The "Same-Sex Marriage" Debate.

• Syrphid wrote on 2010-05-04 08:22

  Quote from Trigger;27702:

  So are you in favor of tolerance or are you not? You can't say "I'm a tolerant individual" out one side of your mouth and express intolerance of someone else's beliefs out the other side. That's called hypocrisy. =P
  
  Like I said, if I'm intolerant of you, will you tolerate my intolerance like a more mature, more rational individual? If everyone were tolerant of those intolerant people, eventually they'd either learn to shut up (because no one pays any attention to their views) or change their views to be a little more accepting. If you really wanted to take it to the extreme, you could say that eventually "survival of the fittest" would kick in and the intolerant people would cease to exist altogether (dunno about you but I sure wouldn't want to make babies with someone who hates my lifestyle openly -- fewer intolerant people means fewer children being raised with intolerant viewpoints, which keeps repeating over time until there are none left).
  
  You can't change everyone's beliefs, but you can get them all to be accepting of people with differing beliefs.

  
  
  I am intolerant of intolerance. Being open-minded does not mean you have to accept other people's beliefs, it just means you shouldn't reject them offhand.
  
  I am not tolerant of racism, hate, violence, xenophobia, homophobia, rape, murder, stealing, cheating, etc. Are you?
  
  

  Quote from Criticalxhit;27718:

  Like Chocklit was saying earlier (sorry to use you as an example :P), he felt disgusted when he saw the Gay Pride parade; and most people feel the same way inwardly, I would think, because it's unnatural. However, today's society is slowly leaning towards accepting something homosexuality (Chocklit mentioned he feels ashamed for feeling disgusted @ 6). But like Trigger and I both said, God gives you a choice, so "So why does religion do it?" and if you think homosexuality is unnatural is based on faith and morals respectively - and no one but yourself is in the position to change either beliefs.

  
  
  I am uncomfortable around black people, because in all of my life I have personally known 2. This does not mean it is ok that I am uncomfortable around them.
  
  In any event, natural is a meaningless and useless concept.
  
  

  Quote from Trigger;27647:

  God did give us free will, the capacity to make our own choices as we please. JUST BECAUSE WE CAN CHOOSE TO DO SOMETHING DOES NOT MEAN WE SHOULD. I can choose to rob the bank, but just because I CAN does not mean it's RIGHT to do so. Again, this is strictly about morals and convictions, not science and logic. According to science and logic it is perfectly "normal" for some human beings to have a tendency to be attracted to the same gender. This is not debatable. What is debatable is whether or not it should be accepted.

  
  
  If God is just and fair, and if love is such a great, powerful and integral part of our lives, given to us by just and fair God Himself, why does he choose to damn 10% of the population to choose between sin and love?
  
  Can you imagine suddenly becoming homosexual? What would that do to your life and your faith, and why would God allow that to happen to a human being, his own beloved creation?
  
  1) God randomly hates 10% of the population and likes to see them suffer, torn between happiness and faith, while allowing the other 90% of the population happiness AND faith. God is not just or fair.
  
  2) God doesn't disapprove of homosexuality. You're wrong.
  
  3) Whole ****load of science concerning the genetic and childhood basis of homosexuality is wrong. Prove it.
  
  Pick your poison.
• Justified wrote on 2010-05-04 08:44

  Quote from Syrphid;28004:

  If God is just and fair, and if love is such a great, powerful and integral part of our lives, given to us by just and fair God Himself, why does he choose to damn 10% of the population to choose between sin and love?
  
  Can you imagine suddenly becoming homosexual? What would that do to your life and your faith, and why would God allow that to happen to a human being, his own beloved creation?
  
  1) God randomly hates 10% of the population and likes to see them suffer, torn between happiness and faith, while allowing the other 90% of the population happiness AND faith. God is not just or fair.

  
  
  I think Juno's post already addressed that.
  
  

  Quote from Juno;27771:

  Christians are allowed to sin without renouncing their faith, and no sin is worse than any other sin. Furthermore, we've all sinned. That being said no Christian is any better than any non-Christian. As for how being a gay christian plays out it's kind of an unexplored topic. There's been so much prejudice that few have taken the time to actually find out. As far as I can tell they don't have to pretend to be hetero, but they do have to abstain from gay sex.

  
  
  
  Anyways, you're asking staple atheism questions that have really stalemated in the past. The question of God's benevolence has had multiple responses.
  
