# Michele Bachmann confronted by boy who says:  ???My mommy???s gay but doesn???t need fixing



## min0 lee (Dec 6, 2011)

YouTube Video












It isn't often Michele Bachmann is at a loss for words, but the GOP presidential candidate was left speechless when an 8-year-old boy confronted her about homosexuality.

Video of the awkward encounter at a recent book-signing event in South Carolina has gone viral on YouTube.

In it, the soft-spoken child is seen approaching the Tea Party favorite.

After some coaxing from Bachmann, the boy, Elijah, tells her, "My mommy, Miss Bachmann, my mommy's gay but she doesn't need any fixing."

Bachmann ??? who had been leaning over the table embracing the child ??? quickly stands up, casts a cold stare at the woman standing behind Elijah, and is heard saying, "Bye-bye!"

The Minnesota congresswoman has been outspoken in her fight against gay marriage. Her family's counseling clinic has come under scrutiny for reportedly telling homosexual patients to ???pray away the gay??? in order to become straight.

Critics on Twitter and the blogosphere have slammed the video, arguing it looks like the boy was pressured to confront the candidate. They note the woman behind him, presumably his mother, is heard in the background encouraging him to speak.

But the woman who videotaped the confrontation told Chicago Now that the boy was the one who wanted to approach Bachmann.

???His mom was going to say something to her, but she got nervous and told me she wanted to leave. We were about to step out of the line but Elijah cried out, "Nooo!" He grabbed onto her coat and pulled her back in the line, saying he wanted to talk to her," said the woman, who gave only her first name, Jennifer.

"When we got up to Michele, he got a little stage fright. His mom just didn't want him to not say it because he was afraid, because she knew he would regret it if he didn't," she added.

Jennifer???s relationship with Elijah and his mother was unclear.



Read more: Michele Bachmann confronted by boy who says:


----------



## min0 lee (Dec 6, 2011)

Just because.


----------



## exphys88 (Dec 6, 2011)

what a fuckin joke of a person!  She doesn't accept evolution, she thinks vaccines cause autism, and she thinks being gay is a choice.  Oh wait, all of the GOP candidates believe this nonsense except Huntsman.


----------



## DOMS (Dec 6, 2011)

Nice job of using the kid as a tool.


----------



## exphys88 (Dec 6, 2011)

Madmann said:


> Why do people who are gay put on an act of being straight?
> 
> That's what leads to the notion of gay being a choice.
> Something that gets turned on and off like a switch.
> ...



No, religion leads to the notion that being gay is a choice.  There is no legitimate argument against homosexuality, only religious doctrine.  This is why it should have no place in our laws.  This is a secular country, full of ignorant christian idiots who ignore science.  

The American Psychological Association has stated it's position on the matter and they say that after 50 years of research they conclude that homosexuality is not a choice, and that efforts to try and "fix" gays only leads to psychological issues.  Christian conservatives ignore science like this because it doesn't fit into their retarded religious views.


----------



## exphys88 (Dec 6, 2011)

min0 lee said:


> Just because.



it looks like bachmann loves the big black cock like sarah palin...


----------



## DOMS (Dec 6, 2011)

exphysiologist88 said:


> No, religion leads to the notion that being gay is a choice.



That, and experience. I've seen plenty of chicks decide to play for the other team when their man dumped them.


----------



## IronAddict (Dec 6, 2011)

exphysiologist88 said:


> it looks like bachmann loves the big black cock like sarah palin...



Nice!

If she really does believe being gay is an abomination, please explain to me your husband!?


----------



## Ezskanken (Dec 6, 2011)

Reminds me of this video:






YouTube Video


----------



## exphys88 (Dec 6, 2011)

DOMS said:


> That, and experience. I've seen plenty of chicks decide to play for the other team when their man dumped them.



Hey, women are beautiful.  Even straight women agree.


----------



## exphys88 (Dec 6, 2011)

Madmann said:


> I have no religion and don't believe in that science garbage.



Luckily for the rest of the educated world, science is not a belief system and doesn't progress by faith and belief.  It moves forward based on facts and evidence.(most of the time)


----------



## exphys88 (Dec 6, 2011)

DOMS said:


> That, and experience. I've seen plenty of chicks decide to play for the other team when their man dumped them.



any pics or videos?


----------



## DOMS (Dec 6, 2011)

exphysiologist88 said:


> any pics or videos?


Many pics. Many videos.


----------



## oufinny (Dec 6, 2011)

exphysiologist88 said:


> any pics or videos?



Yeah, always love seeing a fresh lesbian going for it!


----------



## oufinny (Dec 6, 2011)

Bachman represents all the ignorance that fundamentalist Christianity brings to the table, it is just like Sharia Islam.  Rarely, if ever, does anything good come from it.


----------



## Zaphod (Dec 6, 2011)

Madmann said:


> I have no religion and don't believe in that science garbage.



No surprise there.


----------



## exphys88 (Dec 6, 2011)

DOMS said:


> Many pics. Many videos.


----------



## Zaphod (Dec 6, 2011)

Madmann said:


> If you have a point of some kind, it would be good if you could make it.



You have no religion, which is fine.  But you don't believe in science?  Is it all magic or something?


----------



## maxpro2 (Dec 6, 2011)

The only thing worse than Michelle Bachmann is coaching your child to use him as a political tool and then broadcasting his image across the world. What a fucking disgrace. Horrible horrible horrible.


----------



## irish_2003 (Dec 6, 2011)

i'll take the opposite of whatever side LAM chooses to defend on this issue


----------



## DOMS (Dec 6, 2011)

irish_2003 said:


> i'll take the opposite of whatever side LAM chooses to defend on this issue


----------



## BillHicksFan (Dec 6, 2011)

The people who believe being gay is a choice I recommend you try sucking a dick to see how you like it. After doing so I'm sure that it will become abundantly clear that being gay is not a choice. 

As for women turning gay after they get dumped, I believe that in many cases they are as gay as they are hetero. "Bitter man haters" might be the most accurate word to describe them. They probably don't lick pussy behind close doors or even kiss for that matter. They'd much prefer to share the same bed and discuss how much they hate men.

Not always the case I'm sure but you don't hear gay guys speaking to women in a derogatory manner.


----------



## BillHicksFan (Dec 6, 2011)

Looks like that kids has no idea what he's even saying. I'm all for gay rights but that really was a cheap trick.


----------



## DOMS (Dec 6, 2011)

BillHicksFan said:


> The people who believe being gay is a choice I recommend you try sucking a dick to see how you like it. After doing so I'm sure that it will become abundantly clear that being gay.



There are people that like having sex with animal. So it's not a choice for them? How about guys that are attracted to preteen girls? Is it "not a choice" for them too?


----------



## fitter420 (Dec 6, 2011)

exphysiologist88 said:


> No, religion leads to the notion that being gay is a choice. There is no legitimate argument against homosexuality, only religious doctrine. This is why it should have no place in our laws. This is a secular country, full of ignorant christian idiots who ignore science.
> 
> The American Psychological Association has stated it's position on the matter and they say that after 50 years of research they conclude that homosexuality is not a choice, and that efforts to try and "fix" gays only leads to psychological issues. Christian conservatives ignore science like this because it doesn't fit into their retarded religious views.


 
Yo dude,
I read some of your other posts(think it was on gh)and it was a good read.
And I don't give a shit about your blanket statements on gop ect.
Thats why we vote. I have no problems with someone with another opinion.
But I have an issue with once again you're blanket statements on the Christianity.(I think you used the word retarded)
I for one am no bible thumper but my family and myself are Christian.You I can see are an athiest which is your choice.But what gets me is you guys sit and preach your own agenda and everyone else that doesn't see it your way are ...retarded.
Whether you choose to believethere is a God or not I can tell you one thing.The world would be alot better if more people had say "Christian" values.It is a religion yes,but it is really about being a better person and helping out fellow man.
And yes,it can be exploited and taken to the extreme.
But just look around once in awhile.Whether it's helping a family with no food,or who just lost their house in some sot of catastrophe(i.e. katrina).
Or better yet, on the world wide spectrum such as the tsunami,haiti earthquake,AIDS ect. If you look at how many Christians(or as you would say,retards)were the ones donating their time,goods,money,whatever,
I would have to say that they are pretty good people all in all.


----------



## exphys88 (Dec 6, 2011)

fitter420 said:


> Yo dude,
> I read some of your other posts(think it was on gh)and it was a good read.
> And I don't give a shit about your blanket statements on gop ect.
> Thats why we vote. I have no problems with someone with another opinion.
> ...



I wouldn't disagree w any of this, i think Jesus had it right in the morals he preached.  I'm just too intelligent to believe in virgin births and talking snakes.

Now, on the current topic, it's incredibly obvious that it is the religious folks who are leading the war of discrimination against gays.  Do you dispute this?  They are also the only ones who try to make abortion and stem cell research illegal.  Do you dispute this?  Like I said before, there is absolutely no legitimate argument against homosexuality, just religious doctrine from the bible.  Christians quote the bible when they call it an abomination, yet in that same chapter from which they quote, it also says gays must be put to death.  Jesus never said anything about gays.


----------



## DOMS (Dec 6, 2011)

exphysiologist88 said:


> I'm just too intelligent to believe in virgin births and talking snakes.



I've got a talking snake for you.


----------



## exphys88 (Dec 6, 2011)

DOMS said:


> I've got a talking snake for you.



I can't seem to figure you out.  You seem intelligent enough, but always seem to defend christianity.


----------



## DOMS (Dec 6, 2011)

exphysiologist88 said:


> I can't seem to figure you out.  You seem intelligent enough, but always seem to defend christianity.



You're reading way too much into it. It was a joke. You know, sexual innuendo? 

