# Should Sex be banned?



## Adenosis Silo (Aug 27, 2010)

Since sex is such a sensitive subject, especially among conservatives who frequently try to legislate against alternative forms of sexuality, I began wondering if anyone thought of banning sex outright...

To my surprise I found two seperate threads, on two seperate forums, seemingly written by the same person, advocating a total ban on Sex:

*Politics Forum: *http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=115694

*TheologyOnline:* http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=63980

Each thread takes a different, but equally hilarious course, but they both start out exactly the same:



> If there was an alternative to sexual reproduction, should sex be banned?
> 
> I know the more conservative of you will say yes and the more liberal of you will say no.
> 
> ...


 
After reading through both threads I've gotta say I have never laughed so hard in my life.


----------



## Velystord (Aug 27, 2010)

I wonder if anyone ever told them that mommy and daddy had to screw real hard for that person to exist.
Scares me that someone tried to ban sex. That's a bigger genocide than WWII


----------



## CerbrusNL (Aug 27, 2010)

Dude... What? Ban the meaning of life? Screw that!
Also, way to go claiming every father is a wannabe-pedophile, whomever wrote those 2 threads...

Besides, banning something does not make it a less sensitive subject. On the contrary, even, people will talk about it more, and do it more, because everyone knows it's more fun if it's illegal.
But why the hell are we even discussing this?


----------



## Adenosis Silo (Aug 27, 2010)

CerbrusNL said:


> Dude... What?
> Ban the meaning of life? Screw that!
> 
> Besides, banning something does not make it a less sensitive subject. On the contrary, even, people will talk about it more, and do it more, because everyone knows it's more fun if it's illegal.
> *But why the hell are we even discussing this?*



Because it's funny, the arguments he comes up with in both threads are hilarious.


----------



## CerbrusNL (Aug 27, 2010)

Adenosis Silo said:


> Because it's funny, the arguments he comes up with in both threads are hilarious.


Ah, yea, I see:


			
				Some Forum guy said:
			
		

> Sex is far too much fun, why'd anybody ever wanna ban it?





			
				Retarded OP said:
			
		

> Because  of attitudes like that.


And:





> Funny how after you have kids, sex ceases to be this wonderful and  beautiful thing it was when you were young and instead becomes a  terrible threat to your childâ€™s innocence and moral development.


If I weren't to lazy to register on those forums, I'd tell him to turn gay. No trouble with kids. (Or just use condoms / Lock the door)


----------



## Xenke (Aug 27, 2010)

CerbrusNL said:


> If I weren't to lazy to register on those forums, I'd tell him to turn gay. No trouble with kids.


 
Lawl, I would enjoy that.

You should totally do it.

And then link the responses here.


----------



## Adenosis Silo (Aug 27, 2010)

CerbrusNL said:


> If I weren't to lazy to register on those forums, I'd tell him to turn gay. No trouble with kids. (Or just use condoms / Lock the door)



Doubt that would work:

_



			I totally met someone on the internet who said that Israel belonged to Gay people because it was the original sight of the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah.

It was sort of like Gay Nationalism.
		
Click to expand...

_
And:



> Just to set things straight:
> 
> Banning sex is NOT sinful, banning reproduction however IS. God wants us to reproduce and raise families, it's our lot in life. If anything, the removal of taboos placed on sexuality will cause a downward slide in reproduction. As sex is progressively viewed as a recreational activity, pressure to make anti-conceptive methods more effective builds up, sex becomes more common but reproduction becomes scarce. The solution would be to ban sex entirely whilst making methods of artificial insemination mandatory.
> 
> It's not a question of HOW we reproduce but IF. I don't think God would shed many tears if we replaced a primitive and sensual method of reproduction with something more civilized and modest. It's the same concept behind why we rarely create fire by rubbing two sticks together anymore, just with more moral reasoning.


----------



## Cam (Aug 27, 2010)

The only people that wanna ban sex is those who can't get any


----------



## Xenke (Aug 27, 2010)

cmrnmrphy said:


> The only people that wanna ban sex is those who can't get any


 
Well in that case furries should be all over this. C:

Not me though, I gots sex.


----------



## Adenosis Silo (Aug 27, 2010)

cmrnmrphy said:


> The only people that wanna ban sex is those who can't get any


 
Many people in both threads speculate that he must have suffered some traumatic experiance involving sex.

