Dodgers Remove Gay 'Nun' Group From Pride Night

[Curried Goats]

Look at you talking about calling names ? HA HA HA. You might have just set a record for name calling, in this thread.

You are too much of a hypocritical, bogus bozo to warrant any more of my time and typing. I've moved on to guess what >> talking about the TOPIC >> the LA Dodgers. First word of the TITLE of the OP.

I don't care if you move on. Feel free to.

 

[protectionist]

I don't care if you move on. Feel free to.

Might as well - everybody has seen my objective evidence argument a dozen times. So how do we get rid of the Dodgers and replace them ? That is the real issue here.

 

[Leo123]

Again. You need to be clearer. What exactly are you arguing is unnatural about homosexual attraction?

It does not. Men and women, well men a lot more than women really but regardless, men and women kill each other all the time, especially in fits of rage over jealously and hurt with regards to sex and intimacy. They even coin a term for it, "crimes of passion".

It doesn't mean it's eschewed by nature either. You keep trying to argue this straw man about heterosexuals being more numerous but no one is refuting that.

No, you need to be more attentive. I told you 'what exactly' I meant. There's a reason that heterosexuals are more numerous and you have been told why by me and others here but you just seem either not to get it or just want to argue.

 

[Curried Goats]

No, you need to be more attentive. I told you 'what exactly' I meant. There's a reason that heterosexuals are more numerous and you have been told why by me and others here but you just seem either not to get it or just want to argue.

No. You've certainly argued heterosexuals are more numerous despite no one arguing the opposite, how that relates to you providing objective evidence that homosexuality is unnatural is not at all clear. Feel free to clear it up with a clear argument if you can manage one.

 

[Couchpotato]

But they weren't fifty years ago... They were actually AGAINST THE LAW until 1967.

Loving v. Virginia - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Okay, let's look at that.

nearly half of straight men engage in anal sex with their female partners.

Nearly Half of Straight Men Have Had Anal Sex

A new CDC report contains a few surprises about your bedroom boundaries

www.menshealth.com

Here's what they found: The National Survey of Family Growth, conducted between 2006 and 2008 with people between the ages of 15 and 44, concluded that 44 percent of straight men and 36 percent of straight women have had anal sex at least once in their lives. Even factoring in the ubiquity and ease of access to hard-core porn, those numbers still seem a little startling. And the surprises don't stop there.

Conversely, we can argue that it wasn't supposed to go in the mouth, either, but 85% of men have had oral sex at some point in their lives.

United States - share of men who have ever received oral sex 2015 | Statista

This statistic shows the share of American men who have received oral sex in the past month, the past year, or in their lifetime.

www.statista.com

This statistic shows the share of American men who have received oral sex in the past month, the past year, or in their lifetime. The findings were acquired in early 2015 and published in 2017. During the survey, 85 percent of male respondents stated they have received oral sex at some time during their life.

44% of men have had "anal sex" but only 12% have had a homosexual encounter. So large numbers of men are getting pegged by their girlfriends?

 

[Couchpotato]

No. You've certainly argued heterosexuals are more numerous despite no one arguing the opposite, how that relates to you providing objective evidence that homosexuality is unnatural is not at all clear. Feel free to clear it up with a clear argument if you can manage one.

The "reason" for having sex is procreation. I get that it's fun and it feels good but that's not the REASON sex exists. Since you cant procreate via a homosexual encounter it's logical that that's not the way nature intended it thus making it "unnatural".

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Dodge

What does a once-great, once-American automobile brand, now owned by a Dutch (formerly Italian) company have to do with this discussion?

 

[Curried Goats]

The "reason" for having sex is procreation.

No it's not. At least not all of the time. Not even most of the time. Me and my wife have sex often without any intention of procreation seeing as we're both in our 40s and have already raised a daughter to adulthood and are now grandparents. You have to put "reason" in quotation marks there because subconsciously you know there are other reasons people engage in sexual activity.

I get that it's fun and it feels good but that's not the REASON sex exists.

It is for me and my wife. You don't get to dictate what our reason for sex is or invalidate it with your subjective feelings.

Since you cant procreate via a homosexual encounter it's logical that that's not the way nature intended it thus making it "unnatural".

Nature didn't intend anything. The problem with using these metaphors to talk about nature is that you run the risk of ascribing attributes to nature that don't really exist. Nature doesn't work with intention.

 

[Couchpotato]

No it's not. At least not all of the time. Not even most of the time. Me and my wife have sex often without any intention of procreation seeing as we're both in our 40s and have already raised a daughter to adulthood and are now grandparents. You have to put "reason" in quotation marks there because subconsciously you know there are other reasons people engage in sexual activity.

Nature doesnt care about your good time. Evolutionally the only reason to have sex is procreation.

It is for me and my wife. You don't get to dictate what our reason for sex is or invalidate it with your subjective feelings.

It's not me dictating it. Nature is doing that and nature doesnt care what you think or feel or care about.

Nature didn't intend anything. The problem with using these metaphors to talk about nature is that you run the risk of ascribing attributes to nature that don't really exist. Nature doesn't work with intention.

Oh you should have just said you didn't want someone to actually give an explanation as to why homosexual sex isn't natural and just wanted to someone to say what you wanted to hear. You should just say that shit up front and save everyone time.

 

[Curried Goats]

Nature doesnt care about your good time.

Nature doesn't care about anything because it doesn't have a nervous system or a brain to either feel a good time or process it. Its within my nature to want sex even though I don't want to procreate.

