Is heterosexuality unatural?

Okay this is a challenge betwen me and a user named buddah1. He is for" its not natural" and I devils_reject am for" heterosexuality is natural". So let the debate begin buddah1, you go right ahead since I have headed the introductions. Pay attention everybody.

rules(as proclaimed by our dear buddha1)

-Discuss like a man: Stop accusing, blaming and finding motives. Stick to the point in question.
- Be as specific as possible. Don't leave things to my imagination. Make your points clearly.
- No points that have already been discussed in detail will be entertained unless you read them up first and can come up with something new.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I suppose the discussion should be open for anyone to pitch in, its not a duel between me and you.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I didn't know you were going to have your own thread. But that's fine.

As long as you don't start the topic of heterosexuality in nature all over again. That part is proved. I guess you are asking me to debate the part about heterosexuaoity in men, right!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You misspelled unnatural in the thread title.

 

I think, you learn to be a man first. Real men when they fight respect each other......I will only proceed if you change the insulting references to me in the opening post

 

Be a man and fight like an equal. If this is your thread it does not mean that you can abuse me in your opening reference. I insist you change that first.

 

I am waiting.

 

?????

 

Are you not interested in your own challenge?

 

Don't rush. Two more points:
1. We will not use the western definitions or standard positions as the starting point. We will be willing to look into their fallibility.
2. this is optional....but if you win, I'll call myself queer, and if I win you will do the same.....but you really need to be a man to accept that.
3. You realise there are lot of things to be discussed and it may take more than a day. so will have to give it breaks.

 

And yes, you're too mistaken please. What we have proved in the thread is that heterosexuality in not found in nature --- not the opposite. It's been accepted by the other debaters too. That isi why I had asked you to read the thread first.

But if we have to do it again, I will only give broader points here. You eventually will have to consult that thread to know about that discussion.

 

So let's first find a definition of heterosexuality we both can agree on and that can really sum up the gist of heterosexuality. You go first.

 

Just making sure again, the loser of this discussion will admit that he is queer and devil has accepted the challenge.

 

You won't get anywhere by hurrying things. I'm waiting for your definition of heterosexuality.

 

Don't forget that who quits first will be the loser. Unless you are quitting because of a breach of the rules laid down.

 

What is sexual orientation

 

So according to this definition, if a man has been in love with 1000 men during his entire life, but towards the end of the life likes a woman but only for sex, nothing more......is he a heterosexual?

 

I'll come back to it later in the argument.

 

i'm waiting for my answer

 

Come on it's just a small point