Topic: LGBT - page 3. (Read 6725 times)

good, now i know how to pester you.

let me re-word that question.....

do you think it's OK for people to play with their dick in public?

Again, avoiding the question. There is no force involved if you are merely seeing something. Please read, thank you.


I REALLY fucking hate redundancy.

hey butters,

do you think it's OK for people to jerk off in public?

Kids should not be forced to watch the things which they don't want to watch. If you want to spread the LGBT propaganda to the children, then there are several other methods to do so (such as sex education and pamphlets / brochures), rather than bumming each other in public places such as parks and schools in front of little kids.

That's not an answer to the question you quoted. Let's try another one:
How is ANYBODY, merely seeing ANYTHING, a victimization?

It is up to the parents to decide whether they want their chidren to view sodomites bumming each other or not. The LGBT lobby would like to take away that right from the parents, and force their perversions on the children. That's why I have been arguing that copulating in public places, in front of children is not a good idea.

If it appears that it's genuinely a free choice - that sex and relationships just aren't very important to them, or they're taking a timeout to concentrate on something more important - that's entirely up to them.

How is a minor merely seeing copulation a victimization? Are parents required to stop copulating and destroy all their sex tapes the instant they birth, or become guardian of, their first child, so that there is no possibility their child(ren) will be "scarred for life" by seeing their parents fucking? Are all non-human animals made into eunuchs so that they cannot copulate and be seen by children? Are animal documentaries and amateur YouTube videos censored, even those where animals are instinctively humping humans, or are they shown on Funniest Home Videos, which plays during family programming TV blocks, rated for all-ages?

I was "victimized" by all of the above, and yet I've never gotten an STD, never gotten anyone pregnant, and in the words of Penn Jillette, "I, myself, have raped and killed everyone I want to ... and the number for both is zero."

Here goeth extinction.

Can children be victims? Never?

It's immoral to cage humans for victimless crimes.

Yes, and why do you suppose that might that be? What possible cultural influence would bend the law against the human body itself?

Public sex is not legal in the United States. For your information, Spain is the only country in the world, where copulation in public is not a criminal offense. But even in Spain, the public act should not involve anyone under the age of 18, and more importantly, it should not be committed in the presence of minors or those with learning disabilities.

Now coming back to the United States. Public sex is illegal in the US. Even exposing your genitals is illegal there.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_in_Islam

But it's not your property, that's public space. Why should their freedom to fuck where they choose be impeded simply because you're offended by it?

Let's review some of the things that have historically offended most Christians:

-Showing the hair, knees, or shoulders of women was once considered indecent and shameful (sound familiar, islamophobes?)
-Masturbation (many Christians willingly lied to children and told them it would make them go blind)
-Examination / studying of the human body, especially forbidding dissection of corpses and the living (no modern medicine...)
-The existence of atheists (they regularly burned heretics like me alive back in the day)

And some things that still offend most Christians today:

-Public Sex (despite the USA's booming 12 billion dollar porn industry)
-Homosexuality (despite Supreme Court approval since 2015; despite science's assertion that it is natural in dozens of other species)
-Abortion (despite Supreme Court approval since 1973; despite all ethics and reason and compassion for women)
-The existence of atheists

Yes

How does a person's sex change  result in the rest of "us" losing common sense? Of course it's something bizarre, but there are people that support his decision. Others, however, don't. What most do, though, is respect it. You can't really criticise a decision like that because you're not in his/her mind. On topic of LGBT, it's not something that concerns me. I think the whole reaction towards the decision went overboard.

To tell the truth, I don't understand the obsession these sodomites have in exhibiting themselves naked and copulating in front of little children. And unlike the case with heterosexuals, it is not limited to a few isolated (and mentally deranged) cases. A majority of the faggs seems to be pretty much obsessed with this idea. 

It's a figure of speech, that you took literally. I meant that it's their private matter, not to be imposed onto others. Oh and heteros copulating in a public park is a bad thing as well. I am not interested in seeing how others do it, and so see no reason why others would want to display their horizontal dances to the general public.

---

The question of LGBT is pretty simple. But just like with any topic, where a powerful group pushes through it's agenda, this too is muddied and made to look more complicated.

Let's look at it from logical and biological perspective, setting aside emotions.

Let's start with the following premise. In the vast majority of cases, a man is sexually attracted and aroused by a woman, and a woman is attracted to and aroused by a man. This has a clear biological function of procreation, of getting healthy descendants. Any pleasure derived from the act is a boichemical form or reward (with a substance related to morphine) for an energy-consuming act. Any felling of attraction when being with someone of the opposite sex is there to ensure that the couple stay long enough together to raise their descendants, providing them with enough energy and life-knowledge.

What about the case when a man is attracted to a man or a woman is attracted to a woman? Biologically it's a dead-end with a built-in self-destruct mechanism. No descendants are coming after such specimens. And whatever permutations in their gene compositions that lead to cause such behaviour are removed from the gene pool.

What about cases, when a man or a woman are sexually attracted to a child? Not much different from the above, really, when it comes to basic biochemistry. Some groups in, e.g. Holland are working on legalising paedophily, which would expand LGBT into LGBTP. The biggest difference is that a child, who most probably has no deviation from the norm, gets forced onto itself a certain behaviour damaging/reprogramming said child.

For the same reason, adoption of children by LGBT is damaging for the child involved. Even if it's not violated physically, it's worldview, which is in the stage of fragile construction, is violated psychologically.

Because there's no Muslims in this thread preaching about their invisible sky father to me, that's why. But just for good measure and to show you I truly have no fucks to give about what anyone else (especially a theist) thinks of god:

I, WORLD CITIZEN BELIATHON, HEREBY DECLARE MYSELF TO BE THY ONE TRUE LORD GOD, THY MAKER. FORSAKE ALL FALSE GODS OR SUFFER ETERNAL DAMNATION!

Side question: Do you seriously believe any Dangerous/Important Muslims would be reading this obscure protocol forum? Or that they would care what a random internet nobody pseudonymous atheist like me thinks?











Again, I'm whole-heartedly with Stephen Fry on this issue:




Internet retaliation is a worry I leave for the gentler children of this Earth, who fear death. I welcome the inevitable, meditating on death soothes my restless spirit.

The cowards never use the image of mohamed. I wonder why...