If you think I’m trolling, report me. Also be sure to report everyone who agrees with me, though.
Yup and you said “legal guardians” make family. So you oppose gay adoption.
I didn’t say I did report you either.
See? He always does this. It’s one of his favorite tactics–he demands cites for things he just now said. This is an attempt at misdirection, but I’ll humor him this once.
Gay couples cannot be legal parents/guardians in many states. Therefore, gay people can’t be families since families must be legally recognized, per you, Mr. Phelps.
If I had linked to the whole thread, rather than the specific post, you’d be calling for “Cite” of the specific post, troll-boy. Are you denying you said
Are you really going to babble like an idiot? Biology does have ‘purposes’. Biological FUNCTIONS have purposes. Your mouth for instance is for chewing food. That’s its PURPOSE. That you can also use it to suck on a dick is immaterial.
Sexual identity coheres around gender. Your semantics are bullshit.
It’s ‘lame’. Is that a technical term?
‘Historically’? And you’re wrong, it has primarily applied to men, but polyandry is a word because it describes something that has actually existed historically. Also, there are cultures where people have had one opposite sex partner but were able to take lovers of their same sex without it being much of a big deal. So your problem is with a very specific subset of Polyamory, but you are spreading the net as wide as possible?
No one ever said it was. So you are simply fellating your own straw man.
kimera Sexual reproduction is the purpose for coupling. It is the reason why we couple. We cannot procreate without at least a temporary coupling. There’s really no other way to look at it. Sure, we have sex for all sorts of reasons, but the raising of children is the primary purpose of monogamous coupling.
No, gay couples can be legal guardians
You didn’t, because you know the trolling accusation is bullshit.
Christ, this is specious. Do you really think you’re going to fool anybody with this kind of sophistry?
I’m denying your dishonest characterization of it, especially since it was posted in response to an in-thread cite of a particular study.
Your lie about “white people teaching black people to write” was even more blatant. I notice you aren’t even making an effort to defend that one.
If you think I’m trolling, report me. Otherwise shut the fuck up, you butthurt little crybaby that can’t stand for someone to disagree with you.
Or DID I?!?!?!
Only Gfactor and Miller know for sure.
Which you went on to defend.
Nope, just not gonna get caught up in your endless “CITE?!” game. You wrote the words in the link, others can read them.
Make me, tough guy. 
Heh-and you’re the one having the tantrum that you’re finally being called on your constant trolling. Whassamatter trollboy, getting nervous that after like 8 years, your constant trolling is finally catching up with you?
By the way, do you still assert that anyone who washes their hands after they go to the bathroom has “OCD”? Or was that just another troll to get a rise out of people?
Sorry, but you’re wrong, and you don’t know what you’re talking about. There is no such thing as “purpose” in biology, any more than there is purpose in the formation of stars and planets. Your mouth is for whatever you decide it’s for. Biology doesn’t give a shit.
No, you just don’t understand the terminology. Sexual orientation does not “cohere around gender.” If it did, there wouldn’t be different sexual orientations for the same gender. Whether you identify as male or female is a separate function from what gender you are attracted to.
Of course not. I’m not the one trying to assign made up technical terms for fucking lots of people, and pretending it’s an “orientation.”
Polyandry is exceptionally rare, and so cannot be held up as an example of organic, universally occuring relationship paradigms. The cultures where it exits (Nepal, Tibet) involve multiple brothers married to one woman, and the practitioners report that the practice doesn’t work very well.
Only men, and this is still an exception rather than a rule.
I don’t have a “problem” with any of it. I’m just saying that comparing swinging to the historical practice of patriarchal polygamy is ridiculous. Obviously, swinging isn’t as bad, or “bad” in a moral sense at all (unless you’re bringing home fuck buddies in front of your kids all the time). I just think it’s immature. It prioritizeds sex over emotional intimacy, and I flat don’t buy that it’s very common for “triads” and the like to remain stable, and closed and mutually reciprocal by all parties (every member is in love with every other partner). I think it’s more likely to be creepy guys badgering their wives into having a three-way with the babysitter. So if someone I know calls me out of the blue, and says he’s now “polyamorous” and wants to bring his fuck toy to my party along with his wife, and then sit there with the three of them petting and cooing in front of my kids (which was the scenario being asked about in the original thread), I’m going to balk at it. At the very least, I’m going to reserve the right to believe that the behavior is ridiculous. I don’t give a fuck if anyone thinks that makes me a bigot.
You’re the one who brought up this “multi-culturalist” horseshit, so if it doesn’t apply to monogamy/polyamory, then why the fuck did you bring it up?
Nope.
I know for sure. You didn’t.
So?
Bullshit. You went too far with that one, and you know you did. I said that black slaves were kept illiterate by white people and you absolutely twisted that into a false assertion that I said “black people didn’t know how to read until white people taught them.” You lied, and you know you lied.
If you think I’m trolling then why haven’t you reported me, you butthurt little crybaby?
Another fucking lie. Do you think that people won’t click your links?
I said that people who obsess about other people washing their hands have OCD, liar.
