Homosexuality - Is It Right?

[Xsyven]

yes i have. nobody replied.

Really? Because I searched the last four pages for the words 'gay' and 'homosexual', and the only results that came up were uttered by me, and AltF4. Crimson King has spoken.

 

[snex]

Really? Because I searched the last four pages for the words 'gay' and 'homosexual', and the only results that came up were uttered by me, and AltF4. Crimson King has spoken.

dont blame me for your inability to actually read a thread.

 

[pockyD]

Now, why would anyone be level 3 against Gay Marriage or being gay in general? It in no way harms anyone. I can understand that your religious beliefs may lead you to being Level 2 against it, but why level 3? Why should others not be allowed to do it?

...because, biblically, God asks his followers to 'hate' sin, and with homosexuality being an affront to God in Christianity, people who buy into that will be fully ("level 3") against it

That's not to say that they will go around killing gay couples; I'm sure you've heard the mantra "hate the sin, love the sinner" be passed around. If someone is having copious amounts of gay sex, the Christian won't stop telling them it's wrong, but they also won't go out and castrate the fellow just to prevent it.

 

[Aesir]

There's nothing wrong with homosexuality, it's actually rather natural it happens in nature, humans once participated in it. (The Greeks/Romans)


Sure logically it makes no sense, after all life is a very illogical concept to begin with. in anycase you can't procreate so why bother? But that's not really a good argument because sex has never really been about procreation has it? It's just a side effect.

/attempt at getting topic back to homosexuality.

 

[snex]

...because, biblically, God asks his followers to 'hate' sin, and with homosexuality being an affront to God in Christianity, people who buy into that will be fully ("level 3") against it

That's not to say that they will go around killing gay couples; I'm sure you've heard the mantra "hate the sin, love the sinner" be passed around. If someone is having copious amounts of gay sex, the Christian won't stop telling them it's wrong, but they also won't go out and castrate the fellow just to prevent it.

by the same standard, you ought to be campaigning to make it illegal to be a jew, atheist, or other type of non-christian. denying the divinity of christ is a sin, so you should be "level 3" opposed to it as well. you should also be campaigning to make blasphemy illegal.

but you dont campaign for these things. you only make homosexuality (and a few other issues like abortion) key issues. just admit you want to control what people do in their bedrooms.

 

[Xsyven]

dont blame me for your inability to actually read a thread.

I'm not going to get into this, but like I said, I searched, as in Ctrl+F, with no results. Get out of this thread, unless you really have something to say about it.

 

[pockyD]

Sure, and a lot of Christians are for that

I'm sure no Christian is happy that people around them are "denying the divinity of Christ"

 

[snex]

Sure, and a lot of Christians are for that

I'm sure no Christian is happy that people around them are "denying the divinity of Christ"

im not talking about "a lot of christians," im talking about YOU and the reason YOU gave to be level 3 against homosexuality. if that were the actual reason, then YOU would be for non-christianity being illegal too.

but since YOU arent for that, the reason you gave is not the actual reason.

 

[Xsyven]

Hey guys, we already know God's opinion-- how about yours?

 

[pockyD]

im not talking about "a lot of christians," im talking about YOU and the reason YOU gave to be level 3 against homosexuality. if that were the actual reason, then YOU would be for non-christianity being illegal too.

but since YOU arent for that, the reason you gave is not the actual reason.

Why does it matter what I think?

On a theoretical level, yes, I would be absolutely behind banishing sin and living under a "non-corrupt" Christian government (as if that sort of thing exists ). The fact that I'm a bad person and not pro-active about what I believe in shouldn't affect others' perceptions of the ideals I'm bringing up

Hey guys, we already know God's opinion-- how about yours?

Well it's already been stated, IMO, that the primary arguments against homosexuality come from religious backgrounds. Can you think of any others? Are we only going to discuss "is it natural"?

Religious people will align themselves with the viewpoints of the religion they support, with no reason other than "God said so". Hey, if you believed in an all-powerful being, you wouldn't disagree with him either.

 

[snex]

Why does it matter what I think?

On a theoretical level, yes, I would be absolutely behind banishing sin and living under a "non-corrupt" Christian government (as if that sort of thing exists ). The fact that I'm a bad person and not pro-active about what I believe in shouldn't affect others' perceptions of the ideals I'm bringing up

youre lying. you would never support a government that tried to make non-christianity illegal. you just dont want to admit that your distaste for homosexuality is based on nothing rational whatsoever and that your position is entirely inconsistent.

