Arthrogyposis Multiplex Congenita, Rheumatism and Osteoarthritis. Those make me disabled.
You're not understanding where I'm getting at. How are you disabled if you are abled? If you're considering yourself "disabled", then something must be disabled/abnormal about you, otherwise you're able.
So your argument is basically semantic? Awesome.
The exact opposite. Did you even read what I wrote? I said that I don't care about the word you use, I'm referring to the definition. And yes, I know what "semantic" means.
Penis also goes in the butt.
The penis also goes in the meat blender. I never denied the fact that people can use their body parts for other purposes. My argument is that there is no physical or biological evidence to support the penis going in your ear, nose, mouth and/or anus as it does the vagina.
So you're saying that homosexuality isn't "within reason"? That's because you're a bigot. This is why my analogy about skin colour works so well. Someone could say that Dark skin is an unnatural curse from god(Mormans for example do this), it doesn't mean that black people should be treated any differently from whites, even though some people say it's unnatural, and not normal.
WTF? I was referring to rape, public nudity, public urination and any activity that is considered without reason, not homosexuality. That's why you fail, your whole argument is based on this assumption that I"m some bigot.
Once again, you color analogy COMPLETELY FAILS because there is no biological or physical evidence to support one skin color over another. Our skin color interacts with the environment that we are in.
No, having sex is great because it feels good. That's the stimulus we pursue, not to procreate. Otherwise we wouldn't use sex as recreation. You're an idiot if you can't see that's true.
As I stated in my last post to you, what exactly is your argument against me? I never denied that we have sex for pleasure, matter of fact, I said just that in the below response.
What does this have to do with anything? If we didn't have sex for recreation we'd be driven to have it by some other biological impulse. The fact remains, some people aren't physically attracted to the opposite sex. They have intercourse with those of the same sex. This does not mean that you are allowed to treat them differently because of your own bigoted @#%^ing opinion, you disgusting excuse for a human being.
So, like I said earlier. You have no argument. You're just emotionally disturbed for me not having your beliefs and calling me names. It all makes sense now. What I just said complements your response above. People get hungry, they eat food and as a result they are nourished. People often eat food for pleasure never thinking about nourishment. Likewise, people have sexual urges, they have sex and as a result they reproduce. People have sex never thinking about reproduction.
Just because people eat with no regards to nourishment, doesn't change the fact that the primary function of eating is to nourish us, not make us "feel good". Likewise, just because people have sex with no regard of reproduction, that doesn't change the fact that reproduction is the primary function of sex, not make us feel good.
I can think of many other things people can do with their body parts that result in good feelings, that doesn't change the primary functions of those parts.
I don't know if you have children, but males have a compulsion to play with their genitals long before puberty hits. It feels good. I assume you're still a virgin if you don't have kids though, because first and foremost people are driven to have sex for procreation, right?
Children playing with their genitals and masturbating are not the same thing.
I never stated that the first and foremost reason why people have sex is for procreation, I've been arguing that the primary function of sex is procreation. Unless you disagree with that, we agree.
There's no such thing as "biological standards" you insatiable cretin.
Then you're not disabled then. How can someone call you "disabled" if there's nothing to reference to?
wasn't going to bother with this post, but the last part caught my eye. Here's why SSM won't lead to things like people marrying horses:
Horses can't give consent. Neither can minors or <insert other thing you think would be ikky for people to marry here>. That's why it can't be used as a precedent for any of those things. Idiot. (Now you can answer this which I posted a few pages ago).
First, you're arguing that those cases are somehow different so therefore would be irrelevant in an argument in regards with SSM. Yet, your example of skin color is completely irrelevant to SSM and you, along with other people, are making arguments with something completely different.
Second, minor consent laws are man made that can be changed just like marriages laws that you are trying to change. There's nothing preventing society from allowing minors to marry other than society.
edit: Oh and sickle cell anaemia actually helps to protect against malaria, so yes it's a good thing.
There's a plus side for having sickle cell, but is sickle cell itself a good thing? It's also a good thing to be bulimic/obese in a land of starvation, that doesn't make being bulimic/obese a good thing.