And yes, I like Christians.


----------



## BillHicksFan (Dec 6, 2011)

DOMS said:


> There are people that like having sex with animal. So it's not a choice for them? How about guys that are attracted to preteen girls? Is it "not a choice" for them too?



As long as the feelings are mutual and both partners give consent then that relationships is nobody's business apart from the couple's involved. As long as they arent hurting anybody, not you nor anybody else has any right to stop them from loving one another and it is cruel and immoral to make them feel bad about who they are and how they choose to live *their *lives. 

As for beastiality, that goes against the basic principles of humanity as it is not humane to rape a beast. It doesn't share the human emotion and if the beast does give sexual consent it is on a very primitive and instinctual level.

As for pedophilia, some people are sick. Some people murder, some people rape and they have little to no conscience.

Comparing the genuine love of two individuals to such horrific aspects of human nature such as beastiality and pedophilia is quite disturbing and an insult to the kind  hearted homosexual population.

You should really stick to comparing apples with apples in my opinion.


----------



## GearsMcGilf (Dec 6, 2011)

If she wanted to confront Bachman, she should've strapped it on and made Bachman her bitch, without using her kid as a prop.  No respect for that kind of shit.  We now know there are at least two reasons to feel sorry for that kid.


----------



## exphys88 (Dec 6, 2011)

fitter420 said:


> Yo dude,
> I read some of your other posts(think it was on gh)and it was a good read.
> And I don't give a shit about your blanket statements on gop ect.
> Thats why we vote. I have no problems with someone with another opinion.
> ...




And, I'm sorry if this offends you.  But, it is retarded to believe that the human race was started by adam and eve 6000 years ago.  It's retarded to believe in burning bushes that can talk.  It's retarded to believe that at one point a man and his sons built a boat big enough for 2 of every animal, and then 2 of every animal came to get a ride when the flood was coming.  It's retarded to believe that many of those animals would've had to swim across oceans just to hitch a ride on that boat so they wouldn't drowned in the flood.  It's retarded to believe that jesus is going to return on a cloud to rapture his followers.  It's retarded to completely ignore all the evidence that clearly shows that being gay is not a choice.  

To be fair, I think Islam beliefs are just as retarded, I'm just more familiar with the retarded stories in the bible.


----------



## Dark Geared God (Dec 6, 2011)

exphysiologist88 said:


> I can't seem to figure you out. You seem intelligent enough, but always seem to defend christianity.


 I can't speal and i wasd raised like a pitbull mah heart pump nitro


----------



## exphys88 (Dec 6, 2011)

DOMS said:


> You're reading way too much into it. It was a joke. You know, sexual innuendo?
> 
> And yes, I like Christians.



I got that, and I like christians too, I just think they believe retarded things.


----------



## exphys88 (Dec 6, 2011)

Dark Geared God said:


> I can't speal and i wasd raised like a pitbull mah heart pump nitro


----------



## DOMS (Dec 6, 2011)

BillHicksFan said:


> As for beastiality, that goes against the basic principles of humanity as it is not humane to rape a beast. It doesn't share the human emotion and if the beast does give sexual consent it is on a very primitive and instinctual level.



Fair enough.



BillHicksFan said:


> As for pedophilia, some people are sick. Some people murder, some people rape and they have little to no conscience.
> 
> Comparing the genuine love of two individuals to such horrific aspects of human nature such as beastiality and pedophilia is quite disturbing and an insult to the kind  hearted homosexual population.
> 
> You should really stick to comparing apples with apples in my opinion.



Oh, I misunderstood. When _*you*_ think it's natural, it's choice, but when *you* don't think so, it's deviation and a crime. 

Neither a sexual relationship between same sex partners or a man and prepubescent girl lead to offspring, but the case could be made that, with the pedophile, it's at least based on basic human instinct. To have sex with the opposite sex and make sure they're young. Animals choose mates based on this criteria. You can see this in humans all the time. Such as old men craving younger women.


----------



## Curt James (Dec 6, 2011)

DOMS said:


> Nice job of using the kid as a tool.



This.



BillHicksFan said:


> Looks like that kids has no idea what he's even saying. *I'm all for gay rights but that really was a cheap trick. *



And this.

Bachmann seems like an idiot, but putting the kid on video? 






YouTube Video


----------



## BillHicksFan (Dec 6, 2011)

DOMS said:


> Oh, I misunderstood. When _*you*_ think it's natural, it's choice, but when *you* don't think so, it's deviation and a crime.
> 
> Neither a sexual relationship between same sex partners or a man and prepubescent girl lead to offspring, but the case could be made that, with the pedophile, it's at least based on basic human instinct. To have sex with the opposite sex and make sure they're young. Animals choose mates based on this criteria. You can see this in humans all the time. Such as old men craving younger women.




Some people choose to base their morality on ancient books and some people base their morality of minimising suffering to others.
Morality based on ancient books can be extremely dangerous as we are continually evolving both mentally and physically. What was once considered to be moral can eventually become inappropriate. Morality evolves too and we really shouldn't turn our back on love based morality. It would have to be the most valuable instinct we have.

The peodophile can quite often have genuine feelings for infants however by following through on his instincts he is inevitably going to ruin the life of the child he lusts over of loves and as a result cause a lifetime of unimaginable suffering.

This happens in the Muslim world and we can clearly see that the women are suffering as a result.


----------



## exphys88 (Dec 6, 2011)

BillHicksFan said:


> Some people choose to base their morality on ancient books and some people base their morality of minimising suffering to others.
> Morality based on ancient books can be extremely dangerous as we are continually evolving both mentally and physically. What was once considered to be moral can eventually become inappropriate. Morality evolves too and we really shouldn't turn our back on love based morality. It would have to be the most valuable instinct we have.
> 
> The peodophile can quite often have genuine feelings for infants however by following through on his instincts he is inevitably going to ruin the life of the child he lusts over of loves and as a result cause a lifetime of unimaginable suffering.
> ...




well said.  Deciding whether something is moral or not should be based on the consequences of that action, not on religious doctrine.


----------



## secdrl (Dec 6, 2011)

You all are my homeboys, but I'm "TEAM DOMS" on this one.


----------



## exphys88 (Dec 6, 2011)

secdrl said:


> You all are my homeboys, but I'm "TEAM DOMS" on this one.



So, you're of the opinion that men should be able to rape children and animals if gays are allowed to have sex?


----------



## DOMS (Dec 6, 2011)

BillHicksFan said:


> Some people choose to base their morality on ancient books and some people base their morality of minimising suffering to others.
> Morality based on ancient books can be extremely dangerous as we are continually evolving both mentally and physically. What was once considered to be moral can eventually become inappropriate. Morality evolves too and we really shouldn't turn our back on love based morality. It would have to be the most valuable instinct we have.



When the hell did I bring up morality? Stop trying to obfuscate the issue.



BillHicksFan said:


> The peodophile can quite often have genuine feelings for infants however by following through on his instincts he is inevitably going to ruin the life of the child he lusts over of loves and as a result cause a lifetime of unimaginable suffering.



Again, I'm not talking about the effects of the relationships. I'm talking about it being a choice or not. And, if it's not a choice, why is it okay for same sex relationships, but not other deviations?


----------



## DOMS (Dec 6, 2011)

exphysiologist88 said:


> So, you're of the opinion that men should be able to rape children and animals if gays are allowed to have sex?



So, all adult and juvenile relationships are rape? Really? The girl wanted to go with that guy. But "oh no", it's wrong because _*you*_ say so. Never mind that _*they*_ both wanted the relationship. Hence my distinction between actual rape (force intercourse) and statutory rape (a legal definition).


----------



## fitter420 (Dec 6, 2011)

exphysiologist88 said:


> And, I'm sorry if this offends you.  But, it is retarded to believe that the human race was started by adam and eve 6000 years ago.  It's retarded to believe in burning bushes that can talk.  It's retarded to believe that at one point a man and his sons built a boat big enough for 2 of every animal, and then 2 of every animal came to get a ride when the flood was coming.  It's retarded to believe that many of those animals would've had to swim across oceans just to hitch a ride on that boat so they wouldn't drowned in the flood.  It's retarded to believe that jesus is going to return on a cloud to rapture his followers.  It's retarded to completely ignore all the evidence that clearly shows that being gay is not a choice.
> 
> To be fair, I think Islam beliefs are just as retarded, I'm just more familiar with the retarded stories in the bible.


 
Once again,I am no bible thumper. To be honest the last time I was at church was to have my daughter baptized.And I think the deal with the bible is to not to take it so literally,as its been translated and translated again for many many years.To me it's a pretty good book that have helped quite a few people worldwide.Again,anything can be taken to the extreme which I don't agree with.
But guess what?I have no problem saying "God bless you" if you sneeze,"in God we trust" being on our money,saying"God bless America"'or calling a Christmas tree a "CHRISTMAS tree".
Like it or not we are,and have been a Judeo-Christian based country which I personally think has made us the country we are today as a whole.
But I am sure you already know this because you seem to have it all figured out (has eluded scholars for centuries).
This coming from you,who has a 2 plus page thread asking whether your gh is real or not.


----------



## exphys88 (Dec 6, 2011)

fitter420 said:


> Once again,I am no bible thumper. To be honest the last time I was at church was to have my daughter baptized.And I think the deal with the bible is to not to take it so literally,as its been translated and translated again for many many years.To me it's a pretty good book that have helped quite a few people worldwide.Again,anything can be taken to the extreme which I don't agree with.
> But guess what?I have no problem saying "God bless you" if you sneeze,"in God we trust" being on our money,saying"God bless America"'or calling a Christmas tree a "CHRISTMAS tree".
> Like it or not we are,and have been a Judeo-Christian based country which I personally think has made us the country we are today as a whole.
> But I am sure you already know this because you seem to have it all figured out (has eluded scholars for centuries).
> This coming from you,who has a 2 plus page thread asking whether your gh is real or not.