Well it's already been stated, IMO, that the primary arguments against homosexuality come from religious backgrounds. Can you think of any others? Are we only going to discuss "is it natural"?

Religious people will align themselves with the viewpoints of the religion they support, with no reason other than "God said so". Hey, if you believed in an all-powerful being, you wouldn't disagree with him either.

and now we are back to the problem of you facing god asking you to **** a little girl. if gods asking it, it must be right. dont say "god wouldnt ask that" because YOU DONT KNOW THE MIND OF GOD AND YOU DONT KNOW WHAT HE WOULD OR WOULD NOT DO.

 

[Xsyven]

Hey, if you believed in an all-powerful being, you wouldn't disagree with him either.

Then that doesn't leave much to debate about then, does it?

 

[pockyD]

youre lying. you would never support a government that tried to make non-christianity illegal. you just dont want to admit that your distaste for homosexuality is based on nothing rational whatsoever and that your position is entirely inconsistent.

If I could be assured that such a government had the purest of intentions in accordance with my own beliefs (omg hitler!), then sure, I'd be for it

and now we are back to the problem of you facing god asking you to **** a little girl. if gods asking it, it must be right. dont say "god wouldnt ask that" because YOU DONT KNOW THE MIND OF GOD AND YOU DONT KNOW WHAT HE WOULD OR WOULD NOT DO.

I already answered this, and I said that if I was certain God told me to do it, I'd do it.

I'd still rather not debate what I would do though; this isn't even remotely close to a topic about "What does pockyD believe in?"

bring it up in one of the more relevant threads and I'll try to respond there, but I don't really care for arguing religion in general

Then that doesn't leave much to debate about then, does it?

it really doesn't, which is why this thread degenerated into a religion debate in the first place

if you want to look at it from a strictly non-religious POV (and I'm sure you do), then it's a concession that there's not really a good "rational" argument against homosexuality. You win. Just understand that in practice, the reason such things are so heavily debated instead of being breezed through the governmental process is almost strictly because of the religious background of the citizens and, yes, even the government

 

[AltF4]

Men who believe absurdities will commit atrocities.
~ Voltaire

I cannot fathom how someone can be so deluded by an ancient book that he will deny his neighbor basic human rights. Here is the most important part in all of this:

It does not matter what your religious beliefs are. They are your own. It is wrong in every way imaginable to force your absurd religious dogma unwillingly onto others. If you are sitting in front of your computer right now and thinking to yourself:

"Well, it WOULD be better if we would just outlaw XXXX, which my religion says is wrong."

You have no place in an rational adult society. I only ask you to never, ever, ever vote. And also to never have children.


Two men being married in no way harms anyone at all. If you are saying to me that you are Level 3 (I love how my term has caught on) against Gay Marriage on the basis of your religion, then I not only whole heartedly disagree with you, but also disagree with your ability to function as a rational adult human being.

Please provide a non-religious argument for being said level 3 against it. But I don't suppose that one exists.

 

[Xsyven]

Two men being married in no way harms anyone at all. If you are saying to me that you are Level 3 (I love how my term has caught on) against Gay Marriage on the basis of your religion, then I not only whole heartedly disagree with you, but also disagree with your ability to function as a rational adult human being.

Please provide a non-religious argument for being said level 3 against it. But I don't suppose that one exists.

I agree with alt-- alongside his argument, just remember, this thread isn't even about gay marriage. Just gayness in general.

 

[pockyD]

Men who believe absurdities will commit atrocities.
~ Voltaire

There's no denying this. Even the bible itself is full of people committing "atrocities" in the name of God (with the bible saying they're sanctioned by God too). But if you side with "God", anything you believe he mandates is no longer "atrocious", despite how ridiculous it looks to others

I cannot fathom how someone can be so deluded by an ancient book that he will deny his neighbor basic human rights.

Here's the thing: to someone who genuinely believes in the bible, there are no "basic human rights" aside from those defined by God. What any "rational" person would think doesn't matter, because the Christian (once again, I really hate making it about me) have the omniscient on his side.

Here is the most important part in all of this:

It does not matter what your religious beliefs are. They are your own.

This is simply not true; if a religion exists that forces you to go to war to earn your spot in heaven, then it's pretty much a given that people that subscribe to that religion will start wars for no reason just to earn them their eternal feast and endless supply of virgins or whatever is promised to them

It is wrong in every way imaginable to force your absurd religious dogma unwillingly onto others. If you are sitting in front of your computer right now and thinking to yourself:

"Well, it WOULD be better if we would just outlaw XXXX, which my religion says is wrong."

