal.
Click to expand...

LMAO! Completely ridiculous reply. No bearing on what I posted.

Lets see.....Argumentum ad hominem would fit your reply, now wouldn't it?
 
Solitary said:
LMAO! Completely ridiculous reply. No bearing on what I posted.

Lets see.....Argumentum ad hominem would fit your reply, now wouldn't it?
Click to expand...
Not so much. My argument relies on the fact that a normal man does not get excited by the site of another man.
 
Southern Man said:
Not so much. My argument relies on the fact that a normal man does not get excited by the site of another man.
Click to expand...
So? We should, because some people get excited by something that most people don't, make laws against what they get excited by?

Some people have balloon fetishes (not kidding) and get excited by balloons popping. Should we outlaw balloons and make it so they can't marry somebody they would actually like to have relations with?
 
Damocles said:
So? We should, because some people get excited by something that most people don't, make laws against what they get excited by?

Some people have balloon fetishes (not kidding) and get excited by balloons popping. Should we outlaw balloons and make it so they can't marry somebody they would actually like to have relations with?
Click to expand...

What laws? I'm arguing if something is normal or not.
 
Southern Man said:
Not so much. My argument relies on the fact that a normal man does not get excited by the site of another man.
Click to expand...

I did not say anything about getting excited by the sight of another man. If you are going to stay in this, at least try reading my replies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top