But, the problem is that the majority of christian americans do take it literally and are trying to force their religious views into our laws.  gay marriage, evolution, stem cell research and abortion are perfect examples.  We are not supposed to make laws based on any one particular religious doctrine.  
And, I think my gh thread is actually up to 6 pages now, what's your point?

And, I think it's retarded that people baptize their children and think the water is magical and will help that child get into heaven.  If there were a god, I'm sure he wouldn't base entry into heaven on whether or not someone had been dunked in magical water.


----------



## exphys88 (Dec 6, 2011)

DOMS said:


> So, all adult and juvenile relationships are rape? Really? The girl wanted to go with that guy. But "oh no", it's wrong because _*you*_ say so. Never mind that _*they*_ both wanted the relationship. Hence my distinction between actual race (force intercourse) and statutory rape (a legal definition).



I agree that sometimes statutory rape is ridiculous, but as a society we have to set limits on what age of a person an adult can have sex with.  do we not?


----------



## DOMS (Dec 6, 2011)

exphysiologist88 said:


> I agree that sometimes statutory rape is ridiculous, but as a society we have to set limits on what age of a person an adult can have sex with.  do we not?


They used to have laws about which genders could have sex, did they not?

Also, even if you limit the act of sex to puberty, there are lots of girls hitting puberty just after their 11th birthday.


----------



## Zaphod (Dec 6, 2011)

exphysiologist88 said:


> I agree that sometimes statutory rape is ridiculous, but as a society we have to set limits on what age of a person an adult can have sex with.  do we not?



Why do we?  Setting an age limit is a rather recent thing in history.


----------



## exphys88 (Dec 6, 2011)

DOMS said:


> So, all adult and juvenile relationships are rape? Really? The girl wanted to go with that guy. But "oh no", it's wrong because _*you*_ say so. Never mind that _*they*_ both wanted the relationship. Hence my distinction between actual race (force intercourse) and statutory rape (a legal definition).



that creep should go to jail for that.  I don't care if she decided to go with him, it's no new thing for older men to manipulate girls into having sex with them.  No 31 year old man should be with a 12 year old girl.  Do you disagree?


----------



## exphys88 (Dec 6, 2011)

Zaphod said:


> Why do we?  Setting an age limit is a rather recent thing in history.



Because some men are awful and will rape girls of any age.


----------



## exphys88 (Dec 6, 2011)

DOMS said:


> They used to have laws about which genders could have sex, did they not?
> 
> Also, even if you limit the act of sex to puberty, there are lots of girls hitting puberty just after their 11th birthday.



I never argued for a particular age, but I think there should be some limits set.  would you be ok with your 11 year old daughter getting with a 45 year old man?  I'd kill that fucker.


----------



## DOMS (Dec 6, 2011)

exphysiologist88 said:


> that creep should go to jail for that.  I don't care if she decided to go with him, it's no new thing for older men to manipulate girls into having sex with them.  No 31 year old man should be with a 12 year old girl.  Do you disagree?



Would it have been manipulation if the guy was 12 years old? And, if is was manipulation by a 12 year old boy, would that have been unnatural and wrong?


----------



## exphys88 (Dec 6, 2011)

DOMS said:


> Would it have been manipulation if the guy was 12 years old? And, if is was manipulation by a 12 year old boy, would that have been unnatural and wrong?



No, because he wouldn't be using his age and power that comes with age to manipulate her.  
Is it your opinion that there shouldn't be any laws against having sex with girls of any age?  how bout 4 year olds, what if they consent?


----------



## DOMS (Dec 6, 2011)

exphysiologist88 said:


> I never argued for a particular age, but I think there should be some limits set.  would you be ok with your 11 year old daughter getting with a 45 year old man?  I'd kill that fucker.


Why should there be limits set other than by nature? If there is some compelling reason to dictate an arbitrary boundry to sex, then couldn't there be limits set for genders?


----------



## DOMS (Dec 6, 2011)

exphysiologist88 said:


> No, because he wouldn't be using his age and power that comes with age to manipulate her.



What about a retarded man? Someone with the mentally capacity of a 12 year old?


----------



## exphys88 (Dec 6, 2011)

Being attracted to little girls is a psychological illness.


----------



## DOMS (Dec 6, 2011)

exphysiologist88 said:


> Being attracted to little girls is a psychological illness.



Even if they've both hit puberty?


----------



## exphys88 (Dec 6, 2011)

DOMS said:


> What about a retarded man? Someone with the mentally capacity of a 12 year old?



lmao, I have no idea.  I have never put much thought on this question, I guess I'd have to chew on it for a while.


----------



## exphys88 (Dec 6, 2011)

DOMS said:


> Even if they've both hit puberty?



maybe not.  but before they develop into a woman, of course.  Hitting puberty and being a woman are two different things.


----------



## DOMS (Dec 6, 2011)

exphysiologist88 said:


> lmao, I have no idea.  I have never put much thought on this question, I guess I'd have to chew on it for a while.



I should warn you, if you come back with an issue of physical power, I'll just make the hypothetical guy mentally and _physically_ retarded.


----------



## exphys88 (Dec 6, 2011)

DOMS said:


> Why should there be limits set other than by nature? If there is some compelling reason to dictate an arbitrary boundry to sex, then couldn't there be limits set for genders?



because nature is cruel and we are civilized.  If men were allowed to do as they please, we'd be living like muslims and treating our women like property.  Men are fucked up and need laws to make society work.


----------



## exphys88 (Dec 6, 2011)

DOMS said:


> I should warn you, if you come back with an issue of physical power, I'll just make the hypothetical guy mentally and _physically_ retarded.


 I have no response


----------



## Zaphod (Dec 6, 2011)

exphysiologist88 said:


> Because some men are awful and will rape girls of any age.



Rape is different from consensual sex.


----------



## exphys88 (Dec 6, 2011)

Zaphod said:


> Rape is different from consensual sex.



so, if a 4 year old consents, then it's ok?  Are you guys really arguing this?


----------



## DOMS (Dec 6, 2011)

exphysiologist88 said:


> maybe not.  but before they develop into a woman, of course.  Hitting puberty and being a woman are two different things.


I'm gonna let you off the hook. 

My point is that, when it comes to the issue of sex, it's not that clean and clear. It becomes arbitrary. And the pro-gay people often go illogical in order to support their side.

I'm also sticking with my argument about choice. If it's a "healthy natural choice" for two guys to have sex, then it's also a "healthy natural choice" for a guy to sleep with a girl that's hit puberty. You can't have it both ways. Well, if you're bisexual I suppose you can. 

My stand on the matter, I'm okay with gay marriage. The state has no business limiting your right to get married. It's none of their damn business. I'm definitely against adults having a sexual relationship with someone that hasn't hit puberty.

As for sex between a man and, say an 11 year old that's hit puberty, I'm a raging hypocrite. It's natural, but I'd kill the man that touched my daughter. 

Hell, when my daughter is an adult and is having consenusal sex, the guy better watch his back.


----------



## DOMS (Dec 6, 2011)

exphysiologist88 said:


> I have no response



<retarded voice>Hi, here's my retarded card. Can I have sex with your daughter now? I like pudding.</retarded voice>


----------



## exphys88 (Dec 6, 2011)

DOMS said:


> I'm gonna let you off the hook.
> 
> My point is that, when it comes to the issue of sex, it's not that clean and clear. It becomes arbitrary. And the pro-gay people often go illogical in order to support their side.
> 
> ...



Well said.  I understand your point completely.  There  have been many marriages that were between a man and woman of very different ages, and it was consensual.  But, to make sure that we protect kids from predators, we have to set the limit somewhere, even if that limit is arbitrary.


----------



## BillHicksFan (Dec 6, 2011)

DOMS said:


> When the hell did I bring up morality? Stop trying to obfuscate the issue.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, I'm not talking about the effects of the relationships. I'm talking about it being a choice or not. And, if it's not a choice, why is it okay for same sex relationships, but not other deviations?




If its not an issue of morality then what's your problem? 


On what grounds could you possibly choose to be gay and feel as though it suits your lifestyle better? Assuming you're not in the closet, I bet you couldnt be gay even if you tried.

People can choose what they "do" but they cannot chose what they "want" as what they naturally want defines who they are. 

Regarding other deviations of relationships, what deviations are you talking about? I've already covered beastiality and peodophilia and they are no comparison to homosexuality.


----------



## Zaphod (Dec 6, 2011)

exphysiologist88 said:


> so, if a 4 year old consents, then it's ok?  Are you guys really arguing this?



That's where the parents come in.  I'm a father of three children.  Ages 16, 14 and 6.  If anyone thinks he's going to have sex with any of my kids I've got something for him and it leaves big holes in them.  I don't need a law to determine the cut-off point.  Do you?


----------



## DOMS (Dec 6, 2011)

BillHicksFan said:


> If its not an issue of morality then what's your problem?



I don't. You haven't been paying attention.



BillHicksFan said:


> On what grounds could you possibly choose to be gay and feel as though it suits your lifestyle better?



Some people just love broccoli. I can't stand the stuff. Some people love running long distance. I can barely stand running on the treadmill listening to an audio book for 30 minutes.



BillHicksFan said:


> Assuming you're not in the closet, I bet you couldnt be gay even if you tried.



I'm sick to fucking death of that tactic. If you're not 100% supportive of gays, then you're labeled a closet gay. That's a loser tactic.