You have no place in an rational adult society. I only ask you to never, ever, ever vote. And also to never have children.

I think that asserting what you believe in is just about the most "rational" thing someone can do. Whether those beliefs are invalid (religion is a farce?) is a separate argument that should be debated separately. But if you are going to allow someone the window to hold those beliefs, it's "rational" to expect them to act based on them.

Two men being married in no way harms anyone at all. If you are saying to me that you are Level 3 (I love how my term has caught on) against Gay Marriage on the basis of your religion, then I not only whole heartedly disagree with you, but also disagree with your ability to function as a rational adult human being.

Once again, if the religion as a whole is irrational that's a different argument.

Please provide a non-religious argument for being said level 3 against it. But I don't suppose that one exists.

There is no non-religious argument, I have conceded this multiple times I believe (I think people just keep asking for it because they like to assert their "victory" in this area )

 

[Aesir]

If there's no non-religious argument then why are we arguing this? In the US homosexuals should have the same rights as anyone else. We're a secular nation just because the majority of Americans affiliate themselves with a religion doesn't make us a religious nation.


So as it stands there's no rational reason to give homosexuals less rights then your average American?

 

[snex]

There is no non-religious argument, I have conceded this multiple times I believe (I think people just keep asking for it because they like to assert their "victory" in this area )

no, we keep asking for it because you people insist on telling our SECULAR government to outlaw homosexuality. so if all youve got is your religion, you need to stfu and stop trying to use it to bludgeon our SECULAR government.

however, if you want to continue pressing our SECULAR government to outlaw homosexuality, you need to supply the SECULAR reasoning.

 

[blazedaces]

Moses also made mistakes just like everyone else. Now you're the one picking and choosing things. No where does it say God told Moses to do these things. Sure the Bible gives plenty of times where Godtold him to do things. But it's not stated here. Moses also hit the Rock more than God wanted, so Moses wasn't always following what God said.

Xzyven, as much as I agree with you that it'shard to debate with the Bible, since most don't believe it, Snex, and others brought this on themselves when they brough in contradictions. How can you debate contradictions if the Bible isn'tinvolved.

I apologize if I'm bringing up the bible at all.

Listen, lonejedi, you should know this: one of the main 13(I believe it was thirteen) rules or pillars of orthodox judaism is that moses is the greatest prophet of god and the most humble man whoever lived. I know he's not the equivalent of Jesus, but to an orthodox jew (I used to be one), what you said is somewhat close to insulting jesus or doubting his word, if that helps you to imagine. I don't know if you care at all...

-blazed

 

[pockyD]

If there's no non-religious argument then why are we arguing this? In the US homosexuals should have the same rights as anyone else. We're a secular nation just because the majority of Americans affiliate themselves with a religion doesn't make us a religious nation.

So as it stands there's no rational reason to give homosexuals less rights then your average American?

Unless I'm mistaken, the debate was whether homosexuality was "morally" right.

As an American debating purely the mechanics of the American government, then homosexuality should be allowed.

no, we keep asking for it because you people insist on telling our SECULAR government to outlaw homosexuality. so if all youve got is your religion, you need to stfu and stop trying to use it to bludgeon our SECULAR government.

however, if you want to continue pressing our SECULAR government to outlaw homosexuality, you need to supply the SECULAR reasoning.

If you follow my train of thought from 2 posts ago, I began with how I would first support a "Christian" government taking over, and only with that in place would they have the power to impose "Christian" values on the people.

Don't get me wrong, a "Christian" government will never happen in America, and a "pure" "Christian" government will almost certainly never happen anywhere in the world on a national scale. But from a religious perspective, I support the notion.

But on the other hand like I said above (in this post), in the context of what this government's jurisdiction should cover (and based on the existing constitution, laws, etc.), homosexuality should be allowed.

Just for those curious about what i meant in the gay marriage when I said "this isn't really the view I support", this is what I meant; I agree that in the context of the existing laws and principles underlying the USA, it should be allowed.

 

[Aesir]

Whats the morality argument then? How can homosexuality be seen as morally wrong? it doesn't conflict with any sort of morals other then religious ones, in which case the religious reasons aren't sound at all as they ignore the fact that homosexuality is natural in all mammals.