At one point he even refers to the "terror" of a kid walking in on his parents having sex.


----------



## Eerie Silverfox (Aug 27, 2010)

Old people should not be allowed to have sex. It grosses me out.


----------



## Xenke (Aug 27, 2010)

Eerie Silverfox said:


> Old people should not be allowed to have sex. It grosses me out.


 
Old people need love too, and Viagra needs to make it's money somehowwww.


----------



## Cam (Aug 27, 2010)

Adenosis Silo said:


> Many people in both threads speculate that he must have suffered some traumatic experiance involving sex.
> 
> At one point he even refers to the "terror" of a kid walking in on his parents having sex.


 

Or he is just really ugly or overweight and no one wants to be squished to death


----------



## Ames (Aug 27, 2010)

Eerie Silverfox said:


> Old people should not be allowed to have sex. It grosses me out.


 
So when you get old, you too would abstain from having sex until your death?


----------



## Xenke (Aug 27, 2010)

JamesB said:


> So when you get old, you too would abstain from having sex until your death?


 
Dear god it's that evil yeti.


----------



## Ames (Aug 27, 2010)

Xenke said:


> Dear god it's that evil yeti.


 
>:3


----------



## Don (Aug 27, 2010)

I...what? Someone is seriously proposing _outlawing_ sex? 

While it is technically possible for humanity to survive without it due to artificial conception methods, I highly doubt us horny humans would be very keen to stop humping one another.




> For: Most fathers don't love their children as much as their wives because they can't have sex with their children.


What the fuck is this shit? Did he just call every father a repressed pedophile?


----------



## CynicalCirno (Aug 27, 2010)

As far as humans learnt, ban will not completly stop anything. It has an area of effect that limits it, and the law that enforces it is not always around.
Also, like others mentioned, banning sex is banning enjoyment and reproducement - no birth. 
Even though some people don't like it, sex is good in a nutshell. When you go inside and find every piece of fucked up shit of rule 69, it's not that awesome.



Eerie Silverfox said:


> Old people should not be allowed to have sex. It grosses me out.


 
If the age limit of sex is 70, what do you have to say to 69 year old people? If you make the limit 50, what do you have to say about 49 years old? And on the same subject, why do you watch old people have sex? :V


----------



## Ames (Aug 27, 2010)

CynicalCirno said:


> And on the same subject, why do you watch old people have sex? :V


 
Lemon party, probably.


----------



## Don (Aug 27, 2010)

JamesB said:


> Lemon party, probably.


 
Either that or he walked in on his grandparents :V.


----------



## Eerie Silverfox (Aug 27, 2010)

JamesB said:


> So when you get old, you too would abstain from having sex until your death?


 I plan on being dead before that.


----------



## Tycho (Aug 27, 2010)

> For: Most fathers don't love their children as much as their wives because they can't have sex with their children.



WHAT THE FUCK

Hey, if we're gonna ban sex, maybe we should ban playing sports, too.  I mean, think of all the people that get hurt playing sports.  Think of all the bitter hateful rivalries.  Let's ban baseball and football and stuff.  Yeah.  That'll take care of all those DEVIANTS who play those EXTREME sports and those WEIRD ABERRANT FOREIGN sports like CRICKET.  Seriously, cricket is a disgusting twisted abomination of BASEBALL.  Those damn Brits pervert everything.  And think of all the perverts who like to watch beach volleyball, with those scantily clad people.  I'll bet homos like to watch beach volleyball.  That's just sick.  It's PORN for HOMOS.


----------



## ElizabethAlexandraMary (Aug 27, 2010)

I don't see why you guys should feel involved by what doesn't concern you.


----------



## Xenke (Aug 27, 2010)

FrancisBlack said:


> I don't see why you guys should feel involved by what doesn't concern you.



/furries


----------



## Tycho (Aug 27, 2010)

FrancisBlack said:


> I don't see why you guys should feel involved by what doesn't concern you.


 
Why doesn't it concern us? The fuckhead who's proposing banning sex outright is a voting American citizen, isn't he? And he's not alone.  I reserve the right to voice my opinions against this idiot in whatever venue is relevant at the time.  I want to ENSURE that idiots like him get drowned out by more rational voices.