BillHicksFan said:


> People can choose what they "do" but they cannot chose what they "want" as what they naturally want defines who they are. .



And there are guys that want young girls. You right, pedophilia is natural.



BillHicksFan said:


> Regarding other deviations of relationships, what deviations are you talking about? I've already covered beastiality and peodophilia and they are no comparison to homosexuality.



Bestiality, yes. Pedophilia, no.


----------



## exphys88 (Dec 6, 2011)

Zaphod said:


> That's where the parents come in.  I'm a father of three children.  Ages 16, 14 and 6.  If anyone thinks he's going to have sex with any of my kids I've got something for him and it leaves big holes in them.  I don't need a law to determine the cut-off point.  Do you?



But, you were just arguing that it's ok to have sex with kids if it's consensual?  At what age is it ok? 4,6,8?


----------



## BillHicksFan (Dec 6, 2011)

Damn, DOMS. I'm just discussing a topic with you. Chill out. 

I didn't label you a closet gay however I seem to have hit a nerve by mentioning those words.

I only brought it up because many outspoken homophobes happen to be closet gays therefore it was aimed at a section of society and was not at all a personal attack on you.


----------



## DOMS (Dec 6, 2011)

BillHicksFan said:


> Damn, DOMS. I'm just discussing a topic with you. Chill out.



Where I come from, those are fighting words.



BillHicksFan said:


> _Oh, yeah???!!!_



Well...I'm not from here... 




BillHicksFan said:


> I didn't label you a closet gay however I seem to have hit a nerve by mentioning those words.
> 
> I only brought it up because many outspoken homophobes happen to be closer gays.


Fair enough, I guess. I've been in conversations (in person and online) where I didn't gush about gay rights - I didn't say anything negative, I just wasn't super (HIV*) positive - and they pulled that card. They're assuming that I'm anti-gay and calling me gay as an _insult_. I responded with, "Fuck you." They wan to throw insults, fine by me.

* It's a joke.


----------



## BillHicksFan (Dec 6, 2011)

Doms, I'm not multi-quoting on an iPhone. 

I've had gay neighbours, gay friends, I know plenty of gay people and although society doesn't always like what they do behind closed doors because they don't understand it, they still accept it in general.

If my neighbours were peodophiles and open about it, I guarantees their lives would be a living hell until somebody eventually took to them with a knife or a gun. After this happened they would receive little to no sympathy from the general public.

There's a huge difference.


----------



## DOMS (Dec 6, 2011)

BillHicksFan said:


> Doms, I'm not multi-quoting on an iPhone.
> 
> I've had gayneighbours, gay friends, I know plenty of gay people and although society doesn't always like what they do behind closed doors because they don't understand it, they still accept it in general.
> 
> If my neighbours were peodophiles and open about it, I guarantees their lives would be a living hell until somebody eventually took to them with a knife or a gun. After this happened they would receive little to no sympathy from the general public.


Which has nothing to do with having faulted my logic.


----------



## Zaphod (Dec 6, 2011)

exphysiologist88 said:


> But, you were just arguing that it's ok to have sex with kids if it's consensual?  At what age is it ok? 4,6,8?



I wasn't arguing it's okay.  I was arguing it isn't up to the government to just pull some number out of its collective ass and say "Here's where it's legal."  

You need me to tell you at what age it's okay?  If you don't know at what age it's okay then how about we make it 90 years old just for you?  That way we don't have to worry about a lack of common sense being spread.


----------



## exphys88 (Dec 6, 2011)

Zaphod said:


> I wasn't arguing it's okay.  I was arguing it isn't up to the government to just pull some number out of its collective ass and say "Here's where it's legal."
> 
> You need me to tell you at what age it's okay?  If you don't know at what age it's okay then how about we make it 90 years old just for you?  That way we don't have to worry about a lack of common sense being spread.



No, the gov doesn't need to do that, but our society should decide what is acceptable.  Otherwise, sexual predators will be able to have sex with anyone they want regardless of age.  
I don't pretend to know at what age it's appropriate, but we have to set a limit, even if it's arbitrary.  There are  many kids who don't have the protection you give yours, but they deserve it just the same.


----------



## BillHicksFan (Dec 6, 2011)

DOMS said:


> Which has nothing to do with having faulted my logic.



Well it is faulted logic and history proves this. Not so long ago homosexuals would have suffered the same fate as the peodophile neighbours however society has come a long way since then.


----------



## DOMS (Dec 6, 2011)

BillHicksFan said:


> Well it is faulted logic and history proves this. Not so long ago homosexuals would have suffered the same fate as the peodophile neighbours however society has come a long way since then.


And how does that invalidate pedophilia vs homosexuality? It doesn't.


----------



## GearsMcGilf (Dec 6, 2011)

We gotta draw the line somewhere.  Otherwise, it would be impossible to examine every case on an individual basis.  18 is the legal age of majority, which is why it is also the legal age of consent.  It's kind of like the drinking age.  It can't simply be left up to the store clerk to decide if a teenager is mature enough to drink responsibly.  There has to be a clear line drawn.  That line just happens to be 18 in the US and 16 in most EU countries.  

As far as faggotism being a choice, that's ridiculous.  That's like saying that 100% of the population is hetero. However, 3-4% of the population chooses relationships that are unrewarding, feel uncomfortable and awkward, and causes them to be socially ostracized.  It's an absurd argument.


----------



## exphys88 (Dec 6, 2011)

GearsMcGilf said:


> We gotta draw the line somewhere.  Otherwise, it would be impossible to examine every case on an individual basis.  18 is the legal age of majority, which is why it is also the legal age of consent.  It's kind of like the drinking age.  It can't simply be left up to the store clerk to decide if a teenager is mature enough to drink responsibly.  There has to be a clear line drawn.  That line just happens to be 18 in the US and 16 in most EU countries.
> 
> As far as faggotism being a choice, that's ridiculous.  That's like saying that 100% of the population is hetero. However, 3-4% of the population chooses relationships that are unrewarding, feel uncomfortable and awkward, and causes them to be socially ostracized.  It's an absurd argument.


----------



## DOMS (Dec 6, 2011)

GearsMcGilf said:


> As far as faggotism being a choice, that's ridiculous.  That's like saying that 100% of the population is hetero. However, 3-4% of the population chooses relationships that are unrewarding, feel uncomfortable and awkward, and causes them to be socially ostracized.  It's an absurd argument.


Almost as absurd as 6% of the population choosing to use illegal drugs, even knowing that it my ostracize some of their friends / family and land them in jail...


----------



## BillHicksFan (Dec 6, 2011)

Sexual orientation has nothing to do with using drugs, legal or illegal.

If you're argument is not about what is right or wrong (which you are claiming its not) then you are still claiming that emotions are a choice. Not how you act upon emotion but the emotion itself is a choice. Is that right?


----------



## DOMS (Dec 6, 2011)

BillHicksFan said:


> Sexual orientation has nothing to do with using drugs, legal or illegal.
> 
> If you're argument is not about what is right or wrong (which you are claiming its not) then you are still claiming that emotions are a choice. Not how you act upon emotion but the emotion itself is a choice. Is that right?



No, you're not right.

I'm arguing that it's choice. Along with the myriad other choices that people make. Like what kind of physically activities you choose to do. What types of food you want to eat. And so on.


----------



## BillHicksFan (Dec 6, 2011)

Everything we do is based on emotion. We may choose to play sport because it feels great and has much to offer however _which_ sport we play is a decision based on what makes us the happiest and is the most forfilling.


----------



## KelJu (Dec 6, 2011)

DOMS said:


> Nice job of using the kid as a tool.



Damn near everyone uses kids as a tool. "But what about the children?" Aren't anti-gay arguments nearly always related to some horseshit about family breakdown and the good of the children?


----------



## KelJu (Dec 6, 2011)

DOMS said:


> No, you're not right.
> 
> I'm arguing that it's choice. Along with the myriad other choices that people make. Like what kind of physically activities you choose to do. What types of food you want to eat. And so on.



God dammit, not this shit again. Orientation is preference. Preference is not a fucking choice. Whether or not you follow though with your preference is a choice.


----------



## BillHicksFan (Dec 6, 2011)

Ok, I think I understand now, DOMS.

You either believe that being gay is fine as long as you don't act upon it.

Or

You believe that being gay is not fine and that you shouldn't act upon it.

If this is the case then how can you possibly state that morality has nothing to to with your argument?


----------



## DOMS (Dec 6, 2011)

BillHicksFan said:


> Ok, I think I understand now, DOMS.
> 
> You either believe that being gay is fine as long as you don't act upon it.
> 
> ...



And...you don't. Not at all. Not even close.

If you want to have sex with your own gender...go for it. Have fun. It hurts no one.

The idea that gay parent hurts kids is only true if being gay is self-harming. And it's mostly not - long-term anal isn't really healthy for your bum-hole. But not all gays play that way. Contrary to what "pro-gay" people want to believe, having gay parents makes you more inclined to be gay. It's not an absolute, just an inclination.

I'm just talking about choice versus not, and how that relates to adult / child sexual relationships in the sense of what is "right" or "wrong". Because it's not as clear cut as some would like to believe.

You're just someone that read something that _you_ thought was an attack on homosexuality and went on the attack yourself. With the usual "you must be a closet gay" rhetoric, indignity, and other usual crap.


----------



## DOMS (Dec 6, 2011)

KelJu said:


> God dammit, not this shit again. Orientation is preference. Preference is not a fucking choice. Whether or not you follow though with your preference is a choice.


I have an anti-broccoli orientation.


----------



## exphys88 (Dec 6, 2011)

DOMS said:


> And...you don't. Not at all. Not even close.
> 
> If you want to have sex with your own gender...go for it. Have fun. It hurts no one.
> 
> ...



