Oh, by the way

Winky said:
Stickin' yer pee pee in another man's pooper ain't natural
equating humans with animals doesn’t change that fact
one wit.
Click to expand...

I'm equating nature with nature. You are making up shit.

Driving a car isn't natural. You want to outlaw that?

Maybe you just quit looking for the state to control other people?
 
spike said:
Yeah, I don't understand how you run away from your point so quick.

Eat your baloney.
Click to expand...
Consummation does not require a child to result, only the act that has to potential to produce a child.

Sticking it in your pooper just isn't the same act.
 
That's right, exactly what 'we' are looking for
we don't need the State tellin' us fudge packin'
is the way to be.

oh please don't stick that in me Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!
 
spike said:
Actually it does occur in nature -> therefore it's natural.
Click to expand...
Women have Bartholins glands and mucosa for the production of lubricants to aid the sex act. Where are the "natural" lubricants produced in the anus; where are the mucosa? If it is "natural" then why are these things missing? After all, shouldn't genetics have taken care of this problem as the "natural" act became more and more inbred into the human condition? Yet homosexuals, after all of these eons of "natural" anal sexual congress, still have to use external lubricants to achieve this "natural" act. It pays to carry a bit of bacon rind and a lambskin condom in your wallet, huh? Now that's natural!
 
ResearchMonkey said:
Consummation does not require a child to result, only the act that has to potential to produce a child.

Sticking it in your pooper just isn't the same act.
Click to expand...

So you're against blowjobs too?

So a sterile guy has no potential to produce a child and therefore the state should limit his freedom right?
 
jimpeel said:
Women have Bartholins glands and mucosa for the production of lubricants to aid the sex act. Where are the "natural" lubricants produced in the anus; where are the mucosa? If it is "natural" then why are these things missing? After all, shouldn't genetics have taken care of this problem as the "natural" act became more and more inbred into the human condition? Yet homosexuals, after all of these eons of "natural" anal sexual congress, still have to use external lubricants to achieve this "natural" act. It pays to carry a bit of bacon rind and a lambskin condom in your wallet, huh? Now that's natural!
Click to expand...

You're basing a argument on what should legally be allowed on lubrication?

The term "natural" has no relation to lubrication.

1. Present in or produced by nature

Debate over.
 
spike said:
Good or bad is an opinion.
Click to expand...

so is this

article said:
Instead, the surprisingly strong 53 percent vote to repeal a new law allowing same-sex marriage in Maine - socially liberal with a libertarian streak - suggested that public acceptance of civil rights movement for gays and lesbians is not advancing quite as fast as it should.
Click to expand...

since maine isnt as lib as cali, and since nowhere on the planet is as lib as sanfran, those voters should be chided and shamed into falling into line with the enlightened
 
H2O boy said:
since maine isnt as lib as cali, and since nowhere on the planet is as lib as sanfran, those voters should be chided and shamed into falling into line with the enlightened
Click to expand...

Why do you think that voters against civil rights should be chided?
 
ResearchMonkey said:
Whats wrong with a civil union?
Click to expand...

Nothing, marriage itself should be abolished in it's entirity, and we should have only civil unions, marriages should be religious ONLY and have no legal meaning.

If you want the legal benefits of a "marriage" you have a civil union. If you want the have a religious marriage, you go see the church type dude.
 
spike said:
Yeah, it took awhile for women and blacks to get equal rights under the law too.
Click to expand...

Special rights.

The Constitution did not specify who could vote. That is up to the states. Still should be.

The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.
Click to expand...

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.
Click to expand...

spike said:
Gonz, I'm not sure what you're basing your numbers on but there are states that allow same sex marriage.

What's the deal?
Click to expand...

Vote....not forced upon them by teh state legislature.
 
paul_valaru said:
Nothing, marriage itself should be abolished in it's entirity, and we should have only civil unions, marriages should be religious ONLY and have no legal meaning.

If you want the legal benefits of a "marriage" you have a civil union. If you want the have a religious marriage, you go see the church type dude.
Click to expand...

Split it with ya...

The religious service can act as a civil union. Only, the state may not force a church/synagogue/temple/other religious house to perform a marriage.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top