  - If there was no bad then conversely there's no good, since bad is basically just something that is not good or the opposite of good.
  - God gave us free will, if we didn't have the ability to choose our actions (including sin), then we wouldn't really be free.
  - God created the best possible world. The best of worlds is one that would actualize as many possible events within its time span, including events that are less favorable. (I think it was Bacon who said that? Can't remember for sure.)
  
  Saying that everything should be all peachy all the time doesn't work, even with a perfect god. Logically, perfection is just impossible because improving in one area (ie. morality) will take away from another area (ie. freedom).
• Syrphid wrote on 2010-05-04 08:57

  Quote from Justified;28008:

  Anyways, you're asking staple atheism questions that have really stalemated in the past. The question of God's benevolence has had multiple responses.
  
  - If there was no bad then conversely there's no good, since bad is basically just something that is not good or the opposite of good.
  - God gave us free will, if we didn't have the ability to choose our actions (including sin), then we wouldn't really be free.
  - God created the best possible world. The best of worlds is one that would actualize as many possible events within its time span, including events that are less favorable. (I think it was Bacon who said that? Can't remember for sure.)
  
  Saying that everything should be all peachy all the time doesn't work, even with a perfect god. Logically, perfection is just impossible because improving in one area (ie. morality) will take away from another area (ie. freedom).

  
  
  I don't think freedom of choice comes into play here, since some people are free to love whom they want, but others are not.
  
  I can understand people being given different minds, bodies, families, hobbies, places of birth. A little less of injuries, diseases, and evildoings. But how could God allow homosexuality to occur, and yet not accept it? Love is such a huge part of life, that for some people to have sexual urges but not be allowed to express them as others can just seems wrong.
  
  It makes more sense that God would be accepting of homosexuality, just as He is accepting of the human celebration of other forms of diversity.
• Justified wrote on 2010-05-04 10:04

  Quote from Syrphid;28010:

  I don't think freedom of choice comes into play here, since some people are free to love whom they want, but others are not.
  
  I can understand people being given different minds, bodies, families, hobbies, places of birth. A little less of injuries, diseases, and evildoings. But how could God allow homosexuality to occur, and yet not accept it? Love is such a huge part of life, that for some people to have sexual urges but not be allowed to express them as others can just seems wrong.
  
  It makes more sense that God would be accepting of homosexuality, just as He is accepting of the human celebration of other forms of diversity.

  
  
  But everybody actually is free to love whomever they want. If we didn't have that freedom then homosexuals would not exist at all, therefore, their presence alone is enough to say that we do. The fact that God does not accept something does not mean we do not have the freedom to do so - we have the freedom to sin.
  "For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God." (Romans 3:23)
  
  I don't get your second point. You understand that He allows evildoings but does not accept them, but do not understand that He allows homosexuality but does not accept it?
• Phunkie wrote on 2010-05-04 10:36

  Quote from Justified;28001:

  However, that doesn't answer the question for people who approve of SSM and yet disapprove of incest.

  
  
  I think that it's because of the way incest is depicted in this country. It's never two people in love. On the contrary, it's almost always an uncle raping his nephew or a stepfather molesting his stepdaughter.
  
  Incest (when mentioned) always has that bad connotation to it, as did gay sexual relationships back then. (Sodomy, etc.)
  
  

  Also, why is polygamy illegal?
  You state that polygamy shouldn't be allowed because it is illegal, but...

  
  
  I actually didn't state that. However, I do not encourage polygamy. I just don't think it's the right way to form a family and raise kids.
  
  We always think of there being two parents and a few kids. And I'd like to keep the family structure like that.
  
  I do not think that substituting a Mom and a Dad for two Dads or two Moms destroys the idea of a family. Not at all.
  
  To me, polygamy is more about the sex rather than the love.
• Axx wrote on 2010-05-04 20:24

  
  To me, polygamy is more about the sex rather than the love.

  
  
  If it was only about the sex, there'd be no reason to even attempt a permanent union. Plenty of men and women have multiple sexual partners.
• Kyouria wrote on 2010-05-04 21:49
  When I was little, I attended church every Sunday with my family but I NEVER ever learned that same-sex marriage was prohibited in the bible. @.@
• Rime wrote on 2010-05-04 22:29

  Quote from Justified;27290:

  "Two people who love each other should be able to marry. It doesn't affect me, why should I stop them?"
  That is the prevalent argument supporting same-sex marriage. It could also apply to incest. Yet, the common individual will only support same-sex marriage and will gag when incest comes up. You can't exactly back one proposition with a statement that is completely ignored for another.
  
