8
9

How does your denomination treat extra-marital heterosexual sex compared to homosexual sex? (self.Christianity)

QuestioningProf_Acorn が 投稿

並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A
あなたは単独のコメントのスレッドを見ています。

残りのコメントをみる →

[–]Humbledisciple -2ポイント-1ポイント  (75子コメント)

I've often seen a lot of hypocrisy in how people deal with these two issues.

There's no hypocrisy in treating homosexuality as a more serious sin than adultery or fornication. It is a more serious sin. Adultery and fornication between a man and a woman are offenses against chastity. Homosexuality is a sin against chastity and nature, it can't be denounced strongly enough.

[–]QuestioningProf_Acorn[S] 3ポイント4ポイント  (68子コメント)

A sin against nature? What does that mean?

If it's what we were "designed" for: What of cooking meat? Living in houses? Flying in airplanes? Sitting for 8-hours a day looking at computers? We do lots of things against our "nature", hence naming a fallacy against the argument (naturalistic fallacy).

[–]Evangelical Lutheran Church in Americaenigmalock 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

It means a sin that traditionalists especially don't like, because.

[–]CatholicPAPIST_SUBVERSIVE 2ポイント3ポイント  (34子コメント)

What of cooking meat?

How does eating contradict any natural purpose of any faculty of the body?

Living in houses?

How does sheltering oneself contradict any natural purpose of any faculty of the body?

Flying in airplanes?

How does being able to travel contradict any natural purpose of any faculty of the body?

Sitting for 8-hours a day looking at computers?

Absolutely sinful. It's called acedia.

We do lots of things against our "nature", hence naming a fallacy against the argument (naturalistic fallacy).

Confirmed for having no clue what natural law theory is.

[–]QuestioningProf_Acorn[S] 3ポイント4ポイント  (28子コメント)

Cooking is a technology, not natural.

Building a house is a technology, not natural.

Flying is a technology, not natural.

The argument is that homosexuality is a "sin against nature", implies some kind of either a) we evolved to be a certain way, therefore should be that way, or b) we were designed to be a certain way, therefore should be that way. In either case, humans go way beyond their evolutionary development or "design" through the use of technology and culture.

You can't appeal to nature in one instance and ignore it in others.

[–]CatholicPAPIST_SUBVERSIVE 2ポイント3ポイント  (27子コメント)

Technology is the application of our intellectual faculties and the obvious outgrowth of highly evolved apes using tools, it's not violating any natural law. The argument that homosexuality is a sin against nature is based on observing the plain and empirical fact that the purpose of sexual faculties is unification and reproduction between a man and a woman, not to stick anywhere it makes you feel good, no matter how much you go "but muh wuv!!" as if that suddenly justified it.

In either case, humans go way beyond their evolutionary development or "design" through the use of technology and culture. You can't appeal to nature in one instance and ignore it in others.

Technology and culture are natural outgrowths from primate behavior. Saying that's somehow against nature is ludicrous. You're only underscoring the fact that you neither understand nature nor natural law theory, and incidentally, the latter does not depend on things happening to occur in the former.

[–]QuestioningProf_Acorn[S] 3ポイント4ポイント  (1子コメント)

Technology is the application of our intellectual faculties and the obvious outgrowth of highly evolved apes using tools, it's not violating any natural law.

So we can use our faculties outside their evolutionary developments in all things except sex? Interesting. So we can put on shoes to aid in walking where we were never intended to walk, but not put on condoms to aid in sex? Interesting bifurcation.

the purpose of sexual faculties is unification and reproduction between a man and a woman, not to stick anywhere it makes you feel good, no matter how much you go "but muh wuv!!" as if that suddenly justified it.

So handjobs, blowjobs, oral in general, post-coitus clitoral stimulation, sex with infertile women, sex with infertile men, sex with condoms, sex with vasectomies, and sex after menopause, are all crimes against nature? What denomination are you representing again so I can be sure to never convert to it?

[–]CatholicPAPIST_SUBVERSIVE 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

So we can use our faculties outside their evolutionary developments in all things except sex? Interesting.

Nope, you're also not allowed steal, murder, or stuff your face until you blow up to 600 pounds.

So we can put on shoes to aid in walking where we were never intended to walk, but not put on condoms to aid in sex? Interesting bifurcation.