----------



## Eerie Silverfox (Aug 27, 2010)

CynicalCirno said:


> why do you watch old people have sex? :V


I don't. Why did you assume I did? 
Why would I watch something that grosses me out. What a stupid thing to say.


----------



## ElizabethAlexandraMary (Aug 27, 2010)

Tycho said:


> Why doesn't it concern us? The fuckhead who's proposing banning sex outright is a voting American citizen, isn't he? And he's not alone.  I reserve the right to voice my opinions against this idiot in whatever venue is relevant at the time.  I want to ENSURE that idiots like him get drowned out by more rational voices.


 
Yeah uh. I guess you're all american.

Finally something we have in common.
nice avatar btw :V


----------



## Tycho (Aug 27, 2010)

FrancisBlack said:


> Yeah uh. I guess you're all american.
> 
> Finally something we have in common.
> nice avatar btw :V


 
ok wtf is this post supposed to mean.


----------



## Xenke (Aug 27, 2010)

Eerie Silverfox said:


> I don't. Why did you assume I did?
> Why would I watch something that grosses me out. What a stupid thing to say.


 
I watched Fred even though it caused me extreme pain.

Self-torture is a funny thing.


----------



## Shark_the_raptor (Aug 27, 2010)

> For: Most fathers don't love their children as much as their wives because they can't have sex with their children.



That's just silly.


----------



## Asswings (Aug 27, 2010)

Not really much there to discuss. Guy's a nutjob. There will never be a ban on sex, 'cause it would be a nightmare to enforce.


----------



## Adenosis Silo (Aug 27, 2010)

Tycho said:


> Why doesn't it concern us? The fuckhead who's proposing banning sex outright is a voting American citizen, isn't he? And he's not alone. I reserve the right to voice my opinions against this idiot in whatever venue is relevant at the time. I want to ENSURE that idiots like him get drowned out by more rational voices.



Actually, going through those threads, there was only one other person who agreed with this guy, it seems he was banned before I found these threads though. 

I don't think thereâ€™s too much to worry about, this just seems to be an isolated example of someone taking conservative views on abstinence to a rare extreme. TheologyOnline seems to have a rather conservative user base and even they disagree with this guy. 

The only other example of something like this I've heard of was a church that was considering forced castration for its congregation to "prevent the spread of sexual immorality" or something like that. 

Yes, it's very sad when someone comes to this conclusion, but I don't think it will ever become mainstream. 

I do, however, predict the creation of drugs that will suppress important aspects of puberty and the teenage sex-drive. Expect to see such substances being promoted at churches in your lifetime.


----------



## Tycho (Aug 27, 2010)

Adenosis Silo said:


> Actually, going through those threads, there was only one other person who agreed with this guy, it seems he was banned before I found these threads though.
> 
> I don't think thereâ€™s too much to worry about, this just seems to be an isolated example of someone taking conservative views on abstinence to a rare extreme. TheologyOnline seems to have a rather conservative user base and even they disagree with this guy.
> 
> ...


 
The churches miss having _castrati_ in the choir.

And even Jesus freaks like dipping their wicks in the tallow-pot every now and then, apparently :V More than they'd like to admit, I'm sure.


----------



## Velystord (Aug 27, 2010)

It seems theres a bunch of pebcak's who have access to internet (tech support term for "problem exist between chair and keyboard").


----------



## Trpdwarf (Aug 27, 2010)

I would hope everyone here realizes that the two threads a a result of a person trawling for lulz?
He was trolling those two places or so it is seems to me.

Funny how there was less smug in the Politico one versus the religious one. If I were a christian I'd be emberassed by the idiocy in the responses. Pretentious dicks much?


----------



## Tycho (Aug 27, 2010)

Trpdwarf said:


> I would hope everyone here realizes that the two threads a a result of a person trawling for lulz?
> He was trolling those two places or so it is seems to me.


 
You telling me that you seriously think there aren't people that stupid/crazy with access to the Internet? Seriously?


----------



## Adenosis Silo (Aug 27, 2010)

Trpdwarf said:


> I would hope everyone here realizes that the two threads a a result of a person trawling for lulz?
> He was trolling those two places or so it is seems to me.
> 
> Funny how there was less smug in the Politico one versus the religious one. If I were a christian I'd be emberassed by the idiocy in the responses. Pretentious dicks much?