  How is incest "naturally" deemed a crime? How come gay marriage criminality isn't "natural"? Couldn't the criminality be natural and just coincidentally be supported by religion? What defines natural crime and unnatural crime? Incest gets deemed illegal just because it rarely happens? That's not exactly fair.
  
  If you don't mind me asking, how do you stand? By the looks of it you're stating mostly facts and I can't really tell what your actual opinions are.
  
  And feel free to leave out Freudian terms, I don't care much for those.

  
  
  I used "naturally" and "unnaturally" as adjectives to describe how people construe their attitude towards incest and homosexuality, but I guess that it was a poor choice of words (If you want to duke it out in terms of semantics though, then almost none of the things that humans do is considered "natural," but let's not go there. Too tedious.). Granted, my argument isn't exactly water-tight, but I kept it that way so that someone might challenge it and inevitably lead the argument away from being a clash of moral extremes. Guess it worked, kinda. You guys are now arguing about establishmentarianism using moral extremes lol.
  
  To be honest, I'm too indifferent about the whole subject to pick sides, or even care for the matter. People tend to argue about homosexuality in such a way that little or no progress is made afterward, and the fact that people are generally unmoved by these debates has me thinking that they're only skewing hard facts to accommodate their own beliefs (the same way Republicans skew real science and use pseudoscience to further their own agendas, but that's a different topic. Just felt the need to make a potshot). It's great as a way to drag on debates, but not so much a method of learning. Ultimately, it's not worth my while.
  
  

  Quote from Juno;27771:

  Christians are allowed to sin without renouncing their faith, and no sin is worse than any other sin. Furthermore, we've all sinned. That being said no Christian is any better than any non-Christian. As for how being a gay christian plays out it's kind of an unexplored topic. There's been so much prejudice that few have taken the time to actually find out. As far as I can tell they don't have to pretend to be hetero, but they do have to abstain from gay sex.

  
  
  I'm not going to challenge you on the interpretations of the bible since I'd inevitably lose, but doesn't the bible state that God forgives sinning if the sinner tries his/her best not to commit the same sin again? What is a person's sin if he/she is gay? Is gay sex the sin or the wanting to commit gay sex, or is it the love between two same gender people? I don't feel that I'll be able to respond to this without first figuring these basic technicalities out.
  
  

  Quote from Axx;28245:

  If it was only about the sex, there'd be no reason to even attempt a permanent union. Plenty of men and women have multiple sexual partners.

  
  
  I always thought permanent unions were more for the sake of the child. I mean, some people who don't love each other anymore choose to stay married for the sake of their kids. I guess it might be a parental instinct, but I have no references to support any such assumptions.
• Chiri wrote on 2010-05-04 22:48

  I always thought permanent unions were more for the sake of the child. I mean, some people who don't love each other anymore choose to stay married for the sake of their kids. I guess it might be a parental instinct, but I have no references to support any such assumptions.

  
  
  From my sociology 101 class~
  Permanent unions are supposedly good for society in general, since it generally results in people settling down/getting stable jobs/socializing kids. Also, both individuals make less risky decisions and life expectancy goes up.
  
  Because of these benefits, government gives benefits to married couples-- since they're helpful for maintaining status quo and boost economy.
  
  
  Personally, I don't think the gender/sex of the couple matters, if they are dedicated to each other and follow the general lifestyle expected of married couples.
• Juno wrote on 2010-05-04 23:09

  Quote from Yumi:

  When I was little, I attended church every Sunday with my family but I NEVER ever learned that same-sex marriage was prohibited in the bible. @.@

  
  
  It's not even mentioned iirc.
  
  

  Quote from Rime:

  I'm not going to challenge you on the interpretations of the bible since I'd inevitably lose, but doesn't the bible state that God forgives sinning if the sinner tries his/her best not to commit the same sin again? What is a person's sin if he/she is gay? Is gay sex the sin or the wanting to commit gay sex, or is it the love between two same gender people? I don't feel that I'll be able to respond to this without first figuring these basic technicalities out.