 

[pockyD]

Whats the morality argument then? How can homosexuality be seen as morally wrong? it doesn't conflict with any sort of morals other then religious ones, in which case the religious reasons aren't sound at all as they ignore the fact that homosexuality is natural in all mammals.

For the 4th time, for non-religious reasons, homosexuality isn't morally incorrect.

If my job weren't so boring, I'd be tired of repeating myself

 

[Crimson King]

Then, I really don't see the argument against it. How can you say it's not morally correctly, non-religiously, but it's morally corrupt, religiously. That's what is wrong with religion. It blinds people.

 

[pockyD]

Then, I really don't see the argument against it. How can you say it's not morally correctly, non-religiously, but it's morally corrupt, religiously. That's what is wrong with religion. It blinds people.

Are you talking about my case specifically? If God says it's bad, it's bad. If you ignore the religious aspect of it (God now 'officially' said nothing), given that God didn't say it's bad, I have no reason to think that it's bad based on any other reason (which is what this topic was asking, I guess?)

I didn't want to jump in initially because I don't see any completely religion-free argument against it (5) (and your original post specified "non-religious"), but after someone else brought it (GOD SAYS SO) up and it became the topic of discussion, I felt justified to present this argument

 

[Chaco]

I have no side on this really. But to me, it should stay within the confines of the bedroom. Not to the public. It sickens me, it really does. But I have nothing against them.

 

[Eor]

Homosexuality is immoral because it leads to a higher rate of STD infections, and children raised without both sexes are shown to have a greater rate of personality disorder. Plus, since homosexuality doesn't have any evolutionary purpose, it only hurts the species. Also, the claim that homosexuality is genetic is starting to be proven false.

 

[Aesir]

Homosexuality is immoral because it leads to a higher rate of STD infections,

Homosexuals who have sex without protection are more likely to acquire STD's, provided if one is infected or not. It's not like two uninfected men will get aids if they engage in sex.

and children raised without both sexes are shown to have a greater rate of personality disorder.

This isn't just a problem with homosexuality as the rate of divorce is incredibly high, and the rate of fathers/mothers being uninvolved in a child's life is becoming common.

Plus, since homosexuality doesn't have any evolutionary purpose, it only hurts the species.

Same goes for heterosexual couples who either A. Can't have kids, or B don't want kids. Should we claim them as immoral too?

2-3% of the American population is homosexual, so I don't see how this will effect our species or how it's hurting it. Especially since so many heterosexual couples do not procreate.

Also, the claim that homosexuality is genetic is starting to be proven false.

Really?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7456588.stm <-- Swedish study say otherwise.

"A UK scientist said this was evidence sexual orientation was set in the womb." from article It's not something the individual has control over.

 

[Eor]

This isn't just a problem with homosexuality as the rate of divorce is incredibly high, and the rate of fathers/mothers being uninvolved in a child's life is becoming common.

True, but homosexuality has a 100% rate of it.

Same goes for heterosexual couples who either A. Can't have kids, or B don't want kids. Should we claim them as immoral too?

Not a choice

2-3% of the American population is homosexual, so I don't see how this will effect our species or how it's hurting it. Especially since so many heterosexual couples do not procreate.

10% of the world population is gay. Not going to harm us, no, I wasn't proposing it as a doomsday scenario. But I'd consider it immoral, like if I purposefully cut off my *****. Immoral.

Really?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7456588.stm <-- Swedish study say otherwise.

"A UK scientist said this was evidence sexual orientation was set in the womb." from article It's not something the individual has control over.

Swedes are all gays you can't trust them

 

[blazedaces]

Really?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7456588.stm <-- Swedish study say otherwise.

"A UK scientist said this was evidence sexual orientation was set in the womb." from article It's not something the individual has control over.

Do you have any more precise numbers on this? There was a previously done study that also looked at sizes of specific components of the brain, but the numbers were awful (something like only 30% had similar sizes... somehow led to the same conclusion this study is proposing). I couldn't find information myself, I tried looking.

Without more precise data there's no way to tell whether this study is legitimate.

Homosexuality is immoral because it leads to a higher rate of STD infections, and children raised without both sexes are shown to have a greater rate of personality disorder.

Can you please provide evidence for such accusations? I'm not saying you're lying, but without proof I simply can't take it seriously...

Plus, since homosexuality doesn't have any evolutionary purpose, it only hurts the species. Also, the claim that homosexuality is genetic is starting to be proven false.