 
I did'nt find the replies in the Theology Online thread to be any worse than the other one.

Both seemed rather appalled by the idea.


----------



## Smelge (Aug 27, 2010)

Sex should be banned.

If I'm not getting it, nobody else should.


----------



## Adenosis Silo (Aug 27, 2010)

Smelge said:


> Sex should be banned.
> 
> If I'm not getting it, nobody else should.



That actually seems to be his reasoning at times:



> I'm sort of a "Sexual Communist", reproduction should not be a gift exclusive to only the most fit and potent. I think as impotence becomes more and more common ideas like mine will become more popular. Your probably wondering why sex should be banned just because less people will be having it in a few years from now? Because if we have one large group of asexual, artificially reproducing people but also have a smaller group who still reproduce sexually it will inevitably lead to the creation of a "Sexual Elite". Just look at how virgins are regarded as weak and loserish today, imagine what would happen if a whole new group of people who would "never get laid" suddenly appeared. They'd be treated like second-class citizens by the few who retained their sexual potency. Christianity is all about giving power to the powerless, once you have given the powerless as much power as possible you must begin taking power away from the powerful, only then do you ensure equality.



I actually feel sorry for him.


----------



## Ratte (Aug 27, 2010)

God damn this is some lulzy shit.


----------



## Velystord (Aug 27, 2010)

Damn if he wants someone to love him just go to a topless bar and tip big. They will all be your friend.


----------



## coward67 (Aug 27, 2010)

I am sorry to have to tell you this, but we need sex, without it, there would be no life, only plant life, the human race would die with no incoming babies.
Ask your parents dumb 12yr old kid.


----------



## CerbrusNL (Aug 27, 2010)

coward67 said:


> I am sorry to have to tell you this, but we need sex, without it, there would be no life, only plant life, the human race would die with no incoming babies.
> Ask your parents dumb 12yr old kid.


 Read the OP next time. OP's talking about artificial insemination. (Babies without sex involved)


----------



## coward67 (Aug 27, 2010)

CerbrusNL said:


> Read the OP next time. OP's talking about artificial insemination. (Babies without sex involved)


 Oops... I don't usually click links.


----------



## Adenosis Silo (Aug 27, 2010)

Can anyone here imagin a world where sex was illegal?

Where the cops can come over to your house and say "We heard reports of erotic noises originating from this household."

Where staying out of prison may depend on you finding a way to ignore your hormones.

Where a night of passion between a happily married couple is interrupted by a S.W.A.T. team. 

Where your Dad would have no need to give you The Talk. (Ok, maybe not all bad.)

The idea is just so... Surreal.


----------



## Redregon (Aug 27, 2010)

I lost...

oh, wait, this isn't the "you laugh, you lose" thread.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Aug 27, 2010)

No. Banning sex is stupid.


----------



## Willow (Aug 27, 2010)

CerbrusNL said:


> Read the OP next time. OP's talking about artificial insemination. (Babies without sex involved)


 Either way, that's kinda stupid. 

Some people don't want to adopt or they can't have sex with their partner for some reason. They still want to have and raise a child though. 
It's not as bad as cloning either. 

I can't tell if OP's trolling or just being blatantly stupid. You can't repress a natural urge (or what's natural for most people)


----------



## ArielMT (Aug 27, 2010)

I can't tell if he's a troll or a nut, either.  Even after reading his motto on TOL: 





> Every problem in the world is caused by the fact that someone, somewhere isn't a Christian. - Me



I'd say troll, but I know that nuts that far gone do exist.


----------



## Willow (Aug 27, 2010)

ArielMT said:


> I'd say troll, but I know that nuts that far gone do exist.


 Oh he's one of those people.


----------



## The DK (Aug 27, 2010)

god i would totally laugh my ass off if such a thing happened. underground sex clubs would be every where, speak easys would come back in full swing


----------



## Roose Hurro (Aug 27, 2010)

Adenosis Silo said:


> Since sex is such a sensitive subject, especially among conservatives who frequently try to legislate against alternative forms of sexuality, I began wondering if anyone thought of banning sex outright...
> 
> To my surprise I found two seperate threads, on two seperate forums, seemingly written by the same person, advocating a total ban on Sex:
> 
> ...