  
  
  I'll do what I can but keep in mind that I still have a lot to learn in this area.
  
  The sin stems from the immoral sexual practice. This would include the act and lust pertaining to the same. One can be gay and fall in love and live happily ever after (not sure on marriage) without sinning. It's only that specific physical manifestation that is prohibited. I still need to check the Hebrew sources to get the exact meanings of the words translated to 'homosexual' though.
  
  It's similar to someone practicing a martial art. It's not a sin to train, but if you go whack some people for the lulz that is a sin.
• Arus wrote on 2010-05-05 00:33
  First off, if you're using religion as the basis of your argument against homosexuality, consider that the Bible might not actually condemn it the way it's commonly believed to. Of particular note in this article are the commonly cited passages (the story of Sodom, 1 Corinthians 6:9, etc.) that have been used in this very thread as the basis of the anti-gay (for lack of a better word) argument. The rest is still well worth reading, however. You may disagree with the author's interpretations of the Bible, but it's something to think about before coming to your own conclusions.
  
  With that said, I'm going to backtrack a little bit here.
  
  

  Quote from Justified;26954:

  In short...
  Anal sex has a 500% chance of contracting HIV as opposed to no anal sex. Homosexuals perform anal, therefore it is bad.
  70% of HIV in Canada in 6/2004 was homosexual men. Obvious bad thing is obvious.
  Homosexuality and pedophilia are somewhat related. According to a survey (?) 3% of the total population is homosexual, but 25% of the pedophilia population is homosexual. Meaning, proportionally, there are less heterosexual pedophiles than homosexual ones. Allowing homosexuality would be somewhat endorsing pedophilia.

  
  I'm not sure where you are going with this. Allowing same-sex marriage = encouraging the spread of HIV/AIDS? Or are you making a case against homosexuality in general just because common sexual practices among gays are riskier than vaginal sex between heterosexual couples? By that logic, why allow any non-vaginal intercourse - or even intercourse at all - given the risk of HIV transmission? It's perfectly possible that 1) the homosexual couple in question does not practice anal sex, 2) neither partner in the couple has HIV, and 3) the partners are committed exclusively to each other over the course of their relationship.
  
  These are all hypotheticals, of course, but the article you linked makes many clearly one-sided and even erroneous statements without any regard for these possibilities. For one, it says that diseases such as herpes, chlamydia, gonorrhea, syphilis, HIV, and HPV are "rare or even unknown in the heterosexual population" - a clearly false statement. It also states that anal intercourse has "spread" to the heterosexual community, implying that such intercourse is a recent development originating from homosexuals, and suggests that increased STD transmission would necessarily be the result of legalizing same-sex marriage without considering the possibility that people could just keep going about the same habits regardless. The brief also doesn't seem to account for whether the intercourse was protected or not.
  
  I'm also not sure where you're going with linking homosexuality and pedophilia. Homosexuality is sexual attraction to a member of the same sex. Pedophilia is attraction to a minor. Pedophilia may supposedly have a higher incidence in homosexual populations, but condoning one practice does not inevitably mean condoning the other. By that logic, it would be just as easy to say that encouraging heterosexuality would be "somewhat endorsing pedophilia" simply because there is some percentage of people in the population who are heterosexual and pedophiliac.
  
  

  Quote from Trigger;27647:

  1. Just because someone was "born" a certain way does not make it right to live that way. By the same logic, you would also say that the scientific studies which prove the existence of an "alcoholic gene" which gives certain people a tendency to become alcoholics gives them a right to be alcoholics and even makes it permissible or acceptable. This is a question of morals, not science.

  
  

  Quote from Trigger;27647:

  God did give us free will, the capacity to make our own choices as we please. JUST BECAUSE WE CAN CHOOSE TO DO SOMETHING DOES NOT MEAN WE SHOULD. I can choose to rob the bank, but just because I CAN does not mean it's RIGHT to do so. Again, this is strictly about morals and convictions, not science and logic. According to science and logic it is perfectly "normal" for some human beings to have a tendency to be attracted to the same gender. This is not debatable. What is debatable is whether or not it should be accepted.