Not true. I’ve had lots of sex in a ‘monogamous coupling’ and have never had to name any babies. Purpose is an arbitrary concept. I decide what the purpose of my sexual activity will be thankyouverymuch.
You are almost always an idiot, but this one is amazing even for you. Someone decides that his mouth is for seeing or smelling or hearing, and biology is amenable to that? I think you are having trouble with English again, something you do constantly on this message board. One of the things that purpose means is “what something is used for”. Describing something as having a particular purpose is identical to describing it as having a particular function, unless the person using the word introduces either a creator or a concept of goal-oriented evolution to the discussion.
:rolleyes: No you don’t. Your ability to subvert the functionality of your organs is neither here nor there as it regards those organs. Your opinion on the subject is irrelevant. Your organs still have basic functionality that requires a coupling a male and female to accomplish that. I can stick my dick up your anus but that doesn’t change the fact that your anus’s ‘purpose’ is for expelling fecal matter.
In this thread, DtC very plainly makes some rather graphic threats concerning what he will do to any guests who bring a gun to his house.
So, can we conclude that if a BDSM-practicing couple brings one of their whips to his house that he will beat them and sodomize them with their own whip?
Really? You think that’s what I was saying? That I think people have magical powers to decide that their mouths can be used for anything at all? This is too stupid to even require a response.
If that’s the definition being used, then whatever a mouth gets used for is its purpose, including sucking dick and playing the harmonica.
That’s what I’m saying. All those “functions” are incidental, not designed. Therefore it’s incorrect to say, as mswas said, that reproduction is “the” ppurpose for sex, or that anything in biology has any intended purpose at all.
You can conclude that they would not be allowed to practice sex games in my house in front of my kids. If they tried to do so anyway, they might very well find themselves getting clubbed with the butt of their own whip.
The gun post referred to people sneaking guns in. That’s pretty hard to do with a whip.
They have an incidental functionality. It is not possible to “subvert” them, because if you can do it, then it’s a function. No use or application of a body part is any more or less objectively valid than any other. There is no designed purpose in any of it. Biology is just a big, long running chemical fire. It’s absolutely goal-less and purposeless.
Can I get a clarification, Dio? If you had a genuine triad come to a party of yours, and they acted like all the other straight (or gay) couples there without getting all jiggy and stuff, would you still think they were “lame”? Is it the actions or the situation? If you knew a couple before they invited the third person in, would you insist that the couple come to your party alone or would you include the third person in the invitation? If all three persons in the triad treated each other equally and appropriately in public (thus eliminating any obvious physical or emotional bias that would “tell” one of them as “the fuckbuddy”), would you still feel contempt?
You have it ass backwards. They have an incidental use for things other than their functionality. The functionality determines their form. That you can use that form at the subversion of that function is what is incidental.
No, that’s the function of a condom or an IUD, or pulling out in time. For some reason you are confusing prophylactic technology with your genitals.
What pseudo-intellectual garbage.
If that’s so then why do you care whether people couple or not? It’s goalless and purposeless.
But I guess we won’t get into preference selection as you’d have to believe in the purpose of functionality of body parts to even comprehend such a topic.
Like I said in the other thread, if they had established themselves as stable and “real” over a significant period of time, I would feel differently about it. I think that such things happen, but I am still going to be skeptical if it’s sprung on me as a brand new thing by a couple who I’ve known as a couple for a long time. I’m not going to take it very seriously if the new partner was added a month ago, or if they have a revolving door, and I’m still going to think the PDA’s in front of my kids are inappropriate.
Their “functionality” is whatever they get used for. Biology doesn’t care. Biology doesn’t think, or know, or plan or have a goal.
I don’t get this at all. The prophylactics don’t get you off, or cause emotional intimacy or any of the other things that go along with sex. They often aren’t even necessary in same-sex or infertile couplings. Are infertile couples “subverting” the purpose of sex when they fuck? What are you, Jimmy Swaggert? Cite for biology having a purpose?
I DON’T care. I DON"T care. I DON’T care. I never said I did.
On the last, I definitely agree. It doesn’t matter whether you’re gay or straight, monogamous or in a 32-person line marriage, making out in a party that is not intended for that purpose, especially in another person’s home, is inappropriate. But every relationship has to begin somewhere…even your relationship with your wife was only a month old at one point. Barring the inappropriate PDAs, I’d hope that I’d take their word for it as to their sincerity in adding this person to their relationship, unless they’ve proven themselves inveterate flakes before.
Agree with revolving door…my relationship with supervenusfreak isn’t exclusive, but we wouldn’t bring a short-term (or even recurring) playmate to a party where the host didn’t know him in the first place.
One last question: what constitutes inappropriate PDA? A peck on the cheek? Holding hands? Touching each other in passing (hand on a shoulder or on a waist)? Do they have to be Victorian proper? Or does “inappropriate” begin when things advance beyond that peck-on-the-cheek stage?
Since I am clearly confusing the hell out of the tards, let me state that the function of the word purpose in my argument is interchangeable with the word function.
Genitals have a biological function that is not subject to interpretation. They can be used in other ways, but that biological function is clear and is so for the vast majority of the population.