 
After reading just that quoted bit, I think my IQ has just been cut in half.


----------



## Aleu (Aug 27, 2010)

I wonder if it's from the same person in my signature


----------



## Roose Hurro (Aug 27, 2010)

AleutheWolf said:


> I wonder if it's from the same person in my signature


 
Sounds like a reasonable assumption.  If not, hope she doesn't meet the "other guy" (if that other guy is a guy), fall in love, and... and... ummm, wait... no, no, I guess that wouldn't be a problem, then... heh.


----------



## Aleu (Aug 27, 2010)

Roose Hurro said:


> Sounds like a reasonable assumption.  If not, hope she doesn't meet the "other guy" (if that other guy is a guy), fall in love, and... and... ummm, wait... no, no, I guess that wouldn't be a problem, then... heh.



"LETS MAEK TEST TOOB BABBEEZ 2GETHR 8D"

I can totally see that happening


----------



## Adenosis Silo (Aug 27, 2010)

The DK said:


> god i would totally laugh my ass off if such a thing happened. underground sex clubs would be every where, speak easys would come back in full swing



There was a part were he suggested kids would call 911 if they ever found their parents having sex...

Just imagin that scenario in your head.


----------



## Aleu (Aug 27, 2010)

Adenosis Silo said:


> There was a part were he suggested kids would call 911 if they ever found their parents having sex...
> 
> Just imagin that scenario in your head.


 911 Operator: Hello? 
Child: Uhm...hewwo? My mommy and daddy are fighting
911: Fighting? What is he doing?
Child: Uhm..he...uhm he's on top of her and it looks like they're wrestling and they have no clothes on. They're makin' funny noises.


----------



## Adenosis Silo (Aug 27, 2010)

AleutheWolf said:


> 911 Operator: Hello?
> Child: Uhm...hewwo? My mommy and daddy are fighting
> 911: Fighting? What is he doing?
> Child: Uhm..he...uhm he's on top of her and it looks like they're wrestling and they have no clothes on. They're makin' funny noises.


 
Wow... You made my day!


----------



## Stargazer Bleu (Aug 27, 2010)

If it did happen, I doubt it would stop people from still doing it.

I would love to see how they would enforce this(actually I don't think I would). 
What is the law going to do? 
Go into everyone's  houses at random, try to peek?
Chastity devices, that work like a house arrest thing so if one tries to remove it something happens.

Maybe it will be like Judge Dread or THX 1138


----------



## Aleu (Aug 27, 2010)

Stargazer Bleu said:


> If it did happen, I doubt it would stop people from still doing it.
> 
> I would love to see how they would enforce this(actually I don't think I would).
> What is the law going to do?
> ...


That's a hefty privacy violation if it does become law and enforced. If it ever does then I'll believe every word of conspiracy theorists.


----------



## Wreth (Aug 27, 2010)

What's the point of being alive if you can't live?


----------



## Adenosis Silo (Aug 27, 2010)

Stargazer Bleu said:


> If it did happen, I doubt it would stop people from still doing it.
> 
> I would love to see how they would enforce this(actually I don't think I would).
> What is the law going to do?
> ...



Someone made this great post showing the statistical impossibilities of enforcing such a law:



> Yeah, this is actually a really good idea: Just think of the great society (Greater than that of LBJ!) that would result from banning sex! First, practical measures:
> 
> 
> 1. Illegalize condoms, lube, and every other form of contraceptive because these serve to incentivize sex.
> ...


----------



## Aleu (Aug 27, 2010)

I think OP be trollan but I'm not too sure. A red flag went up when I read his signature...


----------



## Carenath (Aug 27, 2010)

CerbrusNL said:


> Dude... What? Ban the meaning of life? Screw that!
> Also, way to go claiming every father is a wannabe-pedophile, whomever wrote those 2 threads...


 Technically they are, if you take a literal translation of the word, the suffice -phile comes from the Greek word Philia, meaning 'to love' as in, an affinity, friendship and affection. This is very distinct from the Greek term Eros meaning sexual attraction, from which we get the English word, erotic.

So I find it amusing how English has twisted the former into what it is in common usage.