Can you provide any info that led you to believe that having gay parents makes you more inclined to be gay? And, how exactly does this amount to harm?


----------



## KelJu (Dec 6, 2011)

DOMS said:


> I have an anti-broccoli orientation.



Maybe you do. If you don't like broccoli, that is a preference, just like not wanting to suck a dick is a preference. You didn't decide that you don't like broccoli any more than you decided that you didn't want to suck dick.

I have no fucking clue why that is so hard to understand.


----------



## BillHicksFan (Dec 6, 2011)

DOMS said:


> And...you don't. Not at all. Not even close.
> 
> If you want to have sex with your own gender...go for it. Have fun. It hurts no one.
> 
> ...




If you feel that somebody questioning your opinion and wanting to gain insight as to why you feel so strongly about something is a personal attack then that's a your problem. I'm simply trying to understand why people such as yourself can't leave decent hearted couples to do what makes them happy without experiencing condemnation from society. 
I never called you a closet gay nor do I think you are homosexual. Either way it doesn't matter.

As for anal sex, you don't need to be gay to to that. That's a heterosexual act as well. Do you also share the same concerns for heterosexuals who have butt sex? I doubt it.
The only logical way that children of gay parent households could become more inclined to be homosexual when they grow older is because they don't fear homosexuality and they dont harbour negative emotions in regards to what is. It will in no way change what they find to be personally attractive.

After you take the emotion out of your argument it becomes clear that it's not at all based on logic. You are homophobic which is your priviledge but at least acknowledge to yourself that that is what it is. 

If you weren't homophobic you wouldn't care less how many kids from gay marriage households turned out to be gay. 

Shit, I wish there were more gays around. That would mean more women for me and God knows there's too many people on the planet already.


----------



## GearsMcGilf (Dec 6, 2011)

Sounds like DOMS is trying to say that there is nothing imoral about being a queer as long as you don't act on it. Sounds reasonable enough to me. I'm not racist either. It's certainly not anyone's fault that they were born colored.


----------



## exphys88 (Dec 6, 2011)

GearsMcGilf said:


> Sounds like DOMS is trying to say that there is nothing imoral about being a queer as long as you don't act on it. Sounds reasonable enough to me. I'm not racist either. It's certainly not anyone's fault that they were born colored.



It's reasonable to tell gays to not be themselves?


----------



## Chubby (Dec 6, 2011)

I disagree with both groups people here.  Homosexuallity is not by choice and no they are not born with it.


----------



## exphys88 (Dec 6, 2011)

Chubby said:


> I disagree with both groups people here.  Homosexuallity is not by choice and no they are not born with it.



So you think something happens after birth to cause them to be gay?  What convinced you of this?


----------



## Chubby (Dec 6, 2011)

I will give you some explainations tomorrow.  I am feeling so sleepy right now.  I need to go to bed.


----------



## GearsMcGilf (Dec 6, 2011)

She's right. It's pretty simple. Their parents used the rectal thermometer until they were 14 years old and they eventually started to like it.

For the lesbians, it's a bit more complicated.  Most likely, their parents forced them to eat zuchini, carrots, cucumbers, and many other phallic shapes vegtables to the point where they now have an aversion to anything that resembles a cock.


----------



## troubador (Dec 6, 2011)

exphysiologist88 said:


> So you think something happens after birth to cause them to be gay?  What convinced you of this?



There was a study done among twins. Where one of the identical twins was gay the other was gay about 50% of the time. At first you might think this shows a strong correlation between genetics and sexual orientation, but there's an issue; if genetics was the sole determinate of whether or not one is gay then the other identical twin should have been gay in 100% of the cases because identical twins have the same dna. The lack of complete correlation could be due to gene expression, I believe this entails some sort of environmental influence. 

Personally, the concept of a 'gay person' as it is promulgated today seems too loose. 'Gay' is not a rigid scientific classification, partially because it isn't clearly defined and partially because the methods of measurement aren't perfect. Even if we take it to mean 'sexual attraction', this is not so simple either because sexual arousal patterns and who one desires to have sex with are not necessarily the same. For instance you might find watching porn stars(sluts by definition) arousing, yet you may also find the slutiness of potential sex partners a turn off.
 I also find it hard to believe that even homosexuals don't have some desire to procreate. This instinctive desire seems like it should entail another, which is to have sex for the purpose of procreation even if they don't find the opposite sex highly arousing. This would be like my desire to eat for health reasons(analogous to procreation) even though my taste is for pizza and donuts(arousal). 
I personally cannot buy into the idea that gay people are 'born that way' because I'm not even convinced anyone is actually gay, as the term is used in popular language.


----------



## M4A3 (Dec 6, 2011)

exphysiologist88 said:


> There is no legitimate argument against homosexuality



There is a legitimate argument against homosexuality. 

ITS FUCKING GAY!!!


----------



## BillHicksFan (Dec 6, 2011)

troubador said:


> There was a study done among twins. Where one of the identical twins was gay the other was gay about 50% of the time. At first you might think this shows a strong correlation between genetics and sexual orientation, but there's an issue; if genetics was the sole determinate of whether or not one is gay then the other identical twin should have been gay in 100% of the cases because identical twins have the same dna. The lack of complete correlation could be due to gene expression, I believe this entails some sort of environmental influence.
> 
> Personally, the concept of a 'gay person' as it is promulgated today seems too loose. 'Gay' is not a rigid scientific classification, partially because it isn't clearly defined and partially because the methods of measurement aren't perfect. Even if we take it to mean 'sexual attraction', this is not so simple either because sexual arousal patterns and who one desires to have sex with are not necessarily the same. For instance you might find watching porn stars(sluts by definition) arousing, yet you may also find the slutiness of potential sex partners a turn off.
> I also find it hard to believe that even homosexuals don't have some desire to procreate. This instinctive desire seems like it should entail another, which is to have sex for the purpose of procreation even if they don't find the opposite sex highly arousing. This would be like my desire to eat for health reasons(analogous to procreation) even though my taste is for pizza and donuts(arousal).
> I personally cannot buy into the idea that gay people are 'born that way' because I'm not even convinced anyone is actually gay, as the term is used in popular language.




You'd need to take into account that they are twins and not clones. Their DNA is similar however not exactly the same. If it were the same even their parents wouldn't be able to tell them apart if they made an effort to appear identical.

I happen to have grown up with three sets of identical twins who were all my age and they all had very different personalities.


----------



## troubador (Dec 6, 2011)

GearsMcGilf said:


> She's right. It's pretty simple. Their parents used the rectal thermometer until they were 14 years old and they eventually started to like it.



Actually this does highlight an important point, people can change their preferences. While we don't simply decide what we prefer, we can indirectly influence it. You know the saying 'people like what they are used to'. Well, it's true and my silly example is the movie 'Cast Away' where Tom Hanks gets stranded on an island. After being rescued there's a scene where he goes to bed but ends up sleeping on the floor because that's what he got used to. He probably missed his bed at first on the island but after awhile he got used to it and even later after rescue felt uncomfortable off the ground. I'm not arguing that homosexuality is a choice or that it can change but it's faulty logic to claim that because sexual orientation is a preference that it cannot change.


----------



## KelJu (Dec 6, 2011)

troubador said:


> I also find it hard to believe that even homosexuals don't have some desire to procreate. This instinctive desire seems like it should entail another, which is to have sex for the purpose of procreation even if they don't find the opposite sex highly arousing. This would be like my desire to eat for health reasons(analogous to procreation) even though my taste is for pizza and donuts(arousal).



So, how many straight people choose not to have children? Wouldn't you say they lack the desire?There is a trend in first world countries to have fewer children or none at all. Procreation has nothing to do with sexuality. That is why lesbians often opt for artificial insemination and other gays try to adopt. Some gays want children, some do not. The same is true for straight people. I would also say that many straight parents never wanted children, but had them as a side effect of wanting to fuck.


----------



## withoutrulers (Dec 7, 2011)

It' not too big of a stretch to suggest there is an evolutionary basis for sexual orientation after noting spontaneous gender alteration in amphibians, and documented homosexual encounters in other mammalian species such as dolphins and my own witnessing of gay chinese pug dogs. Variability is a contributing force in evolution. It also may not be to far off to suggest that orientation may change over time due to genetic overlap in high population concentrations. Natural selection at work. I might also be talking directly from my ass as well.


----------



## troubador (Dec 7, 2011)

BillHicksFan said:


> You'd need to take into account that they are twins and not clones. Their DNA is similar however not exactly the same. If it were the same even their parents wouldn't be able to tell them apart if they made an effort to appear identical.



Exactly and what causes that variation is...? Environmentally influenced epigentic modification which increases over the lifespan? Either way the similarity is certainly more than 50% and we don't have any reason to believe the unidentified 'gay gene' should vary to a greater degree do we?


----------



## troubador (Dec 7, 2011)

KelJu said:


> So, how many straight people choose not to have children? Wouldn't you say they lack the desire?



I wouldn't, look again at my health food analogy. The decision to eat healthy could relate to the decision not to have kids because of a health concern, the craving to eat donuts and junkfood(another evolutionary behavior) could relate to the innate desire to procreate. 

There is certainly more than one influence in the final decision not to have children. More simply put, one may have some desire to have children and decide against it. I actually know a couple who decided not to have a kid and it isn't because they don't desire a child.




KelJu said:


> Procreation has nothing to do with sexuality.



Yeah, men typically hate healthy young women in their reproductive prime


----------



## exphys88 (Dec 7, 2011)

How do you explain gay men that "naturally" have very feminine behaviors, or characteristics?  It seems like there is some biology at work here.


