[ANN] The Traumatic Inseminators’ Rights Movement
An ethical or moral justification can't be made by comparison with insects.
Indeed.
Reductio ad absurdum:Bedbugs practice traumatic insemination. Due to the lack of a input port in female bedbug anatomy, the
only way for bedbugs to have sex is in essence an
ultraviolent rape: The male literally breaks a hole in the female’s body, and injects his sperm into the gaping wound. For obvious reasons, the female often resists this. Sex is unavoidably injurious, and sometimes fatal to the female; but if she does not die, then she can lay fertile eggs. If a female is unavailable, the male will sometimes traumatically inseminate a weaker male just for kicks; I suppose that proves homosexuality is “natural”!
With bated breath, I will now wait for KingScorpio to argue that traumatic insemination would not be perverse for humans. Indeed, I modestly propose that it should be legal and socially acceptable. Why, it is perfectly natural and normal! Learn wisdom from the insects. Stop being “phobic” of my lifestyle of punching holes in women’s abdomens and injecting my sperm into their bleeding wounds. What, are you a closeted traumatic inseminator just making outdated moralistic preaching to cover for your own insecurity?
Some People Love Differently:
Having so stated, I need not reach the point of tearing up OP as to fact on scientific grounds. Anyway, that’s best left for an entomologist. It seems wise, however, to briefly remind readers of this thread that just because you read something on the Internet, that does not make it true.
The Oppression of “Gender”
Gender is not constructed. It's biological. There's a thing called chromosomes.
You either have XX or XY.
XX- Female
XY - Male
This is why I initially refused on principle to set my “gender” in my forum profile. I don’t have a “gender”, in the ridiculous postmodern meaning which has been quite artfully constructed for that word. I have a
sex, and it is an innate, naturally unalterable part of
who I am which I refuse to devalue by calling it a “gender”.
I find the term “gender” highly offensive!I finally broke down and set my “gender” on pragmatic grounds, after I discovered that it is nowadays politically correct to use a default “her”:
Another example for you - nullius, who I noticed has given you merit and is a poster on threads you start, has "Tips welcome" in her signature - is that considered begging?
s/her/his/ (Note: I did not fill out the “Gender” field in my forum profile, because I have a sex, not a “gender”. I have now filled it out anyway.)
This still bothers me. To call my sex a “gender” is a personal attack on the very essence of my being—
a mad division of my body (“biological sex”) from my soul (“socially constructed gender”) which is not other than a religious dogma of that godless bastard son of the primitive Christian mentality called “liberalism”—a thought-control exercise in the power of
he who defines which I find deeply oppressive. Think about it:
This is real oppression!
And speaking of Christians...
The Jesus Strawman
jesus jesus bible jesus bible bible bible
It is the Christians who have done more to empower the modern homosexual movement than any other group.
The Christians themselves set up a strawman which is easy to knock down: “The Bible says” arguments against homosexuality. Well, I don’t give a damn what the Bible says! I reject the premises; and therefore, if I accept the unexamined argument inserted by rhetorical sleight-of-hand,
i.e. the notion that Biblical prohibitions are
the only basis for criticizing homosexuality, then I must perforce accept that homosexuality is natural, normal, healthy, cheerful, and even downright
gay. Q.E.D.
This Jesus-shaped strawman is sometimes even made explicit,
e.g.:The only people who hates and forbids homosexual is mostly religious people
you are either science fiction driven or exploration driven, or you are another one of those judeo/christian suiciders
(To avoid a strawaman of my own: I do realize that rational arguments on this topic are sometimes advanced by people who happen to be Christian, and by organizations predominantly comprised of people who happen to be Christian. However, they are effective only to the degree that they don’t mix up their rational arguments with their “Bible says” beliefs; and they seem to be the exception, with “Bible says” being the rule.)
Worse yet, the Christians have a perverse incentive
(so to speak) to falsely claim for themselves and/or their Jewish antecedents the historical distinction of being the first to prohibit homosexuality.
This is not only factually false, but quite the opposite of the truth; and it leads to such manifest absurdity as this standing unchallenged as to fact:
yep ancient times allowed homosexuality.