----------



## Willow (Aug 27, 2010)

AleutheWolf said:


> I think OP be trollan but I'm not too sure. A red flag went up when I read his signature...


 And did you notice that once someone pointed it out, it was promptly removed?


----------



## Enwon (Aug 27, 2010)

It is imperative for the future of society that sex is banned.  Why?  For 2 reasons:

1) Sex causes pleasure
As a result of this pleasure, the person who experiments by having sex will want to have sex again, starting a cycle of addiction until they are injecting cum into their veins.  This pleasure will cause them to ignore safety and as a result, STDs will go everywhere and women will get pregnant and spit out babies at such a rapid rate that infants will become a renewable source of energy for burning.  While that might be good, it would destroy women.  Pregnancy can wreck the woman's vagina upon giving birth, and the rest of the body would suffer from weight gain.  Also, there are some people who may try to make money off of sex- which is not unlike people who make money off of making and selling meth.  Or, even worse, they may videotape it or take photos and upload them to the world wide web.  While my scientists don't know what the effects of it on the web would be, there is a theory that fat, lonely, or overly horny people will pleasure themselves to this, creating addiction to the images of intercourse.

2) Sex and emotion
In some people, there is a lot of emotion associated with sex.  Of course, all emotion is bad and everybody should be robots.  Sex can be associated with love, or otherwise mess with people's emotions.  Love, infatuation, and lust are all emotions that must be eliminated, for they run counter to what is necessary: All humans to be robots who only want what's best for themselves, with absolutely no care for others.  Also, in the event that sex produces children, parents may form emotional bonds with their children, further destroying the essential emotion of selfishness.

Now, how would sex be banned?  Well, here's my idea:

Spay and neuter all humans, and try to block all hormones.  Blur the line between genders.  In the ideal world, there will not be men or women- just people.  Without emotion.  Or feeling.


----------



## Aleu (Aug 27, 2010)

Willow said:


> And did you notice that once someone pointed it out, it was promptly removed?


 I didn't notice that.


----------



## Zaraphayx (Aug 27, 2010)

Yeah good luck banning sex, lol.


----------



## Torrijos-sama (Aug 27, 2010)

The existence of the orgasm leads to feelings to others aside from The Glorious State.

It must be eliminated.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Aug 28, 2010)

Tycho said:


> You telling me that you seriously think there aren't people that stupid/crazy with access to the Internet? Seriously?


 
I'm not saying that I think such idiocy can't be genuine.

What I am saying is I'm going to assume this person is trolling. That's how it comes across to me.


----------



## Machine (Aug 28, 2010)

Holy fuck what is all this?

Sex? Banned? Lolololololol.


----------



## Jashwa (Aug 28, 2010)

People are stupid. This thread makes me sad.


----------



## Machine (Aug 28, 2010)

Jashwa said:


> People are stupid. This thread makes me sad.


That's how FAF rolls.


----------



## virus (Aug 28, 2010)

Well we are at it lets ban walking, running, sitting, standing, moving anyway in general, eating, sleeping, talking, socializing, thought process, abstract thought in or not in direct terms of thinking process, swimming, driving, moving your eyes in anyway other then open, moving your mouth in any way except closed, inhaling air or any other small atomic particles.

We just want you to lay down and stare blankly DIRECTLY in front of a computer screen for 24/7 365, this is your goal. This is all we want you to do. Thank you. This has been a service announcement. Oh I forgot to mention no moving your hands, we will put the information IN FRONT of you at all times. In fact lets just put everyone in a straight jacket.




Sounds like a fun life style huh? because thats what banning sex would be like.


----------



## Kommodore (Aug 28, 2010)

Jashwa said:


> People are stupid. This thread makes me sad.


 
I wanted to say this. 

I guess I have to settle with agreeing.


----------



## TreacleFox (Aug 28, 2010)

If America did this, I wonder how many people would leave the country?


----------



## Vriska (Aug 28, 2010)

If sex is banned more people will do it becuase it is illegal.

USE. YOUR. BRAIN.


