Shane wrote:

Wait, Kumog, before you blacklist Sai, I really, really want to actually say something here in regards to the ad hominem he applied. It's going to be a lengthy response. Can you wait like, 10 minutes?

Why would I ever be blacklisted for making a legitimate argument?

_________________________________________

Killa wrote:

Dont hate me because im brown.

Killa wrote:

Hate shane because he's ***.

Nice hypocrisy there!

_________________________________________

I'm not entirely sure what the purpose of this thread is supposed to be, but in any case, I think you lost the point of it somewhere along the way.

_________________________________________

Killa wrote:

If you want to argue morals, you're a butt****ing homo so good luck.

Anal sex is immoral, is what you're saying here?

To begin with, the only way anyone can make such a leap of logic to come to the conclusion of anal sex being immoral, there must be religious reasoning behind it. Without any idea of religion, there is no reason to find anal sex immoral, especially not without attack all forms of sodomy, which includes oral sex, or generally putting your penis in any hole that is not a vagina. Including your hand.

Assuming that we are attacking the idea of sodomy, why? Why do you believe that sexual activities must be limited primarily to the purpose of reproduction? We aren't savage animals. We don't behave like savage animals. We don't **** to survive, and we have grown past the idea of a 'survival of the fittest' lifestyle. To be unable to move past the idea that sexual activities should be contained for the purpose of reproduction is an inability to change, a significant flaw considering that as a human our ability to adapt easily is what keeps us alive more than anything.

However, on the idea of religion, which for time's sake I'm limiting my view to ******ianity which has the firmest hold on Western behavior patterns, how close-minded can you really be? Let's just leave it at the fact that if you are looking at ******ianity and thinking we should take sodomy as an immoral action because God says so, then you must also believe that it is sinful when women have their period and they must be outcast for a week until they are clean, because the ideas between both laws come from the same section, a section which ***** ****** (whom you supposedly follow being a ******ian) has explicitly stated that we must discard and move on because, and this is the funny part, our ability to adapt is what lets us survive. ***** clearly knew that maintaining the Old Laws was harming our ability to survive and preached that we must move on and allow change. If you really want to go the ******ian route, then the only thing we can prove as being sinful and therefore immoral under the Word of God Himself is that sex outside of marriage is immoral.

Please, bro. Do you even lift?

_________________________________________

This thread is just going to result in me having to do more work dealing with the eventual flamefests, along with having to kill the current crap.

Ad hominem attacks aren't permitted.

_________________________________________