Shoes aid in walking, the use of technology as an extension of the body to do what we want to do is not a fucking violation of natural law except in your desperate strawman world. Condoms do not "aid in sex", they completely controvert the purpose of sex. And no, this is not some inscrutable mystery to figure out.

So handjobs, blowjobs, oral in general, post-coitus clitoral stimulation, sex with infertile women, sex with infertile men, sex with condoms, sex with vasectomies, and sex after menopause, are all crimes against nature? What denomination are you representing again so I can be sure to never convert to it?

Some yes, some no, some of these you could make the argument for, some are debatable. I'm not going into this, since you're being dishonest and deliberately ignoring the points being made and desperately flailing to turn natural law theory into something literally fucking nobody thinks it means, so no matter what I say, you're going to beg and plead to make 2+2 = 5.

Of course, if you're choosing your religion based purely on what makes you feel good and tickles your dick, you're a completely lost cause no matter what. The utter cowardice of someone who won't surrender themselves to a truth beyond themselves because it might temporarily delay having an orgasm.

[–]Christian (LGBT)LegoShmego 3ポイント4ポイント  (7子コメント)

the plain and empirical fact that the purpose of sexual faculties is unification and reproduction between a man and a woman

That's not at all plain or empirical.

If it is, prove it.

[–]CatholicPAPIST_SUBVERSIVE -2ポイント-1ポイント  (6子コメント)

  1. Penis goes into vagina.

  2. Orgasms.

  3. Everyone's happy.

  4. Reproduction occurs.

There, cry about.

but, but, you can stick it in other holes too!!!

Yeah, and I can eat shit too, that doesn't mean I'm using my ability to eat properly.

[–]Christian (LGBT)LegoShmego 5ポイント6ポイント  (5子コメント)

Ok, so you've proven that heterosexuality is part of God's design. Well done.

Let's look at gay sexuality.

  1. Gay couple have sex.
  2. Orgasms.
  3. Everyone's happy.
  4. Now everybody's can withstand another round of The Wiggles in the morning without killing anyone.

Great.

Also

  1. God creates a world full of war and famine and deadly childbirth.
  2. God creates loving couples who don't produce their own children.
  3. Gay couples take in kids whose parents have died, or just help out so adults don't get totally overrun by kids.
  4. Everyone's happy.

or even

  1. There are some people for whom God's plan necessitates both romantic love and childless families.
  2. Gay people.

Because while you're claiming to know God's design, you're ignoring God's actual design. No matter how much people pray, God seems not to change sexual orientations. Every scientist worth anything thinks sexual orientation is biologically determined. Families with same sex parents are happy and healthy.

So if

"For there is no good tree which produces bad fruit, nor, on the other hand, a bad tree which produces good fruit"

homosexuality must be a good tree.

There, cry about.

So loving.

[–]troweight 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Now everybody's can withstand another round of The Wiggles in the morning without killing anyone.

Hey, lets not go overboard here. the wiggles are truly a sin against nature.. before 10 in the morning anyway... :-)

[–]CatholicPAPIST_SUBVERSIVE -2ポイント-1ポイント  (3子コメント)

On the first example: You missed reproduction.

On the second example: You apparently think the end result of your hypothetical situation is sexual unification, since that's what was being referred to by "everyone's happy." Immature, yes, my fault for arguing on the internet. Anyway, that aside, it's absolutely vile to deprive a child of a father and mother in order to reach some utilitarian end and make a gay couple feel good about themselves. There are more than enough childless mothers and fathers willing to adopt but strangled by bureaucracy.

On the third example: Desperate flailing.

Because while you're claiming to know God's design, you're ignoring God's actual design. No matter how much people pray, God seems not to change sexual orientations. Every scientist worth anything thinks sexual orientation is biologically determined.

Sex is an act, not an "orientation", anybody can have sex in any manner regardless of attraction. The fact that some people have an ingrained urge to have gay sex doesn't justify it anymore than some people having an ingrained urge to steal or be lazy.

As for "scientists", I don't care if politically charged scientists with politically charged grant money happen to magically find that the assumptions they were paid to find out just happen to be true.

Families with same sex parents are happy and healthy.

Says one study (again, no doubt paid off to find these results) with garbage methodology that amounts to saying "do you guys feel good?" And completely ignores any actually meaningful factor.

So loving.

And here we go again, being told anything blunt doesn't make you "feeeeel gooood", so you'll use the "love" buzzword to feign moral high ground. Nobody cares.