----------



## Commiecomrade (Aug 28, 2010)

Tycho said:


> WHAT THE FUCK
> 
> Hey, if we're gonna ban sex, maybe we should ban playing sports, too.  I mean, think of all the people that get hurt playing sports.  Think of all the bitter hateful rivalries.  Let's ban baseball and football and stuff.  Yeah.  That'll take care of all those DEVIANTS who play those EXTREME sports and those WEIRD ABERRANT FOREIGN sports like CRICKET.  Seriously, cricket is a disgusting twisted abomination of BASEBALL.  Those damn Brits pervert everything.  And think of all the perverts who like to watch beach volleyball, with those scantily clad people.  I'll bet homos like to watch beach volleyball.  That's just sick.  It's PORN for HOMOS.


 
I want to have sex with this post.


----------



## Vriska (Aug 28, 2010)

Commiecomrade said:


> I want to have sex with this post.


Do you need a condom so you don't make any more posts?


----------



## Rainami (Aug 28, 2010)

As a proud furvert-- proud enough to use that horribly lame portmanteau-- I am totally opposed to the banning of sex.


----------



## LizardKing (Aug 28, 2010)

How about taxing sex instead? :3c


----------



## Adenosis Silo (Aug 28, 2010)

I think I understand where he's coming from:

Judging by the comments he makes, it is clear that he believes sex is meant for reproduction only. As many view sex as a more pleasurable activity rather than a reproductive one, things like condoms and the pill become more popular. At the end of the day, this means there is plenty of sex going on, but very little babies being born. From his point of view, sex is an incentive to NOT produce children. This is not helped by the popular stereotype that having children is the end of your sex-life. His solution seems to be to ban sex outright in the hope that people will not be distracted from achieving whatâ€™s really important in life : Getting married and having kids.

Assuming that is even a fraction of the logic he's using, then he is right to a degree: In our attempts to have more free and open sex we are forgetting the reason sex exists in the first place: to reproduce.

The obvious solution is to say that if a man and a woman have sex, both individuals should be prepared to look after whoever comes out of it. banning sex outright and making us reproduce by IVF for the rest of our species existence is just obscene.


----------



## SilverKarja (Aug 28, 2010)

> And:
> 
> Just to set things straight:
> 
> ...



Has this nutjob never come across baby rabies people who can't STOP having children even when they hardly have enough money to live on their own without help from the government?!  The government enables all these people, and encourages reproduction!  

If not having kids was actually rare, then us childfree lot wouldn't be told every time we turn around that we'll change our minds, it's different when it's your own, who will take care of you when your old, and other such nonsense!  >.<  We wouldn't be the looked down upon outcasts labeled as freaks and damaged because we don't want to pop one out!


----------



## Adenosis Silo (Aug 28, 2010)

SilverKarja said:


> Has this nutjob never come across baby rabies people who can't STOP having children even when they hardly have enough money to live on their own without help from the government?! The government enables all these people, and encourages reproduction!
> 
> If not having kids was actually rare, then us childfree lot wouldn't be told every time we turn around that we'll change our minds, it's different when it's your own, who will take care of you when your old, and other such nonsense! >.< We wouldn't be the looked down upon outcasts labeled as freaks and damaged because we don't want to pop one out!



Don't include me in that we. I'm sure I will have at least one kid in my life, I'm sure I'll enjoy being a father.

Though maybe thatâ€™s easier for me to say because Iâ€™ll be just that, the father, I won't have to give birth.


----------



## Tycho (Aug 28, 2010)

LizardKing said:


> How about taxing sex instead? :3c


 
Reference to Monty Python skit?


----------



## foxmusk (Aug 29, 2010)

THE MIND. IS WIRED. FOR SEX. christ. you can't "ban" it or put some lockdown on it any more than you can eating or sleeping. that's the id, and that's what we as living beings want and WILL get. food, sleep, and sex. it's always gonna be like that, and making it out as "IT'S ONLY FOR BABIES" is preposterous. homosexuality should be enough to debunk that concept really fast, but if not, we might add that sex is now part of the spiderweb feeding society. it sells. it's what's popular. an abstinant, baby-making-only nation is not going to last long. if it did, we'd still be pilgrims.

society is about rebelling against the people that came before you. sex will only get more and more loose and open until no one really gives a shit either way.

edit: lol "loose and open". that's what she said.


----------



## Airborne_Piggy (Aug 29, 2010)

Ban sex, but only to stupid people. They must not reproduce! Then the question of banning sex will never be asked again.


