So difficult to keep up! (Re: Memeber of the religious right running morally amuck)

Perhaps a nitpick, but without going into personal details, I will guarantee you that many (and possibly even most) people involved in alternative sexual lifestyles (yes, including people who strap dildos to their faces) are not, in fact, doing to due to any sort of past traumatic experience.Just becasue someone enjoys something sexually that you may not enjoy or even understand doesn't mean they necessarily have some sort of deep seated mental issues. The only assumption that would be reasonable in this case would be that, whatever his actual sexual desires were, they were repressed by his outward conservative Christian appearance.

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

Says you. You do realize that an incredibly large proportion of pornography (and Im speaking of straight porn here as that's all I have experience with), possibly even the majority, features anal sex? Because he has sexual desires you dont personally share or understand? Not everyone is like you, Phat, and anyone who is different has not necessarily been abused in the past. hell, it's not even likely. I personally know many, many individuals who have never been molested or abused in any way and yet have what you would call unusual sexual tastes. Some even weirder than the gentleman in question (though two wetsuits at once is certainly a bit odd).Your assertions do not flow from any evidence.

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

Not everyone likes the same things, Phat. Even normal things. If you really, really like bananas, and your wife can't stand them, is liking bananas abnormal? Perhaps this man had sexual tastes that, while shared by many other people, are not shared by his wife specifically. That doesn't make him abnormal, it makes him unfortunate. "Need" is very, very different from "like" Phat. Just becasue a certain act is stimulating doesn't mean that act is the only thing that will stimulate an individual. Common sense is another way of saying "I have absolutely no basis for this, and I'm completely pulling it out of my ass." In this case, you're also wrong in your generalizations (regardless of whether you're right or wrong about this particular man). That's good. That makes you ignorant, but not an asshole. You don't know what the bounds of normalcy are, but you say that this man's tastes push past them?

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

Yes, if you're saying that his "perverted desires" are necessarily caused by said baggage.Those of us you would call perverts and yet have no such past abuse take exception to it. You're basically saying "If you like anal, you're fucked up in the head, and your daddy must have raped you."That's pretty goddamned offensive, Phat.

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

Black/white fallacy. The only two options are not "repress everything and force everyone to conform to what Phat considers normal" or "wanton, chaotic hedonism with no morality."Let people do what they want...as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. You can allow people to determine for themselves what they should or should not do, while stil retaining a moral framework.

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

Honestly, no. Just trying to draw a more vanilla comparison for Phat.

"Can't I say that I don't like black people without being slanderously referred to as a bigot and a racist?"NO! That's what those words mean!

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

If I were to tell you, just for the sake of the argument, to suddenly enjoy sex with another man...would you be able to? I wouldn't. Sexual attraction isn't a choice, NJ, and that has been proven over and over and over again. The only people who continue to argue that fact, NJ, are you and the other gay-bashing homophobic bigots. Sexual orientation is not a choice, period. I have the feeling you won't believe any evidence short of your god coming down from heaven and saying it to your face, since it HAS been proven repeatedly, and evidence has been cited on this very site. "I never said I don't like black people. I don't like the color of their skin." And you're wrong. Stable long-term monogomous homosexual relationships are no more harmful than heterosexual ones. And a LOT of heterosexual couples have sex the same way homosexuals do. Irrelevant. Heterosexuality isn't a virtue, as virtue involves choice. And abstaining from sex results in severe psychological issues much of the time. See various Republicans recently. Their behavior is a direct result of their sexual orientation, which is a part of the basic makeup of who they are. "It doesnt mean I dont like black people. It means I dont liek the color of their skin." It's not that you disagree with anyone, NJ. It's that you ARE, in fact, being a bigot, and that IS the scourge of the Earth.

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

No, it's not. It's a fabrication. Minus the cutters, those are sexual attractions, NJ. To be born with such an attraction is not immoral. The only reason following through is immoral is becasue one party is not a consenting adult. With homosexuality, that is not the case. It's when you make these retarded comparisons between homosexuality and pedophilia and bestiality that you show yourself as a disgusting bigot. Why on Earth would anyone desire to be in a minority regularly persecuted by people like you, NJ? There are no benefits to being gay, and many drawbacks socially. Again, because of people like you. That would be very nearly the definition of sexual attraction, NJ. I like women sexually purely for reasons of pleasure, and I find sex with them to be highly erotic. Are you reading what you're typing? You can feel free to say you think gay sex is gross. I wont call you a bigot for that. But that's not what you're doing, NJ. You're making shit up to say that it's harmful or immoral. Youre equating it to child rape. That's a lot different from saying "I think that's icky, so it's not for me." Ever had vaginal sex? It's not all that clean, either, even though the fluid secreted is typically clear. In fact, the first thing I and my girlfriend tend to do after sex (anal or vaginal) is take a shower. And besides, a condom provides a nice barrier for either orifice. Becasue you posted your bigotted, homophobic opinions on a debate forum, maybe? Your own words are the only things that define your box, NJ. You're the only one who doesn't see it. Tu Quoque much? You ARE gay bashing. Whether Crash is bashing Christians and conservatives is irrelevant to that fact. If it looks like a duck, and it sounds like a duck...

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

The rectum DOES lubricate. Otherwise you wouldn't be able to pass stool. That's already been mentioned earlier in the thread. In fact, while some girls like to give themselves an enema before anal sex fro additional cleanliness, this is actually ill-advised as it will also clean out the natural lubrication, making anal sex more difficult. Did that REALLY go so far over your head? That's the point - if procreation is the justification for sex, then post-menopausal or infertile women (or men who've had vasectomies, or even using birth control!) are also just as immoral as homosexual sex. If those things are NOT immoral, then the justification is clearly NOT procreation, and therefor homosexual sex is also not immoral by that standard.Heterosexual sex involves consenting adults seeking sexual pleasure. Homosexual sex is exactly the same thing.

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.