How exactly does it "hurt" the species? First of all, any couple is allowed to have a child or not and it has nothing to do with "helping" or "hurting" the species. Secondly, homosexual couples can have children just like many heterosexual couples do who can't procreate: adoption, sperm/egg banks.

And why does it matter if homosexuality is genetic or not? What part of your or anyone's argument has to do with it being genetic?

-blazed

 

[cF=)]

eor vaseline'd this thread... I see...

AIDS EVERYWHERE!

 

[Aesir]

True, but homosexuality has a 100% rate of it.

Evidence? It would be nice.

Not a choice

Homosexuals don't have a choice either, it's not like they wake up and say to themselves. "I think I'll be gay today." Some claim it's a defect in the brain.

10% of the world population is gay. Not going to harm us, no, I wasn't proposing it as a doomsday scenario. But I'd consider it immoral, like if I purposefully cut off my *****. Immoral.

Really? I thought it was a much smaller figure.

Again though how is that immoral? these people wouldn't be procreating anyway, so I fail to see the significance.

Swedes are all gays you can't trust them

Shush.

blaze: I don't get what you're asking?

 

[shogun]

Seems like the debate hall turns into too much christian based debates, the verdict is there is no 'right', or 'wrong' choice, unless you want to count religion, laws, etc.

 

[Johnthegalactic]

Homosexuals who have sex without protection are more likely to acquire STD's, provided if one is infected or not. It's not like two uninfected men will get aids if they engage in sex.

Well, I can back this up in the case of males, as you know what they do, the anal lining tears easily, allowing foreign substances(diseases) to enter the bloodstream.

How exactly does it "hurt" the species? First of all, any couple is allowed to have a child or not and it has nothing to do with "helping" or "hurting" the species. Secondly, homosexual couples can have children just like many heterosexual couples do who can't procreate: adoption, sperm/egg banks.

1st off the bat, adopting a child is not the same as having a child, another couple has produced the child, thus, the adopters have just taken in the child, they have not risen the species population by one, and saying using sperm/egg banks(how does an eggbank work? Who is the carrier?), the couple is not having a child together, one is using another human outside the couples egg/sperm to create a child, therefore homosexual couples cannot produce a child.

Seems like the debate hall turns into too much christian based debates, the verdict is there is no 'right', or 'wrong' choice, unless you want to count religion, laws, etc.

Yeah, weird, you are expected to debate, but your stance is invalid for several reasons.
1. There is no such thing as right or wrong.
2. You are a racist looney.
3. You are a Bible thumping jerk.
4. You condradict the mod's opinion, the only one that is right.

Sadly, I am not racist(that would make relations with my aunt from India hard), I believe that there is right and wrong, I do not scream scriptures in peoples faces, and I feel sorry for always contradicting the mods, cause I wish I could make friends here.

C'est la vie

 

[Eor]

Evidence? It would be nice.

Logic! If homosexuals raise children, then they will obviously be raised in a mom-mom or father-father relationship, which automatically makes it a 100% chance that they will not have both figures in their lives.

Homosexuals don't have a choice either, it's not like they wake up and say to themselves. "I think I'll be gay today." Some claim it's a defect in the brain.

I claim it's a choice they make through a pact with Satan

Really? I thought it was a much smaller figure.

Again though how is that immoral? these people wouldn't be procreating anyway, so I fail to see the significance.

That's exactly it, they don't procreate. Procreation is the only way to expand the species and make us continue to live.



Shush.[/QUOTE]

 

[Aesir]

Well, I can back this up in the case of males, as you know what they do, the anal lining tears easily, allowing foreign substances(diseases) to enter the bloodstream.

This is about STD's so in the case of the condom, unless it breaks they're not getting an STD.

Also your argument assumes both parties are idiots, which any sensible person isn't, there's many ways to avoid tearing. Condoms, lubricants, being gentle (LOL), stopping when the partner experiences excessive pain.

 

[Johnthegalactic]

This is about STD's so in the case of the condom, unless it breaks they're not getting an STD.

Also your argument assumes both parties are idiots, which any sensible person isn't, there's many ways to avoid tearing. Condoms, lubricants, being gentle (LOL), stopping when the partner experiences excessive pain.

