Canadian Liberal Hypocrites deny Polygamy

[Il_Mostro]

"liberals masturbate more than conservatives due to their inability to keep a wife or husband."
What does one have to do with the other?

[tomdemaine]

[ QUOTE ]
"but the end result must land somewhere within a vagina for it to be a complete natural action."
I still don't get it. Why is it only a natural action if the end result land somewhere within a vagina?

There are animals that masturbate and are involved in homosexual acts. Are they also unnatural?

[/ QUOTE ]

of course they are unnatural, i bet half of those animals haven't even read the bible let alone live by its natural/unnatural guidelines.

[tomdemaine]

[ QUOTE ]
You can use your hands or another person's mouth for that, but the end result must land somewhere within a vagina for it to be a complete natural action.

And no, I definitely don't need to masturbate.

[/ QUOTE ]

So it's ok to have homosexual sex if you have a woman nearby to finish off in?

[Peter666]

Animals are definitely irrational. I said it before and I will say it again: animals eat their young and poo in public. Would you do the same?

As for having homosexual sex and finishing in the woman, the only rational part of that is finishing in the woman. You are having sex with two people but only completing the act with one of them.

[Peter666]

At least I have a woman as my avatar.

[Cyrus]

Brigitte Bardot remains a favorite.






But you should not ignore the younger set.

<font color="white">.</font>

[Il_Mostro]

"Animals are definitely irrational [...] the only rational part"
I thought we were talking about natural/unnatural?

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
Peter's point is logically coherent. If you aren't going to define marriage as only between a man and a woman, then there's not much reason to insist on monogamy either.

[/ QUOTE ]

If we look at this in the framework of the US constitution, telling bob that he can't enter into a contract with charlie while alice is free to enter into a contract with charlie is a violation of equal protection - bob and alice are not equal in this regard.

Bans on polygamy are demonstrably different. Since *everyone* is *equally* prohibited from entering into two marriage contracts at the same time, bans on polygamy are not Constitutionally problematic. The restriction is anti-freedom, but it applies to everyone equally.

[Peter666]

"I thought we were talking about natural/unnatural?"

We still are. Would you like to continue to use my classical natural law definition or conceptual naturalism; the neo-naturalism of John Finnis; procedural naturalism? And are you looking at the issue from a paradigmatic or non paradigmatic view? Utilitarianism can form the basis of this discussion too.

But in order not to confuse the issue, I prefer to say rational and irrational to conform to my original definition of naturalism as conforming to one's proper end.

[Peter666]

But what if Bob's your uncle?