Evolutionally the only reason to have sex is procreation.

Not at all. Bonobos use sex to make peace as a social bonding method.

It's not me dictating it. Nature is doing that and nature doesnt care what you think or feel or care about.

It's not nature, it's you. You obviously have strong feelings towards homosexuals.

Oh you should have just said you didn't want someone to actually give an explanation as to why homosexual sex isn't natural and just wanted to someone to say what you wanted to hear. You should just say that shit up front and save everyone time.

So far I haven't seen you provide any evidence that homosexual sex is unnatural. Objectively homosexual sex can't reproduce but where is your evidence sex is only for reproduction? What about all these humans and animals out here fucking for fun?

 

[Leo123]

Nature doesn't care about anything because it doesn't have a nervous system or a brain to either feel a good time or process it. Its within my nature to want sex even though I don't want to procreate.

Not at all. Bonobos use sex to make peace as a social bonding method.

It's not nature, it's you. You obviously have strong feelings towards homosexuals.

So far I haven't seen you provide any evidence that homosexual sex is unnatural. Objectively homosexual sex can't reproduce but where is your evidence sex is only for reproduction? What about all these humans and animals out here fucking for fun?

Nature gives you that nature because nature wants to see males and females coupling. Many times they don't know they are procreating. Nature doesn't care if you're barren or not because overall, the odds of procreation are greater. There have been many cases of so-called barren couples getting pregnant. Nature clearly falls on the side of heterosexuality. You sure like to call others homosexuals for no particular reason. Homosexual sex lacks one important element. Procreation. One could call that unnatural.

 

[protectionist]

What does a once-great, once-American automobile brand, now owned by a Dutch (formerly Italian) company have to do with this discussion?

Dodge means > avoid a question or a point of information.

 

[protectionist]

Nature doesn't care about anything because it doesn't have a nervous system or a brain to either feel a good time or process it. Its within my nature to want sex even though I don't want to procreate.

Not at all. Bonobos use sex to make peace as a social bonding method.

It's not nature, it's you. You obviously have strong feelings towards homosexuals.

So far I haven't seen you provide any evidence that homosexual sex is unnatural. Objectively homosexual sex can't reproduce but where is your evidence sex is only for reproduction? What about all these humans and animals out here fucking for fun?

HA HA HA. Publicly pathetic.

 

[Curried Goats]

Nature gives you that nature because nature wants to see males and females coupling.

How many times must I point out that when you argue that nature wants something that you're making an irrational argument? Nature doesn't want. You're doing the equivalent of observing our planet revolving around the Sun, observing life on this planet is made possible by our proximity to the sun and then inferring that planets want to orbit Sun's in order to produce life. You have moved from making observations about nature to imaging its motives. It has no motives. We observe planets that revolve around the Sun and don't have life as well as planets that don't revolve around Sun's and are adrift in empty space. In humans we observe homosexuality and sex desire even in heterosexuals who are infertile and can't produce any offspring.

Many times they don't know they are procreating. Nature doesn't care if you're barren or not because overall, the odds of procreation are greater.

The odds of procreating when you're infertile are zero. That's what infertile means.

There have been many cases of so-called barren couples getting pregnant.

There have been many cases where pregnancy is difficult or unlikely and yet some couples beat those odds. You can't beat the fact that maybe you were born without a womb, which a small percentage of women will be and yet they still desire sex.

Nature clearly falls on the side of heterosexuality.

Nature doesn't pick sides. Really guy, these metaphors you're using are breaking your own brain. You're starting to believe nature has feelings and desires.

You sure like to call others homosexuals for no particular reason. Homosexual sex lacks one important element. Procreation. One could call that unnatural.

One could call something anything it doesn't mean it's accurate.

 

[Curried Goats]

HA HA HA. Publicly pathetic.

 

[Leo123]

How many times must I point out that when you argue that nature wants something that you're making an irrational argument? Nature doesn't want. You're doing the equivalent of observing our planet revolving around the Sun, observing life on this planet is made possible by our proximity to the sun and then inferring that planets want to orbit Sun's in order to produce life. You have moved from making observations about nature to imaging its motives. It has no motives. We observe planets that revolve around the Sun and don't have life as well as planets that don't revolve around Sun's and are adrift in empty space. In humans we observe homosexuality and sex desire even in heterosexuals who are infertile and can't produce any offspring.

The odds of procreating when you're infertile are zero. That's what infertile means.

There have been many cases where pregnancy is difficult or unlikely and yet some couples beat those odds. You can't beat the fact that maybe you were born without a womb, which a small percentage of women will be and yet they still desire sex.

Nature doesn't pick sides. Really guy, these metaphors you're using are breaking your own brain. You're starting to believe nature has feelings and desires.

One could call something anything it doesn't mean it's accurate.

Why do you use the term nature if not to depict some organized force? I was not referring to one fertile or infertile person. Humanity overall is designed to procreate. Nature makes it pleasurable so odds favor reproduction. It’s pretty obvious there is design and design means intent.

 

[marvin martian]

Take care of me for what?

Committing crimes, dipshit.

 

[marvin martian]

Are you accusing me of something?

Only what you've admitted to yourself. Did you want to recant?

 

[Desperado]

Too Late. They have already shown their true colors

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Dodge means > avoid a question or a point of information.

My car disagrees. But to be fair, my car is rather confused. It's branded as a Dodge, but it's really some sort of weird Alfa Romeo/FIAT/Hyundai/Mercedes Benz/Chrysler mongrel. And it “identifies” as a big yellow construction truck.