----------



## GearsMcGilf (Dec 7, 2011)

Probably a whole host of factors that can lead to gayness.  For instance, why do some gay men naturally have feminine mannerisms, while gay men don't.  Similarly, why do some dikes look and act like men trapped in "women's" bodies, while others are not butch, and in fact, make for great JO material.  Additionally, there are some "straight" people who live entirely heterosexual lives, yet at times have a mild attraction for others of the same sex.  I've known both men and women who had latent tendencies, but for the most part were entirely hetero.  

It probably is a complex interaction of both nature and nurture at work.  I don't believe it comes down to a simple explanation, such as I was born that way, or I just woke up one day and decided I wanted to try sucking a cock.


----------



## exphys88 (Dec 7, 2011)

GearsMcGilf said:


> Probably a whole host of factors that can lead to gayness.  For instance, why do some gay men naturally have feminine mannerisms, while gay men don't.  Similarly, why do some dikes look and act like men trapped in "women's" bodies, while others are not butch, and in fact, make for great JO material.  Additionally, there are some "straight" people who live entirely heterosexual lives, yet at times have a mild attraction for others of the same sex.  I've known both men and women who had latent tendencies, but for the most part were entirely hetero.  It probably is a complex interaction of both nature and nurture at work.



I couldn't agree more.  It is a very interesting phenomenon to say the least, well for lesbians anyway.  I'm all for gay rights, but gay men are just fuckin disgusting, and that goes for trannies too.  My eyes have been damaged by all of the tranny pics that I see on this forum. WTF?


----------



## GearsMcGilf (Dec 7, 2011)

exphysiologist88 said:


> I couldn't agree more.  It is a very interesting phenomenon to say the least, well for lesbians anyway.  I'm all for gay rights, but gay men are just fuckin disgusting, and that goes for trannies too.  My eyes have been damaged by all of the tranny pics that I see on this forum. WTF?


 
Werd.  Gay men tend to live a very headonistic and permiscuous lifestyle.  Their "pride" marches are like something out of ancient Rome.  I've seen the pics and they're nothing more than a million-man suckfest.  And WTF is up with all the "str8" men who have a thing for trannies?  You gotta know that, with all the tranny pics being posted up in here, someone's JO to them.


----------



## BillHicksFan (Dec 7, 2011)

exphysiologist88 said:


> I couldn't agree more.  It is a very interesting phenomenon to say the least, well for lesbians anyway.  I'm all for gay rights, but gay men are just fuckin disgusting, and that goes for trannies too.  My eyes have been damaged by all of the tranny pics that I see on this forum. WTF?





GearsMcGilf said:


> Werd.  Gay men tend to live a very headonistic and permiscuous lifestyle.  Their "pride" marches are like something out of ancient Rome.  I've seen the pics and they're nothing more than a million-man suckfest.  And WTF is up with all the "str8" men who have a thing for trannies?  You gotta know that, with all the tranny pics being posted up in here, someone's JO to them.



C'mon fellas. There's a few fit ones in there.

Seriously though, I spent years surrounded by trannys and although they used to sicken me, it wasn't until I realised that there was some genuine women among them and they weren't all that disgusting manly type. 
It wasn't my environment that shaped my opinions but more my experience in getting know these people for who they were. Many are just normal girls. It's fckn amazing to witness.

Also, have some respect for mino.


----------



## GearsMcGilf (Dec 7, 2011)

BillHicksFan said:


> C'mon fellas. There's a few fit ones in there.
> 
> Seriously though, I spent years surrounded by trannys and although they used to sicken me, it wasn't until I realised that there was some genuine women among them and they weren't all that disgusting manly type.
> It wasn't my environment that shaped my opinions but more my experience in getting know these people for who they were. Many are just normal girls. It's fckn amazing to witness.


 
Interesting indeed.  So, are we talking pre-op or post-op?  Most trannies aren't manly at all, or they wouldn't be taking female horones.  But seriously, how many trannies did you shag during that time and how was it?


----------



## BillHicksFan (Dec 7, 2011)

GearsMcGilf said:


> Interesting indeed.  So, are we talking pre-op or post-op?  Most trannies aren't manly at all, or they wouldn't be taking female horones.  But seriously, how many trannies did you shag during that time and how was it?



I didn't go around asking them the details of their genetalia. After I realised they were just normal people I'd treat them as such however before that I'd just make a conscious effort to avoid them without judgement. I had an each to their own attitude but refused to mix with them.

It wasn't until I got caught with my pants down so to speak with a couple of post-op girls who I happened to know well and had a lot if respect for. They didn't bother telling me they were transgender as they consider themselves to be women and probably avoid thinking anout it. After it sunk into my head I realised I'd been a judgemental mofo for choosing not to take the time to get to know these people and when I did I found that many of them were extremely beautiful people on the inside as well as the outside and I'm very superficial when it comes to women which I consider to be a flaw in character that I can't overcome.

It opened my eyes up to a new way of viewing my own race. It really is a case that its whats inside that counts. When they have this going for them plus they are beautiful then the attraction that can follow is only natural as a heterosexual.

I'm not at all gay, my close friends know I'm not gay but I don't keep this a secret from them. They laugh their arses off and call me a sick mofo but they don't judge me. All I need to do it send them a pic to drool over and then when they've acknowledge she's hot I'll let them know they just got punked with a tranny pic.


----------



## GearsMcGilf (Dec 7, 2011)

Wow.  Interesting story.  So, I don't suppose you made any vids during that time did ya?


----------



## BillHicksFan (Dec 7, 2011)

Why, have you worn out the tranny thread?


----------



## GearsMcGilf (Dec 7, 2011)

Not yet.


----------



## Zaphod (Dec 7, 2011)

exphysiologist88 said:


> So, you're of the opinion that men should be able to rape children and animals if gays are allowed to have sex?



How do you equate gay sex with rape?


----------



## Zaphod (Dec 7, 2011)

exphysiologist88 said:


> Being attracted to little girls is a psychological illness.



It's actually common in some cultures to this day.  Even in America, land of the prudish, it was common for grown men to marry early teen girls.  And have children with them.


----------



## Zaphod (Dec 7, 2011)

exphysiologist88 said:


> No, the gov doesn't need to do that, but our society should decide what is acceptable.  Otherwise, sexual predators will be able to have sex with anyone they want regardless of age.
> I don't pretend to know at what age it's appropriate, but we have to set a limit, even if it's arbitrary.  There are  many kids who don't have the protection you give yours, but they deserve it just the same.



Any law isn't going to stop a sexual predator.  If that were the case then there wouldn't be any sexual predators in jail because they would be afraid of breaking the law.  Since there are sexual predators in jail the law hasn't really worked in protecting anyone.  All it's done is put someone in jail after the fact.


----------



## Zaphod (Dec 7, 2011)

GearsMcGilf said:


> Probably a whole host of factors that can lead to gayness.  For instance, why do some gay men naturally have feminine mannerisms, while gay men don't.  Similarly, why do some dikes look and act like men trapped in "women's" bodies, while others are not butch, and in fact, make for great JO material.  Additionally, there are some "straight" people who live entirely heterosexual lives, yet at times have a mild attraction for others of the same sex.  I've known both men and women who had latent tendencies, but for the most part were entirely hetero.
> 
> It probably is a complex interaction of both nature and nurture at work.  I don't believe it comes down to a simple explanation, such as I was born that way, or I just woke up one day and decided I wanted to try sucking a cock.



A friend of my parents was gay.  Went and married a woman, too.  I was too young to know what gay was but I knew there was something off about the guy.  The way he talked, the way he walked and his mannerisms weren't "right."  After being married for about ten years or so he divorced his wife and told her trying to be straight wasn't working out for him then moved to, of all places, San Francisco.  

The dude even TRIED to be straight.  But he just wasn't.  He was gay.  And I don't mean 1920's "happy" gay.


----------



## DOMS (Dec 7, 2011)

exphysiologist88 said:


> Can you provide any info that led you to believe that having gay parents makes you more inclined to be gay?



Because the lifestyle of the parents influences the children. I'm not saying that kids are 100% what their parents, but that's how you're going to read what I just wrote.



exphysiologist88 said:


> And, how exactly does this amount to harm?


I already wrote it.


----------



## fitter420 (Dec 7, 2011)

GearsMcGilf said:


> She's right. It's pretty simple. Their parents used the rectal thermometer until they were 14 years old and they eventually started to like it.
> 
> For the lesbians, it's a bit more complicated.  Most likely, their parents forced them to eat zuchini, carrots, cucumbers, and many other phallic shapes vegtables to the point where they now have an aversion to anything that resembles a cock.


----------



## DOMS (Dec 7, 2011)

KelJu said:


> Maybe you do. If you don't like broccoli, that is a preference, just like not wanting to suck a dick is a preference. You didn't decide that you don't like broccoli any more than you decided that you didn't want to suck dick.



So no one makes choices, it's all hardwires. It's never the person fault, choice, decisions...bullshit. An absolute cop-out.


----------



## DOMS (Dec 7, 2011)

BillHicksFan said:


> If you feel that somebody questioning your opinion and wanting to gain insight as to why you feel so strongly about something is a personal attack then that's a your problem. I'm simply trying to understand why people such as yourself can't leave decent hearted couples to do what makes them happy without experiencing condemnation from society.
> I never called you a closet gay nor do I think you are homosexual. Either way it doesn't matter.
> 
> As for anal sex, you don't need to be gay to to that. That's a heterosexual act as well. Do you also share the same concerns for heterosexuals who have butt sex? I doubt it.
> ...



You can't read for shit. So here's a random paragraph I pulled off the web that you find something to argue about that has nothing to do with what it actually says. Have fun.