Wrong. And I am not even sure if you’re just trolling here, due to what follows:
then christians (middle east... you know bethlehem, jeruselam and isreal) then decided the HIV epidemic was killing alot an back then they didnt have the medical tech to handle it so just wanted to abolish it.
these days with condoms and other precautions and also modern medical treatments, it has not become the epidemic of ancient times nor the american epidemic of the 1970-80's
so Christianity has began to tolerate it again since the millenium.
Say what? Ancient HIV epidemic? Is that some new “creative history” like Cleopatra being black, the pyramids being built by space aliens, or prehistoric matriarchy?
N.b. that there were many ancient non-Jewish, non-Christian cultures both inside and outside Europe which condemned homosexuality. Example inside Europe: Pre-Christian Germanics regularly executed male homosexuals. Example outside Europe: At some point, the ancient Assyrians had a codified law that men convicted of homosexual activity shall be castrated. Neither of these population groups had ever suffered even the slightest influence from the Bible.
Homosexuality existed in ancient Greece and Rome. Most of us know of Sappho of Lesbos.
A misleading half-truth. Greece had a
very limited tolerance for homosexual, mostly
paederastic relationships of a kind which are not accepted anywhere in the world today. Rome was much less accepting of any type of homosexuality, and mostly only a bit tolerant by implication of the principle that what a man does privately in his bedroom is his business alone.
Neither had any notion of, much less tolerance for, a
homosexual lifestyle with same-sex marriage, etc. Indeed, even same-sex marriage advocates openly admit that the concept is historically unprecedented.
So few people point that out. I am glad one did:
The thing is homosexuality was never so systematically propagated, thaught and encoureged as it is today.
It's pushed down everyones throats every single day.
I don't think fucking someone in the ass was part of someones identity in ancient Greece. Nor that it was deemed as positive&brave.
Today you can't be gay and a normal person, you have to flaunt it around, go on parades, dye your hair and tell everyone how gay you are because that's your identity.
If you took away his gayness, he wouldn't have an identity at all.
Correct.As for Sappho: Her personal peccadilloes are today either misperceived, or overblown; and it doesn’t matter anyway, because a nearly-divine genius can get away with almost anything in such an aristocratic society as ancient Greece. Normal rules do not apply, because she
wasn’t normal; she was exceptional in every way.
Ancient Greece had no general trend of women shacking up with each other in lesbian lifestyle relationships, and certainly would never have tolerated such a thing. Indeed, it was a strictly patriarchal society in which most women were men’s property for either procreation (wives) or recreation (
πόρναι, the root whence English “porn”), the small and exclusive class of hetaerae being exceptional.
And the practice of male homosexuality in ancient Greece has been wildly exaggerated for modern propaganda purposes.
And why would anybody want that?
i have this deep fantasy in my head of one day seeing fitgirls running their own community/city or maybe even state, like bees or ants do, treat men like sex objects.
So, you’re sick...
for humans without certain type of technologies and social organisation homosexuality doesn't work.
but it can work.
...and you demand that humans be remade in the image of your sick fantasies.
Assuming
arguendo that it
could work (which is not true), you have not explained why non-sick people would
want for this to “work”.
The Sinister Mask
american lefties have nothing to do with communism, i am sick and tired seeing them being compared with communism
You're right. Lefties are simply a tool of the communists.
no they are the opposition speaking for the financially excluded,
that could be the tool of anyone who isnt in power also muslims islamists, black supremacists etc.
lefties have a history of weakening the establishment and
strengthening hostile outsiders.
I could have written most of this post myself, although I would have shown a bit more basic literacy
*—and the parts which I have hereby highlighted are
exactly what I would have said
about Communists!
KingScorpio, perhaps you were inadvertently too candid. I observe that leftists usually pretend that their favoured “outsiders”
du jour are friends who come in peace, and are adorable as cute puppies. Whether the “outsiders” in question are social outsiders, such as homosexuals, or national outsiders, such as immigrants, anyone who accuses “outsiders” of being “
hostile” is automagically a “right-wing extremist”. Thank you for admitting the truth.
A question for the peanut gallery:
Why would anybody want a “tool of anyone” which “strengthens hostile outsiders”? Cui bono?
* It’s scary that KingScorpio is probably allowed to
vote without a reading test, per the
“one sheep, one vote rule”.
