Is Homosexuality a Disorder?
- Thread starter glassjester
- Start date
- Status
You're just sorting without systemizing. What is the principle that allows you to say that certain acts are OK and others are not?
An opposite-sex attraction is also "a thing of the mind". Does that mean that all sexual attraction is disorder?
That's overly simplistic and assumes a strange servitude to biological functions which we don't hold in any other case. I can't think of a good reason to go along with it. Is there a shortage of new babies?
musterion
Well-known member
Fool,
No, that's not the point.
First, there are people who for whatever reason are unable to whistle. They just never learn, don't have the skill, whatever. Whistling is NOT a primary function of the oral cavity. So...bad example on your part.
Second, the topic here is sex. So...just because a penis can be inserted into a mouth does not mean mouth = alternative vagina. That's the point you're and your pals here are trying to make about both mouth and anus, but simple anatomy and physiology refute you. Always has, always will.
Go back to his question earlier: Will you go on record and state that nature intended the species-propagating penis be inserted into the waste-disposing rectum, just as it is intended to be inserted into the vagina? As far as human sexuality goes, are the two openings absolutely equal? Yes or no.
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
A lot of heterosexuals seem to be disregarding your rules.
How do you suppose the mouth came to be such a multi-function structure?
Certainly not themselves (for electing him) ... or Trump ...
It will go something like this "well if they would have worked with him ..."
musterion
Well-known member
No. Should it be?
musterion
Well-known member
No, of course it shouldn't. The vagina is the vagina, the rectum is the rectum, the mouth is the mouth. Equating the sexually, as some perverts on this thread are flailing to do, is anatomically, physiologically, structurally, immunologically, evolutionarily and plainly wrong.
Glad to know you also consider them perverts.
Nope ... it's irrelevant ... unless of course those who are using this *argument* are applying it to heterosexuals as well.
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
Nothing but crickets from them on applying any of this to heterosexuals.
musterion
Well-known member
Of course it applies to heterosexuals as well. Did someone say it didn't? Who?
:think: I noticed that ... using the argument that something is "harmful" or "unnatural" is null and void when not applied across the board.
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
That's the type who'll say oral sex is a sin - and then say that they themselves walk in the spirit, so they can't sin... effectively allowing themselves the ability to do whatever they want while condemning all the people they hate. Maybe they've got some self-hate going on there.
So apply it across the board, it still stands - homosexuality is an abomination of the highest order -
Indeed ... which actually would apply in the case of Trump as well. Adultery, multiple marriages, abortion bad ... depending on who is advocating it.
As always, *I* do. IF a practice is wrong for homosexuals, it is equally wrong for heterosexuals. Promiscuity is ALWAYS risky regardless of the sexuality of the individuals involved. Abortion is ALWAYS wrong regardless of the circumstances of how the pregnancy occurred ....
It's a fairly simple concept ...
It is the point...that you are trying to evade.
I didn't say it was a primary function. I asked if it was inherently disordered.
Right. I'm probing the use of the term "inherently disordered" by your side. I asked if everything we do has to come back to some biological function, and you said yes. And then you challenged me to come up with a counterexample, of which whistling is one. And now you're flailing around trying to explain how it's not also considered a sin to whistle.
We're not dealing with equations here. Obviously, there are important differences between oral sex, anal sex, and P in V sex. That's why people, and not just gay people, have each of those different forms of contact. What your side needs to justify is a purposeful interpretation of the body that would positively forbid its use in several of these ways without contradicting yourself or reaching an absurd conclusion like that whistling is inherently disordered.
There's no one here who is confused about the role that genitals play in the perpetuation of the species. What is being rejected is this notion that we're all somehow, at least in matters of sex, slaves to your notions of the purposes of a human body.
Nature doesn't intend. It's a nonsense-question.
- Status