DAMASCUS, Syria - President Obama Tuesday sent Ambassador Robert Ford  back to Syria. He was called home six weeks ago because of concerns for  his safety. 
  He's going back, in part, to serve as a witness to Bashar Al-Assad's bloody crackdown on protesters. 
  There  were funerals today in Homs, where as many as 60 people were killed in  24 hours. The Syrian uprising began in March - a revolt against the 40  year dictatorship of Bashar Assad and his father before him. 
  Assad  has tried to conceal his crackdown by banning independent reporting.  But CBS News correspondent Clarissa Ward was recently able to slip into  Syria to report what's really going on.


----------



## DOMS (Dec 7, 2011)

GearsMcGilf said:


> Sounds like DOMS is trying to say that there is nothing imoral about being a queer as long as you don't act on it.



Yet another person that can't read.


----------



## troubador (Dec 7, 2011)

There was researcher who looked into measuring sexual arousal patterns by measuring physiological responses to different videos. The gay men not surprisingly were clearly more aroused by male on male sex scenes where as hetero men greatly preferred two women. It would also seem to make sense that their sexual arousal patterns matched their sexual orientation. 
More interesting was the study of women's sexual arousal patterns and that they didn't seem to have any. The women who did get aroused seem to get aroused by any sexual images. This of course leads to the question, are women sexually oriented for different reasons than men or are all women bisexual despite men showing little to no bisexual arousal patterns? Again, there's not even a rigid definition of sexual orientation.

http://www.goofyfootpress.com/links/pdfs/Bailey.pdf


----------



## Thee_One (Dec 7, 2011)

troubador said:


> There was researcher who looked into measuring sexual arousal patterns by measuring physiological responses to different videos. The gay men not surprisingly were clearly more aroused by male on male sex scenes where as hetero men greatly preferred two women. It would also seem to make sense that their sexual arousal patterns matched their sexual orientation.
> More interesting was the study of women's sexual arousal patterns and that they didn't seem to have any. The women who did get aroused seem to get aroused by any sexual images. This of course leads to the question, are women sexually oriented for different reasons than men or are all women bisexual despite men showing little to no bisexual arousal patterns? Again, there's not even a rigid definition of sexual orientation.
> 
> http://www.goofyfootpress.com/links/pdfs/Bailey.pdf




That's because both men and women were breast fed by their mothers as children.


Women who are breast-fed grow up missing suckling on a tit.

It's not that hard to understand.


----------



## min0 lee (Dec 7, 2011)

Curt James said:


> This.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



She is an idiot.


----------



## exphys88 (Dec 7, 2011)

Zaphod said:


> It's actually common in some cultures to this day.  Even in America, land of the prudish, it was common for grown men to marry early teen girls.  And have children with them.



It's common because those are patriarchal societies, and the men get what they want.  Just because men sell their daughters to old men doesn't make it right.


----------



## exphys88 (Dec 7, 2011)

Zaphod said:


> Any law isn't going to stop a sexual predator.  If that were the case then there wouldn't be any sexual predators in jail because they would be afraid of breaking the law.  Since there are sexual predators in jail the law hasn't really worked in protecting anyone.  All it's done is put someone in jail after the fact.



You are ridiculous, are you really suggesting that there shouldn't be any laws surrounding men having sex w children, or even babies?  And when a rapist goes to jail, he is prevented from doing it to someone else.  That same argument can be made about laws against murder.  There are laws against murdering people, yet people still murder people.  It seems like you support anarchy?


----------



## troubador (Dec 7, 2011)

exphysiologist88 said:


> You are ridiculous, are you really suggesting that there shouldn't be any laws surrounding men having sex w children, or even babies?  And when a rapist goes to jail, he is prevented from doing it to someone else.  That same argument can be made about laws against murder.  There are laws against murdering people, yet people still murder people.  It seems like you support anarchy?



Agreed, a sex predator in jail is protecting people from that particular sex predator. Until we start jailing people for future crimes or thought crimes, all criminals are put in jail after the fact.


----------



## banker23 (Dec 7, 2011)

exphysiologist88 said:


> Being attracted to little girls is a psychological illness.


 
...and tiny asian girls wearing schoolgirl skirts and stockings who look like little girls.

What about all the 7 foot b-ball players who mack on the 4 foot tall chicks (KK E longoria etc.)...they gotta be imaginin' they're just tearin' up a tiny girl (even though they've been thouroughly plowed by 50 other perv 7 footers)!

This is getting confusing now...


----------



## Zaphod (Dec 7, 2011)

exphysiologist88 said:


> You are ridiculous, are you really suggesting that there shouldn't be any laws surrounding men having sex w children, or even babies?  And when a rapist goes to jail, he is prevented from doing it to someone else.  That same argument can be made about laws against murder.  There are laws against murdering people, yet people still murder people.  It seems like you support anarchy?



I'm not saying there shouldn't be laws against it.  I'm saying that your claim that laws prevent this stuff from happening is ludicrous.  

There should be laws to punish those that violate the mores of our culture. Murder, rape, etc. but it still has no bearing on gays and lesbians.  Gays and lesbians are no more prone to raping than anyone else. Just because a man wants to get it on with another man doesn't mean he wants to get it one with another male regardless of age.  That would be like saying because you are straight means you want to have sex with three year old girls.


----------



## fitter420 (Dec 7, 2011)

My head hurts....


----------



## exphys88 (Dec 7, 2011)

Zaphod said:


> I'm not saying there shouldn't be laws against it.  I'm saying that your claim that laws prevent this stuff from happening is ludicrous.
> 
> There should be laws to punish those that violate the mores of our culture. Murder, rape, etc. but it still has no bearing on gays and lesbians.  Gays and lesbians are no more prone to raping than anyone else. Just because a man wants to get it on with another man doesn't mean he wants to get it one with another male regardless of age.  That would be like saying because you are straight means you want to have sex with three year old girls.



I agree w this, except that I stand by my claim that the laws do protect kids from predators.  Not all of them, but when someone gets locked up, there is at least one more child that won't be abused by that person.


----------



## BillHicksFan (Dec 7, 2011)

DOMS said:


> So no one makes choices, it's all hardwires. It's never the person fault, choice, decisions...bullshit. An absolute cop-out.



"Persons fault?" So they _are doing wrong_? According to you  I didn't think this was about right or wrong. 



DOMS said:


> Yet another person that can't read.



Well he drew the same conclusion as me. We are either reading incorrectly or you are blatently contradicting yourself.



DOMS said:


> You can't read for shit. So here's a random paragraph I pulled off the web that you find something to argue about that has nothing to do with what it actually says. Have fun.
> 
> * add cop out here


----------



## DOMS (Dec 7, 2011)

BillHicksFan said:


> Well he drew the same conclusion as me. We are either reading incorrectly or you are blatently contradicting yourself.



I will simplify it as much as I can:

1. I've got no problems with gays, including gay marriage.
2. I think it's choice, like the desire to sleep with young people of the opposite sex. If one is not a choice, then neither is a choice. Stating that one is "right" and the other is "wrong" is an arbitrary choice made by society. Which doesn't make it wrong, but it is what it is.

Did you get that?


----------



## BillHicksFan (Dec 7, 2011)

Ok I see. You still claim that a preference is a choice. Using this logic I assume you could choose to enjoy eating broccoli. 

Thanks for simplifying.


----------



## DOMS (Dec 7, 2011)

BillHicksFan said:


> Ok I see. You still claim that a preference is a choice. Using this logic I assume you could choose to enjoy eating broccoli.
> 
> Thanks for simplifying.


Yes, I could. I hated spinnach as a child, yet now I like it.

You're welcome.


----------



## BillHicksFan (Dec 7, 2011)

DOMS said:


> Yes, I could. I hated spinnach as a child, yet now I like it.
> 
> You're welcome.




Your taste buds mature during puberty. It's a survival mechanism. You didn't choose to like spinach.

Youre always welcome.


----------



## DOMS (Dec 7, 2011)

BillHicksFan said:


> Your taste buds mature during puberty. It's a survival mechanism. You didn't choose to like spinach.
> 
> Youre always welcome.



I didn't start eating it until I was about 25 years old. A tad late for puberty to be a factor.

But I guess when I start eating sardines at age 90, puberty will be the cause...


----------



## BillHicksFan (Dec 7, 2011)

DOMS said:


> I didn't start eating it until I was about 25 years old. A tad late for puberty to be a factor.
> 
> But I guess when I start eating sardines at age 90, puberty will be the cause...



Well I guess you were a late starter. They say you reach adulthood at 24. 

Maybe it took until you turned 25 to realise you actually like spinach.


----------



## fitter420 (Dec 7, 2011)

DOMS,Billhicks,
As far as this back and forth topic goes I think I can see both points.
I personally think most gays have broken wiring.Just a personal opinion.A picture of some dudes hairy ass does absolutely nothing for me,but yet gay dudes are all in.
On the other hand,what about people that are locked up for years on end.
Not all of them but some go in straight and turn into some pillow biting fembot.
So I guess thats a choice.
Well I've had enough of this conversation.I need to go clean my mind on the "hottest ginger" thread


----------



## DOMS (Dec 7, 2011)

BillHicksFan said:


> Well I guess you were a late starter. They say you reach adulthood at 24.
> 
> Maybe it took until you turned 25 to realise you actually like spinach.



Sure, and when I change my mind about another food at some point in the future, it'll be another "late starter" moment. And then another one when I change my mind about something else...

Here I thought your puberty argument was just lame logic, but it turns out that puberty keeps happening during a person's entire life. I can't wait for the peer reviewed article to come out.


----------



## BillHicksFan (Dec 7, 2011)

Don't wait for the article or take my word for it. Just research it for yourself. I'd post a link but I can't as Im not using my computer or laptop.