  
  Except alcoholism has clearly negative effects on both the alcoholic and society. Consumption of alcohol impairs judgment, which can necessarily lead to reckless or even criminal behavior if one consumes more than he or she can tolerate. If we are talking about an intimate relationship between two consenting parties of the same sex, the consequences of permitting it, if any, are far less dire than those of allowing alcoholism, regardless of whether or not one is predisposed to becoming alcoholic. Alcoholism can lead directly to burglary, assault, and death of either the alcoholic due to any of various physical effects of alcohol poisoning, or other people through murder or drunk driving resulting from impaired mental capacity. What does homosexual behavior have that matches up to the gravity of this? You can't really compare sexual attraction to substance abuse. Same thing with regard to bank robbery vs. homosexuality.
  
  Anyway, I think that's about all I have to say regarding the matter. I'd add more, but debates like these never seem to change anyone's minds and are hard to argue simply because it's one person's definition of morals against another's.
• Trigger wrote on 2010-05-05 02:11

  Quote from Syrphid;28004:

  I am intolerant of intolerance. Being open-minded does not mean you have to accept other people's beliefs, it just means you shouldn't reject them offhand.
  
  I am not tolerant of racism, hate, violence, xenophobia, homophobia, rape, murder, stealing, cheating, etc. Are you?

  
  
  And thus you have created one of the greatest oxymorons in the history of debate. It's like saying "There is no truth." In saying that, I have stated what I believe to be true, and thus have refuted my own statement. By the same token, being intolerant of intolerance means YOU ARE INTOLERANT OF YOURSELF.
  
  The whole "tolerance" issue bring with it the caveat that people -- not some, not most, but ALL people -- abide by Justified's definition of morality, "if everyone chose the same action, the result would be desirable." This is obviously not possible on a global scale, but it is possible between individuals and even communities.
  
  
  
  Moving forward from there...
  
  "Why would God *insert action here*?" How can anyone presume to speak for the actions of a being that neither you nor I nor anyone else on this mortal plane can possibly hope to understand? I don't know why God does anything any more than you do, assuming that there is such a being. Remember, if there is a God, and if he did in fact create the universe, then he is not bound by the laws of the universe, including time, because he was obviously outside the boundaries of the universe when he created it (and do recall Einstein's relativity, space and time are inherently linked). A being that transcends time and space transcends the human capacity of understanding, because all we know is time and space.
  
  According to the Bible, God placed a "thorn" or a bodily weakness in one of his most trusted followers, not because he hated him, but because he wanted to test his ability to overcome difficulty and make him grow stronger through it. If we are going to tread religious ground here by involving God in the discussion, we cannot off-handedly assume that God hates someone just because they are born a certain way or have certain traits. None of us are perfect. We could argue that God hates every human being on the planet because we all have defects.
  
  "God is love" could not be more true, but remember -- true love is more than just playing sugar daddy. True love is also just. If I truly love someone I will want them to do what is best for them, even if that requires rebuke or punishment (raising children is the best metaphor here and is used in the Bible countless times to illustrate this point). Allowing a person I "love" to go out and ruin their life without warning them or flat-out telling them not to shows that I really didn't care that much in the first place. The same applies to God, according to Scripture.
  
  
  As for the comparison of alcoholism vs. homosexuality, I knew someone would have to poke a hole in the metaphor, and yes, I know it's there. I am merely attempting to draw a parallel between two "conditions" that are genetically influenced. Just because I feel inclined to drink does not mean that I should -- I need a better reason. Just because I feel inclined to have sex with someone of the same gender does not mean that I should -- I need a better reason. "Just because I feel like it" is not a good reason to do anything.
• Justified wrote on 2010-05-05 02:51

  Quote from Arus;28445:

  I'm not sure where you are going with this. Allowing same-sex marriage = encouraging the spread of HIV/AIDS? Or are you making a case against homosexuality in general just because common sexual practices among gays are riskier than vaginal sex between heterosexual couples?

  
  
  People said SSM is okay but incest isn't, because incest poses an increased chance for birth abnormalities. Yet, SSM has an increased chance for STDs. I was merely pointing out that the people who are in favor of SSM use reasons that arbitrarily apply only to SSM, and not incest, polygamy, pedophilia, etc, even though there's nothing really distinguishing them. Phunkie has already responded to that though.
  
  

  I'm also not sure where you're going with linking homosexuality and pedophilia. Homosexuality is sexual attraction to a member of the same sex. Pedophilia is attraction to a minor. Pedophilia may supposedly have a higher incidence in homosexual populations, but condoning one practice does not inevitably mean condoning the other. By that logic, it would be just as easy to say that encouraging heterosexuality would be "somewhat endorsing pedophilia" simply because there is some percentage of people in the population who are heterosexual and pedophiliac.

