California overturned gay-marriage ban today!

Post Reply New Topic

I didn't start. Go away.

You, like him, make yourselves out to be idiots because you are making assumptions on my position. I never once said any of the points you people are throwing back at me.

I never once brought the Creator into this discussion. Using such arguments against me is reaching. Besides, if you knew anything about my beliefs you would be a certified idiot to use the bible against me.

Now to clarify, I am not calling you an idiot. But if you insist on using such tactics then you would be considered one.

you are an ignorant fool. of course straight people love sodomy. i myself am a big fan, and i am not gay. and besides, oral sex is considered sodomy, which is very popular with heterosexuals.

Then state your position

You might as well, if only for the sake of reciprocating. After all, I most certainly consider you an idiot. It's only fair.

Now why would I humble myself before you if you think of me in that manner? I'd rather have you make a fool out of yourself.

What? I'm against gay marriage. BUT you think it has to do with the bible. That is not true. You assumed that.

I am a fan of oral sex and I consider myself heterosexual
Note that not all gay men like anal sex, and some straight men like anal stimulation, which I heard the misconception that if a man liked it, he was gay.

I would consider a person who does anal and prefers anal stimulation as very illicit.

Why? if you heard about the P spot, I think that might be one reason some like it, a man, straight, once told me that he liked rimming, receiving, and well, I don't like the idea of experimenting that myself actually, but obviously I dont consider this sick or illicit or homosexual, is just part of our sexuality, and that within heterosexual relationships.

As a straight man, sodomy does not appeal to me, giving or receiving. Oral sex is oral sex, ie.
genital stimulation with the mouth and/or lips. Sodomy is anal penetration, ie. dick-in-the-bum. Let's not kid ourselves about what is what.

I have a moral code. I stick with it, and I defend it. I'm proud of it because it stands for something. I'm not ignorant just because I don't approve of a certain lifestyle. My morality is what it is. No apologies. No excuses. End of story.

Because it seems disgusting...? There are many things that people find a part of sexuality. Many of these things are acts I would never allow or do to my partner.

I feel the same way.

You are not supposed to do things TO your partner, which is disrespectful, and means that they are not a partner at all, but subservient to you.

You are supposed to do things WITH your partner, or FOR your partner.

Perhaps it is a language problem, hmmm?

Last edited by CityAsylum on 16 May 2008, 4:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.

No, I don't think it is a language-problem.

It's a problem of taste.

It's also a problem of morality.

But you knew that.

Maybe? I really don't think some of the perverse acts are FOR my partner. So in my opinion certain acts are a form of subjugation.

Well, basically, yes. You attack oscuria based upon some "objective" position, but I don't think it is objective.


Well, right, and most nihilists would not because it is not normal for them to be consistent. While logically a position may seem to hold, emotionally people will reject it. The issue is then how to conceptualize their objections and the objective reasons for those objections. Frankly, to recognize objections does not mean to have to reinstate the non-nihilist status quo, but it can also be done by reconceptualizing morality as egoism, with certain things being ideological egoism or things of that nature.


Well, even if postmodernists *aren't* searching for truth, does that mean their criticisms should be ignored? I mean, to discount a person for their motives is only adhominem.

Ok.....
Well, the issue is that to define one person as off, we have to say that something ISN'T off or the statement is meaningless. I mean, the big issue I have with you is the fact that you really are incredibly arbitrary in setting things to imaginary measures but never saying what they are. I assumed Oscuria was simply a bible-thumper so I didn't pay much mind to his efforts.

Well, they would say that asking the question is pointless. I have a code for my behavior, don't worry, but I do think it is important to question the source of a moral code being promoted.


To better analyze the situation. How should we react upon recognizing that right and wrong do not exist? How should conceptualize this new world? You seem to think that living is important. What should we appeal to in order to justify living?