[–]troweight 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

Sex is an act, not an "orientation",

Please stop being flagrantly ignorant in public. You might as well be claiming "The Earth is FLAT, WE WILL FALL OFF!!!"

When you say things like this, It's just like the people who completely ignore the body of existing science in order to claim that the earth is only 6,000 years old.

All it does is harm your public credibility and everyone who believes as you claim to.

And, by association you reinforce the public perception that we Christians are all illiterate irrationalists.

Just stop. And please get a real education.

Just stop

[–]Mesne 0ポイント1ポイント  (16子コメント)

You're forgetting about how the male g spot is accessed. Against intended use? Against nature? The body is designed for it.

no matter how much you go "but muh wuv!!" as if that suddenly justified it.

You clearly have no regard for scripture. God is identified as both love and the source of all love. Yet you've described this being you claim to worship as being unable to justify anything.

[–]CatholicPAPIST_SUBVERSIVE -2ポイント-1ポイント  (15子コメント)

News flash, you don't have to stimulate a man's prostate in order to have sex. The fact that you can do something doesn't mean it is necessary or right. (And, anyway, other than the subjective gross factor, it's probably not strictly wrong when the sex act is otherwise ordered properly.)

You clearly have no regard for scripture. God is identified as both love and the source of all love. Yet you've described this being you claim to worship as being unable to justify anything.

Oh, shut the fuck up. God's love is not your feelings or your precious buttsex. You should be ashamed of yourself for making that equivocation, and you know exactly what I meant. Don't you fucking feign ignorance. God doesn't have to justify anything, God is the justification and the author of nature which is rationally ordered through divine love. The fact that it doesn't tickle your feels sufficiently is a problem with you, not God.

[–]Mesne 4ポイント5ポイント  (4子コメント)

News flash, you don't have to stimulate a man's prostate in order to have sex.

Fine. Be a selfish lover.

The fact that you can do something doesn't mean it is necessary or right.

It certainly however shows that the human (male) body was designed with that in mind. Eg. It's part of its nature according to natural law.

Oh, shut the fuck up. God's love is not your feelings or your precious buttsex. You should be ashamed of yourself for making that equivocation, and you know exactly what I meant.

No you should be ashamed by your claim that gay people do not feel this basic human emotion. I know exactly what you meant yes. You were attempting to remove the humanity of lgbt people and incite hateful attitudes towards them.

Don't you fucking feign ignorance. God doesn't have to justify anything, God is the justification and the author of nature which is rationally ordered through divine love. The fact that it doesn't tickle your feels sufficiently is a problem with you, not God.

I said it was you that needs to justify yourself for your rejection of God through your rejection of his love expressed in gay couples. It's not me who's centring their feelings here on this attitude. It's you. And you decided to back your hatred of gods love.

[–]CatholicPAPIST_SUBVERSIVE 0ポイント1ポイント  (3子コメント)

Fine. Be a selfish lover.

I think I'll pass on having fingers up my ass, thanks.

It certainly however shows that the human (male) body was designed with that in mind. Eg. It's part of its nature according to natural law.

Fine, then it's not a violation of natural law when used in the context of properly ordered sexuality.

No you should be ashamed by your claim that gay people do not feel this basic human emotion. I know exactly what you meant yes. You were attempting to remove the humanity of lgbt people and incite hateful attitudes towards them.

God's love is not an emotion. The fact that two people of the same sex can become infatuated with each other does not mean they are participating in divine and nobody is "removing their humanity" or "inciting hateful attitudes" towards them.

Oh, but wait, someone said the thing that makes them feel good isn't good, ready the buzzwords.

I said it was you that needs to justify yourself for your rejection of God through your rejection of his love expressed in gay couples. It's not me who's centring their feelings here on this attitude. It's you. And you decided to back your hatred of gods love.

No, it wasn't, it was said that "God can't justify anything" because you have the vocabulary and intellectual depth of a kindergartener. The only one rejecting God's love is the one who spits in the face of the order of His creation in order to be politically correct.

[–]Mesne 3ポイント4ポイント  (2子コメント)

Fine, then it's not a violation of natural law when used in the context of properly ordered sexuality.

Yes and this includes homosexuality (as for the record a penis reaches there far easier than fingers and has a greater effect showing exactly what's intended to be put there).