  
  
  The last part doesn't say that homosexuality and pedophilia are the same, but that they are closely related. Actually now that you point it out, the numbers do look biased. 3 out of 100 people are homosexual, but 25 out of 100 pedophiles are homosexual - that is about 7 times more than there should be (which is the relation), but the article states 10-25 times more than expected (the bias).
  I think its similar to guns and killing. Guns are a lifestyle choice meant to promote safety, and yet they are sometimes used for violence. Condoning the possession of guns (reasonable) for safety does not condone murder (unreasonable), yet murder will obviously increase as a side-effect. The same goes for homosexuality (reasonable..?) and pedophilia (unreasonable).
  
  Also note that I'm not stating anything as a support for anti-SSM, but am just trying to point out inconsistencies in the SSM statements. They're kind of the same thing, but I don't really support either - it's just that I can understand the religion argument a whole lot better than I can the "true love prevails!" argument.
• Rime wrote on 2010-05-05 03:16

  Quote from Arus;28445:

  I'm not sure where you are going with this. Allowing same-sex marriage = encouraging the spread of HIV/AIDS? Or are you making a case against homosexuality in general just because common sexual practices among gays are riskier than vaginal sex between heterosexual couples? By that logic, why allow any non-vaginal intercourse - or even intercourse at all - given the risk of HIV transmission? It's perfectly possible that 1) the homosexual couple in question does not practice anal sex, 2) neither partner in the couple has HIV, and 3) the partners are committed exclusively to each other over the course of their relationship.
  

  
  Logically speaking, unions between two people promote exclusivity and suppresses promiscuity. I've no resources on this, but it might be a something to look into.
  
  

  Quote from Arus;28445:

  These are all hypotheticals, of course, but the article you linked makes many clearly one-sided and even erroneous statements without any regard for these possibilities. For one, it says that diseases such as herpes, chlamydia, gonorrhea, syphilis, HIV, and HPV are "rare or even unknown in the heterosexual population" - a clearly false statement. It also states that anal intercourse has "spread" to the heterosexual community, implying that such intercourse is a recent development originating from homosexuals, and suggests that increased STD transmission would necessarily be the result of legalizing same-sex marriage without considering the possibility that people could just keep going about the same habits regardless. The brief also doesn't seem to account for whether the intercourse was protected or not.
  
  I'm also not sure where you're going with linking homosexuality and pedophilia. Homosexuality is sexual attraction to a member of the same sex. Pedophilia is attraction to a minor. Pedophilia may supposedly have a higher incidence in homosexual populations, but condoning one practice does not inevitably mean condoning the other. By that logic, it would be just as easy to say that encouraging heterosexuality would be "somewhat endorsing pedophilia" simply because there is some percentage of people in the population who are heterosexual and pedophiliac.

  
  
  One of the dangers to the act of randomly citing internet resources is the fact that many of the resources available on the internet are not credible. I've seen generous use of statistical data in this topic, and as a point of precaution, I advise anyone who thinks of using it to always always check how the data was collected. Biased distribution and or design of surveys and the like can very easily skew results. For instance, one very anti-homosexual statistician always has the ability to send surveys mostly to homosexuals in areas where the usage of condoms was shown to be low. In this case, there wouldn't be the possibility of officially publishing the article due to ethical reason, but there's no stopping the statistician from posting it online as an unofficial survey.
  
  That said I don't think the numbers that Justified used was very representative of the link between homosexuality and pedophilia. There are too many variables to compare the two within in a single survey. Some concerns come to mind when assessing the validity of those numbers. Are openly homosexual men, who have come to terms with their homosexuality, more likely to admit to pedophilia? Are straight men less likely to admit to their own pedophilia? If there is a difference in report rate, does this imply that homosexual men are more likely to be pedophiles or does it imply that homosexual men are more likely to admit to it? Is there a significant difference to the two? Take note that admitting that you are sexually attracted children doesn't mean that you will invariably have sex with them.
• Juno wrote on 2010-05-05 03:30
  Very nice link Arus, I'm still in the middle of reading it but you have no idea how glad I am you posted that. I'd never even heard of this guy before .-.