What's new
By:

Men lol

S

[size/HUGE] boobs [/size]

Banned
Just want to ask why men don't engage in gay sex even though the results are same. Why do they follow words of old people who are bigots and most likely mentally unstable?

I mean all abstinence is a joke but following someone who tells you that you cannot diddle a man in a semi truck between Reno and Wendover is hillarious because its stupid and illogical. The reason you dont is because you are scared what society tells you after you freer yourself with another man.
 
bristly brain?

h0E764AEA
 
[size/HUGE] boobs [/size];908239 said:
Just want to ask why men don't engage in gay sex.
Click to expand...


simple because this:
youtube-cute-cat.jpg


TRUMPS THIS:
SammyGameCock.jpg



most normal men prefer ***** (The 1st) above ****(the 2nd, stupid sensor cant even name the animals in pick without getting censored). heck look at the picture tell me wich one u prefer.( btw dont get offended that i implied gay as abnormal, it is a fact. something that is not the norm, is abnormal)


/THREAD
 
abberrant sex is not abnormal. "normal" is stuff that recurrs in nature widely dispersed in time and space among every human culture says gay/les stuff is "normal", if not pre-dominant. My cows even do it, and even little bulls try to hump one another. Great sport, apparently. We all learn functional skills in the games we play.

I have an opinion that besides the whole crusade following in the wake of Karl Marx's directives that bourgeoise culture must be destroyed before mankind can be saved from itself. . . . and that breaking down "western" morality by promoting gayness and other dysfunctional modes of behavior is a necessary step in the dialectic that would eventually produce equality of the sexes/of humans and the whole dream of statelessness and uniform destitution and absolute human deprivation . . . well, besides all that. . . . sorry for the brief synopsis of Das Kapital. . . . well. . . . we are using too much BPA and other plasticizers with phytoestrogenic effects. . . . and we are en masse feminizing males worldwide. . . .

So of course we have this whole dysfunctional societal trend. Some historical nations made long use of gayness in their cultures, some for soldiery and some for subservience. . . . but the plain fact is that it is not a stable nor productive behavior that will produce the children necessary to perpetuate that culture.

So it's bye bye Miss American Pie.

Like Marx envisioned historical cycles and the succession of surviving trends, the American Experiment in human liberty will test this trend, and the question of whether human liberty is worth putting up with human behavior. The GLBT "movement" is being pushed by the alphas because it's a tool in their toolbox of control methods. Give them the power to dictate moral sensibilities, and one day they'll use to round up whatever "deviants" they think might be a problem. . . . and sooner than later. . . . those "deviants" will be every one of us.

You give "government" the role of deciding stuff like this. . . . and we will all lose everything we have ever had, of freedom. . . . of belief, speech, life choices, religion, economic or personal action. . . .. everything.

Our fundamental choice as humans is whether we are willing to put up with others being free. If we can let other people be different from us, we have a chance to attain our own acceptance from others.
 
DutchJazzer said:
( btw dont get offended that i implied gay as abnormal, it is a fact. something that is not the norm, is abnormal)
Click to expand...

Being gay is no more abnormal than having blue eyes or being left-handed. I don't see you calling out blue-eyed or left-handed people as abnormal. You are being insulting.
 
One Brow said:
Being gay is no more abnormal than having blue eyes or being left-handed. I don't see you calling out blue-eyed or left-handed people as abnormal. You are being insulting.
Click to expand...

depending on the stats (per region). they may be abnormal yes. don't know the exact stats.

a blue eyed man living in Africa might be abnormal.
a blue eyed man in Germany might not be considered abnormal.


sorry if the truth is insulting.
but these days telling the truth seems to be abnormal also.


i would call blue eyed people living in africa abnormal. but this is not a thread about blue eyed people in africa?
or is it?
or a thread about lefthanded or ambidextrous people. if it was i would call it abnormal
 
DutchJazzer said:
depending on the stats (per region). they may be abnormal yes. don't know the exact stats.
Click to expand...

You missed my point (which I should have expected); it's not whether your definition applies, it's the choosing to single out one particular group to apply the term to, regularly, that's offensive.
 
It's not even close to the same. Lefties are about 10% of the population, blue eyes a bit more, gay is 3%. Totally different in every way.
 
One Brow said:
Being gay is no more abnormal than having blue eyes or being left-handed. I don't see you calling out blue-eyed or left-handed people as abnormal. You are being insulting.
Click to expand...

meaningless distinctions are pretty normal in all human cultures. . . . if you are going to insist only your own distinctions have merit, you are running along the same lines as any other bigot. All known human beings, and collections of human beings, have historically, and do now, and forever will try to assert some distinctions as having either good or bad connotations, moral meanings, and other claimed "values".

Everything you are campaigning for today as some kind of "social justice" or as a better way for humans to be, will suffer the same fate ultimately. Some other folks will come along and displace it with their own.

For example, unless we elect a President who is not openly sympathetic with Sharia Law and a perfect World of Islam, we will ultimately have to fight a war with those folks. If we keep Obama as our President, he may very well just write an Executive Order directing the Justice Department to implement Sharia Law.

stupid liberals don't get a lot of realities in this world, just like every other ideologically-blinded idealists.
 
babe said:
meaningless distinctions are pretty normal in all human cultures. . . . if you are going to insist only your own distinctions have merit, you are running along the same lines as any other bigot. All known human beings, and collections of human beings, have historically, and do now, and forever will try to assert some distinctions as having either good or bad connotations, moral meanings, and other claimed "values".

Everything you are campaigning for today as some kind of "social justice" or as a better way for humans to be, will suffer the same fate ultimately. Some other folks will come along and displace it with their own.

For example, unless we elect a President who is not openly sympathetic with Sharia Law and a perfect World of Islam, we will ultimately have to fight a war with those folks. If we keep Obama as our President, he may very well just write an Executive Order directing the Justice Department to implement Sharia Law.

stupid liberals don't get a lot of realities in this world, just like every other ideologically-blinded idealists.
Click to expand...

We should probably keep Obama as our president...for a third term.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top