God's love is not an emotion.

So you're saying it's not something that can be felt. Might come across a lot of objections to that. It most certainly is.

The fact that two people of the same sex can become infatuated

The word you're looking for is love. The fact you are again claiming gay people don't possess this emotion backs up my point that your attempting to strip away lgbt people's humanity when you discuss them. It's disgusting.

Oh, but wait, someone said the thing that makes them feel good isn't good, ready the buzzwords.

Buzzwords. Here's another one: imago dei. That's what you're attacking with your dehumanisation. It's an affront and an attack on god that you are performing.

No, it wasn't, it was said that "God can't justify anything" because you have the vocabulary and intellectual depth of a kindergartener.

No. That was in reference to your appeals to authority. It's not from God. You make your point then claim it's from God. That's a very different thing. It's ironic that you attack my vocabulary and understanding when you are quite clearly struggling here.

The only one rejecting God's love is the one who spits in the face of the order of His creation in order to be politically correct.

and that is exactly what you are doing with your attacks on lgbt people.

[–]troweight 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

You clearly have an unrealistic concept of human sexuality.

Heterosexual couples have both anal sex and vaginal sex.

In hetero couples that have anal sex, the male partners also often are anally stimulated. It's part of the unitive portion of human sexuality.

Trying to focus on anal sex being the differentiating factor between heterosexual couples and homosexual couples just doesn't work and demonstrates that you are not well informed on the topic of human sexuality. Worse is that your approach using this idea indicates that you are largely unaware that you are not well informed.

I suggest you seek out academic publications on the topic to get a more balanced and accurate perspective. I don't know who you have been reading or listening to on the topic, but its not 1957 anymore.

[–]Christian (LGBT)LegoShmego 2ポイント3ポイント  (8子コメント)

Don't you fucking feign ignorance.

You keep accusing people of feigning ignorance or trying to make 2+2=5 when, seriously, we just don't agree with or, frankly, understand your basic assumptions.

God's love is not your feelings or your precious buttsex.

And this is where you lose all credibility. We're talking about love and marriage. If someone were to deride you for wanting to marry a woman and saying "You just want to pork someone's period hole" that would be awful. That's what you're doing.

Even if you think homosexuality is a sin, you can still be loving and respectful. If you won't empathize with gay people's positions, then you're not doing that.

[–]CatholicPAPIST_SUBVERSIVE -1ポイント0ポイント  (7子コメント)

You keep accusing people of feigning ignorance or trying to make 2+2=5 when, seriously, we just don't agree with or, frankly, understand your basic assumptions.

No, the ideas being presented are perfectly simple, the problem is everyone else desperately flailing and obfuscating in order to make it difficult.

And this is where you lose all credibility. We're talking about love and marriage. If someone were to deride you for wanting to marry a woman and saying "You just want to pork someone's period hole" that would be awful. That's what you're doing.

No, you're talking about a contract with a party attached. That's not marriage. And as for love, neither subjective emotional satisfaction nor intense friendship suddenly justify doing something that's otherwise wrong.

Even if you think homosexuality is a sin, you can still be loving and respectful. If you won't empathize with gay people's positions, then you're not doing that.

"Loving and respectful" are far too buzzwords to strongarm any opposition into cowering. It far too often doesn't mean loving and respectful, it means "docile and enabling." I can't take that seriously. You seem respectful, though, maybe that's what you mean.

Regardless, I have no obligation to "empathize with gay people's position" anymore than I have an obligation to empathize with people who think the sky is green. It's an ontological absurdity and plainly incompatible with the obvious purpose of sexual behavior, and I would be completely happy to leave it as a footnote if there were not such a prominent cult of worshiping homosexuality and bullying anybody who makes the slightest twitch of disagreement into submission and social ostracization.

[–]Christian (LGBT)LegoShmego 2ポイント3ポイント  (4子コメント)

Your logic is so circular, I'm dizzy. You're a Christian calling loving and respectful buzzwords.

I didn't say you had to empathize with my position, I'm telling you that God calls you to empathize with me. You're belittling and insulting people in the name of Christ. You're being ridiculous.

[–]Universalist panentheistzabulistan 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

No, the ideas being presented are perfectly simple, the problem is everyone else desperately flailing and obfuscating in order to make it difficult.