1st, condoms do not always guarentee to stop an STD from being spread, they just stop the sperm from reaching the ovum so as to produce a...oh wait, that shouldn't be a problem anyway.
2nd, I have had many tears in my skin(none in the discussed area, or I hope not), and have not noticed it, plus the euphoria that would come from the committed act would make the pain unnoticable(does adrenaline also come into play in this process?). so excessive pain is out the door, and i doubt everyone uses condoms(teen pregnancy as proof!), I doubt that they are always gentle, and lubricants are most likely not always used.

Sorry if this is getting to grose, I think it is, and is too in depth.

And, new subject, how about them Backstreet boys?

 

[Aesir]

Logic! If homosexuals raise children, then they will obviously be raised in a mom-mom or father-father relationship, which automatically makes it a 100% chance that they will not have both figures in their lives.

I'm going to ask for a study that concludes this, claiming logic isn't going to cut it being raised by two men or two woman isn't going to effect the child that much. Logically if the parents are responsible there shouldn't really be a problem.

That's exactly it, they don't procreate. Procreation is the only way to expand the species and make us continue to live.

6 billion people on earth, as you say 10% are homosexuals the other 90 are heterosexual, lets say about 20% of those heterosexuals don't procreate for whatever reason. That's still 70% that does. I think we're okay.

1st, condoms do not always guarentee to stop an STD from being spread, they just stop the sperm from reaching the ovum so as to produce a...oh wait, that shouldn't be a problem anyway.

No more then they prevent a woman from getting pregnant whats your point? They have a 90% success rate.

2nd, I have had many tears in my skin(none in the discussed area, or I hope not), and have not noticed it, plus the euphoria that would come from the committed act would make the pain unnoticable(does adrenaline also come into play in this process?). so excessive pain is out the door, and i doubt everyone uses condoms(teen pregnancy as proof!), I doubt that they are always gentle, and lubricants are most likely not always used.

I suggest you look into it rather then using our own judgment which appears to be lacking. Many couples will be very careful. Comparing two consenting adults to dumb teenagers is more a less an insult to their intelligence.

 

[Johnthegalactic]

No more then they prevent a woman from getting pregnant whats your point? They have a 90% success rate.


I suggest you look into it rather then using our own judgment which appears to be lacking. Many couples will be very careful. Comparing two consenting adults to dumb teenagers is more a less an insult to their intelligence.

Gee, the thing is they do not guarentee prevention of an STD and often state they will not protect against the contraction of an STD, which you stated they would do.

Many people won't notice a wound, I know I often do not notice a cut or tear in my flesh, and when those in the act are euphoric they will have a greater chance of not noticing pain, it is pretty obvious.

Just like how a child raised by two fathers will not have a motherly influence, and a child raised by two mothers will not have a fatherly influence.

And I have seen plenty of stupid adults.(for a quick example check out "Americans are not Stupid" on youtube[it is funny]). Not saying many teenagers lack intelligence, many have intelligence.

 

[Eor]

I'm going to ask for a study that concludes this, claiming logic isn't going to cut it being raised by two men or two woman isn't going to effect the child that much. Logically if the parents are responsible there shouldn't really be a problem.

No

6 billion people on earth, as you say 10% are homosexuals the other 90 are heterosexual, lets say about 20% of those heterosexuals don't procreate for whatever reason. That's still 70% that does. I think we're okay.

Did you not read where I said we were not going to die out from it? Don't make me repeat my points.

 

[Aesir]

Gee, the thing is they do not guarentee prevention of an STD and often state they will not protect against the contraction of an STD, which you stated they would do.

Contraction implies you already have it. The condom will prevent the transmission of the STD provided they don't break. With a 90% success rate the odds are usually in your favor.

Many people won't notice a wound, I know I often do not notice a cut or tear in my flesh, and when those in the act are euphoric they will have a greater chance of not noticing pain, it is pretty obvious.

I'm more then positive if a ***** was ripping through your flesh you would notice it and tell them to stop. To be serious if it really starts to hurt guess what? stop that's a sign that skin is tearing.

But again lubricant works condoms help prevent tearing as well those two alone help prevent a lot of damage in the anus.

Just like how a child raised by two fathers will not have a motherly influence, and a child raised by two mothers will not have a fatherly influence.

Its all about the maturity of the parents not their sexual orientation if lacking either influence was detrimental then a large portion of adults should be in trouble but they're not. It's not the end of the world if you lack a father or mother influence if you can have at least one positive influence in most cases you the child should be fine.

Eor: Then why did you bring up the point? it's really a pointless point. We don't exactly need more kids being born anyway with the whole over crowded foster home thing.