It's common knowledge.


----------



## BillHicksFan (Dec 7, 2011)

DOMS said:


> That (religious views), and experience. I've seen plenty of chicks decide to play for the other team when their man dumped them.



I've also witnessed divorced or mistreated women choose to have female companionship after their brake up but I've never seen them display any signs of intimacy within their apparent "lesbian" relationship. They aren't in it for sex or intimacy yet males are wired completely different therefore using women as an example of homosexuality being a choice is an invalid argument. 

vvv If this post is correct then it could possibly shed some light as to why women are an exception. 




troubador said:


> There was researcher who looked into measuring
> sexual arousal patterns by measuring physiological responses to different videos. The gay men not surprisingly were clearly more aroused by male on male sex scenes where as hetero men greatly preferred two women. It would also seem to make sense that their sexual arousal patterns matched their sexual orientation.
> More interesting was the study of women's sexual arousal patterns and that they didn't seem to have any. The women who did get aroused seem to get aroused by any sexual images. This of course leads to the question, are women sexually oriented for different reasons than men or are all women bisexual despite men showing little to no bisexual arousal patterns? Again, there's not even a rigid definition of sexual orientation.
> 
> http://www.goofyfootpress.com/links/pdfs/Bailey.pdf


----------



## Chubby (Dec 7, 2011)




----------



## Curt James (Dec 7, 2011)

fitter420 said:


> Once again,I am no bible thumper. To be honest the last time I was at church was to have my daughter baptized.And I think the deal with the bible is to not to take it so literally,as its been translated and translated again for many many years.To me it's a pretty good book that have helped quite a few people worldwide.Again,anything can be taken to the extreme which I don't agree with.
> But guess what?I have no problem saying "God bless you" if you sneeze,"in God we trust" being on our money,saying"God bless America"'*or calling a Christmas tree a "CHRISTMAS tree".*
> Like it or not we are,and have been a Judeo-Christian based country which I personally think has made us the country we are today as a whole.
> But I am sure you already know this because you seem to have it all figured out (has eluded scholars for centuries).
> This coming from you,who has a 2 plus page thread asking whether your gh is real or not.



Speaking of Christmas tree...


----------



## Curt James (Dec 7, 2011)

This is like watching Godzilla vs. King Kong.


----------



## Chubby (Dec 7, 2011)

Has anyone watched movie titled "From Beginning to End"? Do you think those two brothers were born homosexual or strong brotherly love went wrong way later in life?


----------



## KelJu (Dec 7, 2011)

DOMS said:


> So no one makes choices, it's all hardwires. It's never the person fault, choice, decisions...bullshit. An absolute cop-out.



I didn't say anything about choice. I said that preference isn't a god damn choice. Morality is about the choices that you make, not the preferences that you have. 

Anybody with an IQ over 80 should understand that right off the bat. I have no fucking clue how something so dumb and insignificant is being argued to death. God mother fucking dammit.


----------



## KelJu (Dec 7, 2011)

troubador said:


> Yeah, men typically hate healthy young women in their reproductive prime



WTF is this shit? You sound like a tool. Men are attracted to damn near anything with a wet hole. We have dicks and a burning desire to stick it in things wet holes. I like them young, old, and everywhere in the middle because beauty and attraction has no age specifications. I once saw a 55 year old opera singer in mobile that was hot as fuck, and i would have nailed her given the chance, so your remark makes no sense.

You try so hard to sound smart, and you usually end up sounding like a moron.


----------



## maniclion (Dec 7, 2011)

DOMS said:


> Fair enough.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



And it was the way things were 100+ years ago, men married girls at 12&13, then science came along and found that humans aren't mature enough mentally to make sound judgement for sexual relationships, nor child rearing and barely physically prepared at those ages...  Hell I'd argue they aren't ready until at least 25....


----------



## SFW (Dec 7, 2011)

Chubby said:


> Has anyone watched movie titled "From Beginning to End"? Do you think those two brothers were born homosexual or strong brotherly love went wrong way later in life?


 
 muestrame tus tetas grandes!!


----------



## GearsMcGilf (Dec 7, 2011)

Chubby said:


> Has anyone watched movie titled "From Beginning to End"? Do you think those two brothers were born homosexual or strong brotherly love went wrong way later in life?


 
Just googled it.  That is some sick ghey shit right there and definitely one I'll have to miss.


----------



## Chubby (Dec 7, 2011)

SFW said:


> muestrame tus tetas grandes!!


 Nie rozumiem


----------



## LAM (Dec 8, 2011)

exphysiologist88 said:


> I agree w this, except that I stand by my claim that the laws do protect kids from predators.  Not all of them, but when someone gets locked up, there is at least one more child that won't be abused by that person.



laws don't protect anyone from anything they never have and never will and they usually come in 2 forms when dealing with the criminal code.  laws that strictly act as punishment for basically being a bad human (murder, rape, incest, etc.).  and laws that deter bad behavior to help society function at higher levels of efficiency, etc. these are the ones that tend to change over time with public opinion.  things that used to be legal are made illegal and vice-verse, etc.  these are the ones that most of us break and bend as we desire.


----------



## fitter420 (Dec 8, 2011)

GearsMcGilf said:


> Just googled it.  That is some sick ghey shit right there and definitely one I'll have to miss.



What he said.


----------



## fitter420 (Dec 8, 2011)

LAM said:


> laws don't protect anyone from anything they never have and never will and they usually come in 2 forms when dealing with the criminal code.  laws that strictly act as punishment for basically being a bad human (murder, rape, incest, etc.).  and laws that deter bad behavior to help society function at higher levels of efficiency, etc. these are the ones that tend to change over time with public opinion.  things that used to be legal are made illegal and vice-verse, etc.  these are the ones that most of us break and bend as we desire.



LAM.....I actually AGREE with you on this one


----------



## Chubby (Dec 8, 2011)

> *GearsMcGilf*:
> Just googled it. That is some sick ghey shit right there and definitely one I'll have to miss.


 


> *fitter420*:
> What he said


----------



## Thee_One (Dec 8, 2011)

Chubby said:


> Has anyone watched movie titled "From Beginning to End"? Do you think those two brothers were born homosexual or strong brotherly love went wrong way later in life?



Fucking gross dude.
Why would you watch that shit?


----------



## troubador (Dec 8, 2011)

KelJu said:


> WTF is this shit? You sound like a tool. Men are attracted to damn near anything with a wet hole. We have dicks and a burning desire to stick it in things wet holes. I like them young, old, and everywhere in the middle because beauty and attraction has no age specifications. I once saw a 55 year old opera singer in mobile that was hot as fuck, and i would have nailed her given the chance, so your remark makes no sense.
> 
> You try so hard to sound smart, and you usually end up sounding like a moron.



I thought the biological imperative being the driving force for sexual attraction was common knowledge. 

"The rationale behind symmetry preference in both humans and animals is that symmetric individuals have a higher mate-value; scientists believe that this symmetry is equated with a strong immune system. Thus, beauty is indicative of more robust genes, improving the likelihood that an individual's offspring will survive. This evolutionary theory is supported by research showing that standards of attractiveness are similar across cultures."
Looking Good: The Psychology and Biology of Beauty

" "A preference for youth, however, is merely the most obviously of men's preferences linked to a woman's reproductive capacity"(2). The younger the female the better the capacity for reproduction, hence attributes that males find attractive and contingent on signs of youthfulness. "Our ancestors had access to two types of observable evidence of a woman's health and youth: features of physical appearance, such as full lips, clear skin, smooth skin, clear eyes, lustrous hair, and good muscle tone, and features of behavior, such as a bouncy, youthful gait, and animated facial expressions"(2) . Cross-cultural studies have found that men, despite coming from different countries find similar traits attractive in females. Men's preferences are biologically and evolutionarily hardwired to find signs of youth and health attractive in women in order to determine which females are best suited to carry on their gene, and legacy. Healthier and more youthful women are more likely to reproduce, and be able to take care of the children after birth, hence ensuring a perpetuation of the male's gene."
Sexual Attraction Among Humans | Serendip's Exchange

You should try asking questions instead of delivering insults, you might learn some shit and like sound all smart then maybe impress some hot as fuck bitches and they'll let you stick your dick in their wet hole... moron.


----------



## KelJu (Dec 8, 2011)

troubador said:


> I thought the biological imperative being the driving force for sexual attraction was common knowledge.
> 
> "The rationale behind symmetry preference in both humans and animals is that symmetric individuals have a higher mate-value; scientists believe that this symmetry is equated with a strong immune system. Thus, beauty is indicative of more robust genes, improving the likelihood that an individual's offspring will survive. This evolutionary theory is supported by research showing that standards of attractiveness are similar across cultures."
> Looking Good: The Psychology and Biology of Beauty
> ...




I insult everyone including myself, so don't take it personally. I already know everything you just said. I realize that sexual attraction is one of the devices of an evolutionarily evolved reproductive process. I realize that young healthy attractive girls are prime pickens for breeding stock for a healthy man to reproduce with. However, you need to realize that the constantly evolving human brain is capable of so much more than just the instinct to reproduce for the sake of healthy children. 

Sexuality is as complex as any human trait we have. It has almost infinite diversity. If you can think it up, there is probably a person who has a fetish for it. There are guys who like to fuck picnic tables, people who shove things up their asses for gratification, and women fucking dogs so the procreation argument and the biological imperative doesn't apply to everyone at this point. 

The real and only question should amount to whether a person's preferences hurt anyone. If it doesn't, it really shouldn't be anyone's fucking business.


----------



## HialeahChico305 (Dec 8, 2011)

SFW said:


> muestrame tus tetas grandes!!



lol


----------

