Temujin
Well-known member
What in particular do you want to discuss?I like many here, and in society disagree with your opinion. Lets debate it
What in particular do you want to discuss?I like many here, and in society disagree with your opinion. Lets debate it
Whatever evidence you can put forward to back up your opinion.What in particular do you want to discuss?
They only have presuppositions as the base of their arguments. They will tell you Christians have the same.I like many here, and in society disagree with your opinion. Lets debate it
Stealing harms others, but consensual homosexual coupling harms no one.Uncontrollable urges come in many forms, yes.
For instance some have uncontrollable urges to steal, sometimes they are wealthy with no need to steal.
Everyone must learn to control their urges.
Sure based on harm, but seeing as they are both natural urges why discriminate one against the other as harmful.Stealing harms others, but consensual homosexual coupling harms no one.
A myth. What harm do you think is caused by anatomical incompatibility? There is not a single sex act performed by homosexuals that is not performed by heterosexuals, in greater numbers.Sure based on harm, but seeing as they are both natural urges why discriminate one against the other as harmful.
There is a greater risk of harm with same sex coupling as opposed to man/woman because of the anatomy
Been through that. And also that there are two sexes with compatible anatomies for it. Since that destroys your argument even before one considers harm, it is why you dont accept that realityA myth. What harm do you think is caused by anatomical incompatibility? There is not a single sex act performed by homosexuals that is not performed by heterosexuals, in greater numbers.
I have just destroyed your argument that there's a greater risk of harm due to same sex coupling as opposed to man/woman. The compatibility of the two sexes is matched by the compatibility of same sex. So both aspects of your argument failBeen through that. And also that there are two sexes with compatible anatomies for it. Since that destroys your argument even before one considers harm, it is why you dont accept that reality
There are two sexes with compatible anatomy for sexual intimacy regardless of whether you consider harm .I have just destroyed your argument that there's a greater risk of harm due to same sex coupling as opposed to man/woman. The compatibility of the two sexes is matched by the compatibility of same sex. So both aspects of your argument fail
And yes, we have been through this before. Several times. And you lost every time then too.
You should have a frank discussion with your gay friends. You will find that there is no problem with compatibility. You are just grasping at straws, if you'll pardon the expression given the context.There are two sexes with compatible anatomy for sexual intimacy regardless of whether you consider harm .
There is no compatibility of one sex, indeed if there was one wouldnt have or need two.
There are still two sexes with compatible anatomy for sexual intimacy regardless any conversation by anyone. Are you saying there arent?You should have a frank discussion with your gay friends. You will find that there is no problem with compatibility. You are just grasping at straws, if you'll pardon the expression given the context.
Only if we all observe your definition of sexual intimacy.There are still two sexes with compatible anatomy for sexual intimacy regardless any conversation by anyone.
The sexual intimacy is because there are two.sexes with compatible anatomy. .. exists regardless of what I think.Only if we all observe your definition of sexual intimacy.
We don't.
You swallow a lot when you think 'sexual coupling' causes no harm.... but consensual homosexual coupling harms no one.
So what. There are two sets of differing anatomy, a and b. Limiting sexual activity to two persons per event, the following combinations work perfectly: as, ab, bb . I am happy to acknowledge this, since it is reality. Why can't you acknowledge it? You invent harm, which when challenged you row back from. There's no biological reason whatsoever to promote one of the other combinations over the other two. It's all a matter of taste. The only exception is the tiny minority of interactions when conception is actively sought. Even then, there are options for the aa and bb couples. Biologically, you have nothing.There are still two sexes with compatible anatomy for sexual intimacy regardless any conversation by anyone. Are you saying there arent?
It doesn't cause more harm depending on the sex of the partnersYou swallow a lot when you think 'sexual coupling' causes no harm.
STD's being just one harm.
something I posted from this thread. address why you agree with it or disagree with itWhat in particular do you want to discuss?
There is male and female and some intersex.So what. There are two sets of differing anatomy, a and b.
the reality is that there are two sexes for it regardless of what combinations you or some others fancy. What you feel about things doesn't change reality.Limiting sexual activity to two persons per event, the following combinations work perfectly: as, ab, bb . I am happy to acknowledge this, since it is reality.
Depends what you mean by the sex. What is a woman?It doesn't cause more harm depending on the sex of the partners
Do I have to guess, or can I choose?something I posted from this thread. address why you agree with it or disagree with it