I can't. Too many homosThen go to therapy.
I can't. Too many homosThen go to therapy.
Plumb your own depths.
no point....no need.
I can see how it may be unacceptable to you....but it's the manner in which homosexuals' express their particular sexual desires. If it's acceptable between them....then who are you and I?
I can't. Too many homos
then i'll address your retarded comment
but don't say i didn't give you a chance to explain yourself :idunno:
you said:
in this, you are saying that whatever is acceptable between partners (regardless of degree or nature of perversion) is acceptable to you
i put forward two examples of perversions in which both participants could be found to be "acceptable" in that they engage in the behavior willingly - pedophilia and bestiality
i see no reason why those two particular examples, as defined, would not be acceptable to you - based on your retarded statement
Think hard about your comparisons...then come to a rational, non-trolling answer for yourself...
Think hard about your comparisons...then come to a rational, non-trolling answer for yourself...IOW, plumb your own depths. (or stay an bigoted idiot...it matters little to me.)
Think hard about your comparisons...then come to a rational, non-trolling answer for yourself...IOW, plumb your own depths. (or stay an bigoted idiot...it matters little to me.)
That approach you're running into has been tried so often I'm surprised there isn't a "ye" in it somewhere. Why people use beastiality and pedophilia, neither of which can involve the essential element of consent present in homosexual relations, as a parallel for homosexuality is a mystery...until you realize the objection isn't rooted in reason, so expecting reason to attach beyond it is a little like wishing on a star...a dim, dim star.Think hard about your comparisons...then come to a rational, non-trolling answer for yourself...IOW, plumb your own depths. (or stay an bigoted idiot...it matters little to me.)
Consent only comes into play when someone like you takes the irrational approach of attempting to parallel homosexuality with pedophilia and beastiality or suggests that without a moral absolute there's no meaningful distinction between them.yes, well, quip's retarded statement that i responded to dint say anything about consent or adults, did it?
That'll do.you retards are really three of a kind :chuckle:
That approach you're running into has been tried so often I'm surprised there isn't a "ye" in it somewhere. Why people use beastiality and pedophilia, neither of which can involve the essential element of consent present in homosexual relations, as a parallel for homosexuality is a mystery...until you realize the objection isn't rooted in reason, so expecting reason to attach beyond it is a little like wishing on a star...a dim, dim star.
yes, well, quip's retarded statement that i responded to dint say anything about consent or adults, did it?
you retards are really three of a kind :chuckle:
No, there are connections, and clear ones. 1) Parents of, owners of. In all cases, these parents and owners are involved and 'should' have a say. 2) All of them are proven to shorten and degenerate quality of life, especially as some of those viruses come from the clear tie-in. They ARE connected. 3) Biblically -they all necessarily are tied together as unacceptable by a Christian people, even Christian voting people in a democracy or republic 4) All have been and in some places, still are against the law, not because bigots are in charge, but because it concerns and harms all the above and all involved. Our current culture doesn't like hearing this, but it is the same reason we, as a society have banned smoking in public areas: the activity harms not just self, but others around the activity. I realize there is a rebuttal, but I'm trying to answer the wish upon the dim star in a way that has some sense, reason, and meaning. It is harmful and I see the harm with young adults in my extended family. It will kill them/cost them an early life. I see it. I don't believe they have the right to hurt their immediate and extended families. In Him -LonThat approach you're running into has been tried so often I'm surprised there isn't a "ye" in it somewhere. Why people use beastiality and pedophilia, neither of which can involve the essential element of consent present in homosexual relations, as a parallel for homosexuality is a mystery...until you realize the objection isn't rooted in reason, so expecting reason to attach beyond it is a little like wishing on a star...a dim, dim star.
Arthur, just don't digress into beastiality bud.
Sent from my iPhone using TOL
Were you preordained to write this vile crap or was it of your own choosing?
You and aCW are like two withered peas in a pod...
:freak: