LittleNipper wrote: Abuse of sex, entirely for personal satisfaction without regard for the other individual.
It's like the time I came home from work on a monday night and all I wanted to do was crash in front of the TV and watch Monday Night Football, but my wife met me at the door wearing kinky lingerie because she was horny. She was thinking only about her own personal satisfaction without regard for me.
"We have taken up arms in defense of our liberty, our property, our wives, and our children; we are determined to preserve them, or die." - Captain Moroni - 'Address to the Inhabitants of Canada' 1775
LittleNipper wrote: Abuse of sex, entirely for personal satisfaction without regard for the other individual.
It's like the time I came home from work on a monday night and all I wanted to do was crash in front of the TV and watch Monday Night Football, but my wife met me at the door wearing kinky lingerie because she was horny. She was thinking only about her own personal satisfaction without regard for me.
Drifting wrote: Is having sex without the intention of procreation a sexual abuse?
Only if it involves the strong disire not to have children through that act.
LOL. LittleNipper is an obvious troll. good one. I can't think of a single TBM born after WW2 who would agree with this.
"We have taken up arms in defense of our liberty, our property, our wives, and our children; we are determined to preserve them, or die." - Captain Moroni - 'Address to the Inhabitants of Canada' 1775
LittleNipper wrote:Some might imagine that shallow individuals are only concerned with their sexual needs and abilitied...
ummm...
what?
I'm not going to call consentual sex "marriage."
Umm. Ok? Feel free to call consensual sex, consensual sex and call a legal union between two individuals in love "marriage". Nobody is asking you to call "consentual(sic) sex", marriage...you are all over the place here.
I will not agree that same sex couples should be allowed to involve third parties so that they can have "their own" baby. I will not condone same sex couples being allowed to participate in foster care or adoption (especially not with regard to same gender).
Nobody needs you to agree with or condone either of these activities...Unfortunately, you do need to accept that its legal and that most people don't feel the same way about it that you do. You are free to embrace and share you bigotry and we are free to point it out and mock you...
"your reasoning that children should be experimented upon to justify a political agenda..is tantamount to the Nazi justification for experimenting on human beings."-SUBgenius on gay parents "I've stated over and over again on this forum and fully accept that I'm a bigot..." - ldsfaqs
schreech wrote: I can't imagine how boring your sex life must be if you need to consider "society at large" prior to engaging...
Having a "little nipper" probably isn't helping his sex life any, either.
"The Church is authoritarian, tribal, provincial, and founded on a loosely biblical racist frontier sex cult."--Juggler Vain "The LDS church is the Amway of religions. Even with all the soap they sell, they still manage to come away smelling dirty."--Some Schmo
LittleNipper wrote:Some might imagine that shallow individuals are only concerned with their sexual needs and abilitied...
ummm...
what?
I'm not going to call consentual sex "marriage."
Umm. Ok? Feel free to call consensual sex, consensual sex and call a legal union between two individuals in love "marriage". Nobody is asking you to call "consentual(sic) sex", marriage...you are all over the place here.
I will not agree that same sex couples should be allowed to involve third parties so that they can have "their own" baby. I will not condone same sex couples being allowed to participate in foster care or adoption (especially not with regard to same gender).
Nobody needs you to agree with or condone either of these activities...Unfortunately, you do need to accept that its legal and that most people don't feel the same way about it that you do. You are free to embrace and share you bigotry and we are free to point it out and mock you...
What I find interesting, is that some so called "modern liberals" like to call those they disagree with them "bigots;" however, they would cast their own values and opinons of others in a different light. Only in the comsummation of a "real" marriage might a baby be the end result. So, one may call the union between two same sex lovers anything one wishes; however, such acts will never result in a sperm being planted in an egg. NEVER!
LittleNipper wrote:What I find interesting, is that some so called "modern liberals" like to call those they disagree with them "bigots;" however, they would cast their own values and opinons of others in a different light. Only in the comsummation of a "real" marriage might a baby be the end result. So, one may call the union between two same sex lovers anything one wishes; however, such acts will never result in a sperm being planted in an egg. NEVER!
I know you're trolling, but this is a common argument from the religious right. Marriage does not require the ability to procreate. We allow senior citizens to marry. We allow marriage between an impotent man and a barren woman. We even allow marriages of convenience. We do not have marriage police who investigate couples to ensure they are procreating.
"We have taken up arms in defense of our liberty, our property, our wives, and our children; we are determined to preserve them, or die." - Captain Moroni - 'Address to the Inhabitants of Canada' 1775
