No matter how hot you think she is, some guy somewhere is sick of her shit.
hehe
Or some girl. There is no reason to assume that any of them are heterosexuals.
So as a lesbian (or non-heterosexual)—and admitting that no one really wants to objectify a man’s body like they do a woman’s—does your very existence (when you look in a mirror?) prove God’s existence?
No matter how hot you think she is, some guy somewhere is sick of her shit.
hehe
Or some girl. There is no reason to assume that any of them are heterosexuals.
So as a lesbian (or non-heterosexual)—and admitting that no one really wants to objectify a man’s body like they do a woman’s—does your very existence (when you look in a mirror?) prove God’s existence?
I thought we already established that this thread was made for giggles? Beauty is beauty. A man can be just as beautiful as a woman (I don’t consider myself a lesbian, bisexual or heterosexual). There are women who are amazing looking, but inside they are shallow and lacking. It is the same with men. Then there are some women and men who are lovely people, yet not so physically attractive.
None of it proves God’s existence. I just wanted to make people laugh, that’s all.
But, if we were going to run with it . . . I would say that this man proves there is a God:
(I don’t consider myself a lesbian, bisexual or heterosexual).
So what’s this make you? An asexual atheist? Throw in apathy to balance out the other two undesirable traits and you’re highly qualified to work for the government.
(I don’t consider myself a lesbian, bisexual or heterosexual).
So what’s this make you? An asexual atheist? Throw in apathy to balance out the other two undesirable traits and you’re highly qualified to work for the government.
lmao
No, I enjoy sex frequently. I’m not interested in politics, either. When one labels their self heterosexual they indicate that they are always attracted only to the opposite sex. When one calls their self a homosexual it means that they are always attracted to the same sex. When one says that they are bisexual it means they are always attracted to both. I’m never always anything. I’m simply sexual when I’m sexual and non-sexual when I’m not in a sexual mood. If I am in a sexual mood and I happen to be with a woman, so be it. If it is a man, so be it. I don’t put that much thought into sex. It’s not really worth thinking about.
I’m also more agnostic than atheist. I don’t think the question of God is even significant. The question of organized religions is, but the God question? Nah.
No matter how hot you think she is, some guy somewhere is sick of her shit.
hehe
Or some girl. There is no reason to assume that any of them are heterosexuals.
So as a lesbian (or non-heterosexual)—and admitting that no one really wants to objectify a man’s body like they do a woman’s—does your very existence (when you look in a mirror?) prove God’s existence?
I thought we already established that this thread was made for giggles? Beauty is beauty. A man can be just as beautiful as a woman (I don’t consider myself a lesbian, bisexual or heterosexual). There are women who are amazing looking, but inside they are shallow and lacking. It is the same with men. Then there are some women and men who are lovely people, yet not so physically attractive.
None of it proves God’s existence. I just wanted to make people laugh, that’s all.
But, if we were going to run with it . . . I would say that this man proves there is a God:
Sorry if that did’t come across in the tongue and cheek way (pun intended) I intended it ... surely womens’ breasts are the firmest proof for God ... is there anything more wonderful than the female breast? I think not ...
...of course you must be in college, because only in college is it fashionable or logically possible to be neither gay nor hetero, nor asexual (imo, there’s no such thing as bi: that’s just a name for gay people who are confused) ...
No matter how hot you think she is, some guy somewhere is sick of her shit.
hehe
Or some girl. There is no reason to assume that any of them are heterosexuals.
So as a lesbian (or non-heterosexual)—and admitting that no one really wants to objectify a man’s body like they do a woman’s—does your very existence (when you look in a mirror?) prove God’s existence?
I thought we already established that this thread was made for giggles? Beauty is beauty. A man can be just as beautiful as a woman (I don’t consider myself a lesbian, bisexual or heterosexual). There are women who are amazing looking, but inside they are shallow and lacking. It is the same with men. Then there are some women and men who are lovely people, yet not so physically attractive.
None of it proves God’s existence. I just wanted to make people laugh, that’s all.