Apparently it's impossible for an intelligent human being to honestly disagree with Catholic natural law theory. We all just know it and refuse to accept the truth! Just like all those damned atheists who know god exists but hate him and claim not to believe in him!

[–]Mesne 1ポイント2ポイント  (4子コメント)

How does eating contradict any natural purpose of any faculty of the body?

Cooking meat was what was thought to have made the appendix a vestigial organ.

How does being able to travel contradict any natural purpose of any faculty of the body?

Not spotted that humans can't fly on their own......?

Confirmed for having no clue what natural law theory is.

On the contrary i think it's natural law that inappropriately uses the term natural in an attempt to give itself more credibility. How ridiculous it is to use the term unnatural to describe something that is found within nature.

[–]CatholicPAPIST_SUBVERSIVE 0ポイント1ポイント  (3子コメント)

Cooking meat was what was thought to have made the appendix a vestigial organ.

Yes, it's called evolution, the body changes and adapts. Get over it.

Not spotted that humans can't fly on their own......?

Oh, no shit, really? It's almost as if the purpose of technology is to do things that are impossible without it.

On the contrary i think it's natural law that inappropriately uses the term natural in an attempt to give itself more credibility. How ridiculous it is to use the term unnatural to describe something that is found within nature.

You're right, the problem is with everyone using the word, not with you, who refuses to learn what the word actually means in the context of natural law theory and wants to tear down a strawman because that would be easier than confronting reality.

[–]Mesne 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

Yes, it's called evolution, the body changes and adapts. Get over it.

As will people be fine with treating lgbt people with respect and equality. This also is evolution of society and your comments are contrary to this and is something you should 'get over'.

Oh, no shit, really? It's almost as if the purpose of technology is to do things that are impossible without it.

I think you're forgetting that it was you that made the appeal to nature in the first place. These things you counter with are flaws in your argument and your logic processes not mine.

You're right, the problem is with everyone using the word

It's not everyone though is it? The majority of people identify the word natural to refer to that which is found in nature. This includes homosexuality and homosexual activity.

who refuses to learn what the word actually means in the context of natural law theory and wants to tear down a strawman because that would be easier than confronting reality.

I understand it fine. I just find in quite frankly an immature and petty argument especially when it's conclusions are used to destroy happy lives and families. You should spend a life alone because sexy time makes no babies and penis fits here better. It's quite frankly a school yard argument.

[–]CatholicPAPIST_SUBVERSIVE 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

As will people be fine with treating lgbt people with respect and equality. This also is evolution of society and your comments are contrary to this and is something you should 'get over'.

Nope. Saying "IT'S LE CURRENT YEAR!!!" changes nothing. Society does not "evolve", biological organisms evolve. "Equality" is a meaningless concept and thinking someone's hobbies are vile does not mean you "hate" them.

I think you're forgetting that it was you that made the appeal to nature in the first place. These things you counter with are flaws in your argument and your logic processes not mine.

There is no contradiction between advanced technology and nature, for the billionth fucking time, the use of tools and technology is an outgrowth of primate behavior.

It's not everyone though is it? The majority of people identify the word natural to refer to that which is found in nature. This includes homosexuality and homosexual activity.

At this point you're either being deliberately obtuse or you're actually this thick. "Uh guys the technical philosophical meaning of this word and the colloquial meaning are different but most people use the latter so that must be what the former is!?"

I understand it fine. I just find in quite frankly an immature and petty argument especially when it's conclusions are used to destroy happy lives and families. You should spend a life alone because sexy time makes no babies and penis fits here better. It's quite frankly a school yard argument.

Translation: WAHHH!!! REALITY DOESN'T MAKE ME FEEEL GOOOOD!! IT HAS TO BE RIGHT BECAUSE IT MAKES ME EMOTIONALLY HAPPY!

Oh, and anyone who calls it "sexy time" needs to go back to middle school and stop reading rage comics.

[–]Mesne 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Nope. Saying "IT'S LE CURRENT YEAR!!!" changes nothing. Society does not "evolve", biological organisms evolve.

You've just contradicted your previous point that things change and people should get over it.

Equality" is a meaningless concept and thinking someone's hobbies are vile does not mean you "hate" them.

It's not someone's hobby. It's someone's family. That very much makes you a hated of them. The only vile hobby here is your homophobia.

