When did you decide sexual perversion is not a decision, and by what authority did you decide that?
Whose values?
- Thread starter Thistle
- Start date
Does an amendment exist making its way thru the states?
Temujin
Well-known member
When did you decide that homosexuality is a perversion? And by what authority do you impose that decision on others?
It's always been a perversion.
Its dysfunctional so that is one indication. When did you decide there was one sex for it as well as the two that there are?
Temujin
Well-known member
Really? On what authority do you claim this? Who are you to dictate the private lives of consenting adults?
Science and medicine as explained to you. Still waiting for you to quantify gender and trans.
We have already seen the BBC hosted a documentary for 100 genders but couldnt name or justify them.
You post media and I give you science.
What authority do you claim it isnt?
Have you got the bit about the reality of intersex and your imaginary 'trans' yet?
That's a straw man, chief.
Temujin
Well-known member
That's a direct paraphrase of your own post, private.
So how do you decide its not a sexual perversion? It is of course a sexual deviation because there two sexes for sexual intimacy.
The reality is there are two sexes with compatible anatomy for sexual intimacy, of course because that is the way the species also reproduces.
For you to justify one sex for it is illogical and not reality.
The claim that one sex relations is logical based on the existence of two sexes for it, you dont have a reality like that to defend your opinion
Temujin
Well-known member
Try again in English. Having sex is not the same thing as reproduction. Most people on the planet have sex when no person of the opposite sex is present. 99% plus of sex acts do not result in reproduction. Reproduction is not the reason or the function for most sexual activity. Basing your moral stance on whether an act performs according to function, is to label disabled people as immoral . You need to sit down and consider the argument you are trying to make with more care .
Never said it was, try reading properly, I used the word 'also' for reproduction. There are two sexes for sexual intimacy because they have compatible anatomy.
Irrelevant since there are two sexes with compatible anatomy for it.
irrelevant since there are two sexes with compatible anatomy for sexual intimacy.
irrelevant since there are two sexes with compatible anatomy for sexual intimacy.
irrelevant since there are two sexes with compatible anatomy for sexual intimacy whether you think its moral or not
still two sexes with compatible anatomy for sexual intimacy. You seem to be denying that reality
It is easier to label the same sex act immoral on the basis there are two sexes with compatible anatomy for sexual intimacy. Havent heard anything from you to support the idea that there is one sex for it, when there are two, let alone any moral arguments
No, you need to realise that when I said
"The reality is there are two sexes with compatible anatomy for sexual intimacy, of course because that is the way the species also reproduces." The argument was primarily that there are two sexes with compatible anatomy for sexual intimacy. YOU cant deny that so you chose not to address that but rather to address the reproduction which was ALSO there.
You either did that dishonestly on purpose, or you are too deceived to recognise the argument
hard to believe anyone would really think being against murder was uniquely Christian