Victimless crime

Someone is too unimaginative to think about bisexuality or the fact that society cannot influence the sexuality of people anyway without provoking horrific suffering.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

deathflower wrote:

"

SkyCore wrote:

In 2008, according to the Department of Justice, there were 7,308,200 persons in the US corrections system. Of which only 7.9% were guilty of violent crime, and 5.8% were guilty of property crime. To one sidedly condemn other cultures for their stance on victimless crimes without acknowledging our own issues is extraordinarily unfair.

Are you arguing that we don't lock up criminals or selling and trafficking drugs shouldn't be illegal? Let's start with whether drug abuses should be regulated or whether we should stop people from hurting themselves. If you want legal drug, you can alway stick with alcohol, caffeine and nicotine.

Two of which are probable more harmful than marijuana.

Odd pick. Marijuana seem legal is some states, illegal in others. Would your argument hold with heroin and cocaine?

"

Aim_Deep wrote:

Being against homos is not a "fictional construct" it doesn't propagate the species. Even caveman or dumbest animal knows this.

I think you're overestimating the intelligence of the design. The way I see it, man has not a natural inclination to have sex with women, so much as a natural inclination to stick his penis in anything which will stay still for five minutes. I guess that, strictly speaking, nature might have something against "homos," but harbors no ill will towards bisexuals. And even towards homosexual people, nature only asks for a brief window of sexual flexibility.

"

Aim_Deep wrote:

Being against homos is not a "fictional construct" it doesn't propagate the species. Even caveman or dumbest animal knows this. Finally there is no social capital (family with children). The traditional means of caring for old for eons. Homos (and single for lifers) have to rely on fleeting and soon to be bankrupted state. Good luck with that. When shit hits the fan they will die starving and alone while families take care of thier own.

You have to understand that you are saying this in a world where the population has tripled in less than a century, where we are well exceeding the 7-BILLION mark and continuing upwards. Overpopulation is not sustainable, and definately not with our consumption habits.

I'll worry about propagating the species when it's actually meaningful, not before.

"

Upandatem wrote:

"

Aim_Deep wrote:

Being against homos is not a "fictional construct" it doesn't propagate the species. Even caveman or dumbest animal knows this. Finally there is no social capital (family with children). The traditional means of caring for old for eons. Homos (and single for lifers) have to rely on fleeting and soon to be bankrupted state. Good luck with that. When shit hits the fan they will die starving and alone while families take care of thier own.

You have to understand that you are saying this in a world where the population has tripled in less than a century, where we are well exceeding the 7-BILLION mark and continuing upwards. Overpopulation is not sustainable, and definately not with our consumption habits.

I'll worry about propagating the species when it's actually meaningful, not before.

I understand that. But you have to understand humans are tribal and biggest clan won therefore has nothing to do with a fictional construct as he called it. But life and death to propagate. Today times are different its not life or death situation except for end user if states fail or politics do and people wont support and nurture life long singles in old age.

Scotty not this male;)

The point is, nature isn't saying "sex should always be between a male and a female." It's saying "sex should at least sometimes be between a male and a female." Saying that homosexual sex is unnatural or counterproductive makes as much sense as levying the same criticism towards ice cream. Such a comment if indeed the stuff of hundreds if not thousands of years ago.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

The point is, nature isn't saying "sex should always be between a male and a female." It's saying "sex should at least sometimes be between a male and a female." Saying that homosexual sex is unnatural or counterproductive makes as much sense as levying the same criticism towards ice cream. Such a comment if indeed the stuff of hundreds if not thousands of years ago.

It doesn't say a male and female have to be willing either. Homosexual can be compelled against their will to produce a heir. Probably what homosexual rehabilitation does...

Also, no matter the time period, there has been a fucking lot of homosexual sex so in that sense the pressure didn't work that well anyway.

READ

I want everyone to imagine standing up, now imagine heading to your nearest bathroom. If there's a door fine... Now as you stare at what modernization calls a toilet, sit on it. Now as you sit ask yourself, "is this normal?" As you remember all the times you emptied your bowels, ask yourself the same question... Again, "is this normal?"

The point... Whether young or old, in power or in poverty... Tall or short... Fair skin or not... Sooner or latter everyone does what eventually has to occur. No matter how much we try normalize our behaviors, "normal" is in the eye of the beholder.


-cheers

"

NeroNoah wrote:

Also, no matter the time period, there has been a fucking lot of homosexual sex so in that sense the pressure didn't work that well anyway.

Whatever do you mean? Homosexuality is uncommon or rare in frequency. Homosexuality is oppressed throughout history.