There is no contradiction between advanced technology and nature, for the billionth fucking time, the use of tools and technology is an outgrowth of primate behavior.

and there's nothing unnatural about homosexuality. It's only you saying things that are against nature are wrong (except these things that are against nature but I like them and it's my feels that are important). Your feels don't allow you to dictate other people's families.

At this point you're either being deliberately obtuse or you're actually this thick. "Uh guys the technical philosophical meaning of this word and the colloquial meaning are different but most people use the latter so that must be what the former is!?"

so which is it? Previously you claimed it was most people. Now you claim it's philosophers only. Seems like your grandiose claims are getting small the more you discuss them.

Oh, and anyone who calls it "sexy time" needs to go back to middle school and stop reading rage comics.

Yeah because your so mature with your hating on other peoples families and using terms like 'le current year'. People in glass houses.

[–]Humbledisciple -1ポイント0ポイント  (31子コメント)

It's immoral to use a faculty against its natural ends. That would be irrational. Sex is meant to unite a husband and wife, and create children. Two people of the same sex can never have a child together, no matter how much sexual play they indulge in together. A sterile sex act is against the nature of what sex is, it insults the creator of sex to use the sexual faculty in that disordered way.

[–]Mesne 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Two people of the same sex can never have a child together,

must go. Gotta tell my husband that the two children we've had for 7 (and 5) years aren't really there. That's a relief. Now I can stop spending money on toys if they aren't real.

[–]completely-ineffable 6ポイント7ポイント  (22子コメント)

A sterile sex act is against the nature of what sex is, it insults the creator of sex to use the sexual faculty in that disordered way.

So you think a postmenopausal woman having sex is 'insult[ing] the creator of sex''? After all, no matter how sex she has she will never produce a child.

[–]Mesne 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Watch the mental gymnastics occur trying to justify straight infertility whilst saying that people like me and my husband are wrong because we won't raise children (despite our two children.....).

[–]Christian (LGBT)LegoShmego 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Two people of the same sex can never have a child together, no matter how much sexual play they indulge in together.

Actually...

And also, today, gay couples do have children, and sex helps make their relationships happy and stable, just like it does in straight couples. I can't think of a better system.

[–]QuestioningProf_Acorn[S] 2ポイント3ポイント  (5子コメント)

It's immoral to use a faculty against its natural ends.

So I guess blowjobs and handjobs are crimes against nature then as well?

Is it okay to get the woman off too, or is it over once you've ejaculated inside her?

[–]Humbledisciple -1ポイント0ポイント  (4子コメント)

So I guess blowjobs and handjobs are crimes against nature then as well?

Not if they lead to ejaculation inside the woman's vagina.

Is it okay to get the woman off too,

A good husband sees to his wife's needs before his own.

[–]QuestioningProf_Acorn[S] 5ポイント6ポイント  (1子コメント)

Not if they lead to ejaculation inside the woman's vagina.

So the ends justify the means? Interesting.

A good husband sees to his wife's needs before his own.

Wife's needs? Wait wait wait, how do her "needs" matter if the only purpose of sex is procreation? Are you saying there is something about sex besides procreation?

[–]CatholicPAPIST_SUBVERSIVE -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

if the only purpose of sex is procreation?

Congratulations, you're arguing against something nobody is claiming, you haven't dealt some crushing blow.

[–]troweight 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

You're response indicates that you may not fully understand what a handjob or blowjob is. They don't typically lead to ejaculation in the vagina. When done competently, they tend to lead to ejaculation outside the vagina.

[–]Humbledisciple -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

When done competently, they tend to lead to ejaculation outside the vagina.

When done sinfully, they do.

[–]Christian (LGBT)LegoShmego 6ポイント7ポイント  (5子コメント)

Homosexuality is a sin against ... nature

Then why are there erogenous zones inside men?

[–]Lutheran [elca]rolling_simonov 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

why are buffer overflows possible?

just goes to show god wrote the universe in C.

[–]troweight 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

C is God's programming language. Without it, the proper randomness of the universe would not have been achieved!

What? You didn't know evolution doesn't work unless there uninitialized pointers in play? :-)

[–]Andiransothrowaway 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

You don't have to be gay to stimulate those erogenous zones.

[–]Christian (LGBT)LegoShmego 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Ok, but an erogenous prostate definitely wouldn't be part of the heterosexuality starter pack.

[–]troweight 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

um... yeah, it is. Most hetero couples don't discover this for a while unless they are either very well read or "adventurous". :-)