But, if we were going to run with it . . . I would say that this man proves there is a God:
Sorry if that did’t come across in the tongue and cheek way (pun intended) I intended it ... surely womens’ breasts are the firmest proof for God ... is there anything more wonderful than the female breast? I think not ...
...of course you must be in college, because only in college is it fashionable or logically possible to be neither gay nor hetero, nor asexual (imo, there’s no such thing as bi: that’s just a name for gay people who are confused) ...
My views have nothing to do with the university that I attend. I just view the entire labeling of sexuality thing as goofy. Preferring a sex is silly. If I am attracted to the person then so be it. I’m not going to choose an unattractive male over an attractive female and I wouldn’t choose an unattractive female over and attractive male, so to fit into some sexual category. That’s silly.
We’re all bisexual by nature. If we were to strip away everything that has been conditioned into us, we’d find that to be true.
Bisexuals are also not gay people who are confused. hahaha
That sounds like something Christians say.
No matter how hot you think she is, some guy somewhere is sick of her shit.
hehe
Or some girl. There is no reason to assume that any of them are heterosexuals.
So as a lesbian (or non-heterosexual)—and admitting that no one really wants to objectify a man’s body like they do a woman’s—does your very existence (when you look in a mirror?) prove God’s existence?
I thought we already established that this thread was made for giggles? Beauty is beauty. A man can be just as beautiful as a woman (I don’t consider myself a lesbian, bisexual or heterosexual). There are women who are amazing looking, but inside they are shallow and lacking. It is the same with men. Then there are some women and men who are lovely people, yet not so physically attractive.
None of it proves God’s existence. I just wanted to make people laugh, that’s all.
But, if we were going to run with it . . . I would say that this man proves there is a God:
Sorry if that did’t come across in the tongue and cheek way (pun intended) I intended it ... surely womens’ breasts are the firmest proof for God ... is there anything more wonderful than the female breast? I think not ...
...of course you must be in college, because only in college is it fashionable or logically possible to be neither gay nor hetero, nor asexual (imo, there’s no such thing as bi: that’s just a name for gay people who are confused) ...
My views have nothing to do with the university that I attend. I just view the entire labeling of sexuality thing as goofy. Preferring a sex is silly. If I am attracted to the person then so be it. I’m not going to choose an unattractive male over an attractive female and I wouldn’t choose an unattractive female over and attractive male, so to fit into some sexual category. That’s silly.
We’re all bisexual by nature. If we were to strip away everything that has been conditioned into us, we’d find that to be true.
Bisexuals are also not gay people who are confused. hahaha
That sounds like something Christians say.
Of course, if you’re right—that sexual orientation is really a matter of preference and conditioning, rather than a fundamental biological orientation we don’t choose—then people who believe homosexuality is an immoral choice have a solid theoretical leg to stand upon.
Of course, if you’re right—that sexual orientation is really a matter of preference and conditioning, rather than a fundamental biological orientation we don’t choose—then people who believe homosexuality is an immoral choice have a solid theoretical leg to stand upon.
Of course, if you’re right—that sexual orientation is really a matter of preference and conditioning, rather than a fundamental biological orientation we don’t choose—then people who believe homosexuality is an immoral choice have a solid theoretical leg to stand upon.
Only if moral sex is reproductive sex.
What ever happened to the understanding that genetic traits are discussed in terms of probability distributions over populations while sexual preference is particular to individuals? Statements like “Everybody is…” are almost certainly wrong, while it is correct to say “Statistically, such and such a percentage of people are likely to be….” (In this case, of course, culture pushes what is likely some sort of bell curve distribution into a strongly bipolar one, so comments on cultural biasing or an initial normal distribution are appropriate.)
A much simpler and less inflamatory example: some people need absolute quite to concentrate, others need external noise and distraction. (Some people study in the library, others in coffee shops.) This has been connected to the concentration of a particular neurotransmitter in the brain—this concentration is distributed across a population according to a bell curve. People who are on one side of the average need quite to concentrate, people on the other side need external noise. Here there isn’t the same sort of cultural pressure to be one or the other so we have both with high frequency.