----------



## foxmusk (Aug 29, 2010)

Airborne_Piggy said:


> Ban sex, but only to stupid people. They must not reproduce! Then the question of banning sex will never be asked again.


 
everyone is stupid and incapable of taking care of children sufficiently. some are just a little more not-efficient than others.


----------



## Willow (Aug 29, 2010)

HarleyRoadkill said:


> THE MIND. IS WIRED. FOR SEX. christ. you can't "ban" it or put some lockdown on it any more than you can eating or sleeping. that's the id, and that's what we as living beings want and WILL get. food, sleep, and sex. it's always gonna be like that, and making it out as "IT'S ONLY FOR BABIES" is preposterous. homosexuality should be enough to debunk that concept really fast, but if not, we might add that sex is now part of the spiderweb feeding society. it sells. it's what's popular. an abstinant, baby-making-only nation is not going to last long. if it did, we'd still be pilgrims.
> 
> society is about rebelling against the people that came before you. sex will only get more and more loose and open until no one really gives a shit either way.
> 
> edit: lol "loose and open". that's what she said.


 >.>

This is kinda like what I said earlier. You can't suppress a natural urge. That's why I really don't get abstinence or why people believe sex before marriage is bad. Well, I mean I do and I don't. To me it's a matter of "Well what if you don't ever get married? Are you just never going to have sex?"

Sure, losing your virginity is something that should be with someone you really love, but you don't have to get married to show you really care. 

Only problem is is that not everyone is responsible, but oh well.


----------



## Mayonnaise (Aug 29, 2010)

Willow said:


> You can't suppress a natural urge. That's why I really don't get abstinence or why people believe sex before marriage is bad...


Sex before marriage could lead to people throwing babies in the thrash, STD (if they are too promiscuous and don't know what they are doing), orphans... (no one deserve to be orphaned), overpopulation... among other things.



Willow said:


> Only problem is is that not everyone is responsible, but oh well.


This is the main problem to me... Most people are not responsible and don't want to be educated.


----------



## Enwon (Aug 29, 2010)

HarleyRoadkill said:


> THE MIND. IS WIRED. FOR SEX. christ. you can't "ban" it or put some lockdown on it any more than you can eating or sleeping.


 
We need to ban eating and sleeping too.  Sleeping is a waste of time, and eating a waste of food.  And they're both sinful.


----------



## Pandio (Aug 29, 2010)

If sex becomes illegal by time i'm legal age (which i'm sure it won't) I'm going to track down the dumbass and punch him in the face.
I never really looked at it, but isn't sex a human right or something?


----------



## Willow (Aug 29, 2010)

Radio Viewer said:


> Sex before marriage could lead to people throwing babies in the thrash, STD (if they are too promiscuous and don't know what they are doing), orphans... (no one deserve to be orphaned), overpopulation... among other things.


Yea, but then again so can sex after marriage. Being married doesn't give you immunity against catching the Herp or something else. 
You can contribute to overpopulation and every other point you made even when you're married too. 



Pandio said:


> If sex becomes illegal by time i'm legal age (which i'm sure it won't) I'm going to track down the dumbass and punch him in the face.
> I never really looked at it, but isn't sex a human right or something?


 Sex isn't a human right per se, but it's basic animal instinct. Humans are "wired" to have the urge to procreate, but unlike most animals, humans and several other species have sex for fun. You like the feeling and normally if you like something, you want it.


----------



## Pandio (Aug 29, 2010)

Ah.
Banning an instinct.
_Are we seriously discussing banning of an instinct on a goddamn furry forum? ffs._

Yeah! Let's ban the use of an organ! while we're at it, let's ban the intestines, poopy is yucky


----------



## Mayonnaise (Aug 29, 2010)

Willow said:


> Yea, but then again so can sex after marriage. Being married doesn't give you immunity against catching the Herp or something else.
> You can contribute to overpopulation and every other point you made even when you're married too.


Oh... I forgot what happens after marriage ^^;

Hmm I found that people tend to be more responsible after they are married. That's why it a better option.


----------



## Torrijos-sama (Aug 29, 2010)

The voluntary extinction of the human race is a policy me and the other voters can get behind.

There wouldn't be any problems to vote on if everyone is dead, amirite?


----------



## kyle19 (Aug 29, 2010)

JesusFish said:


> The voluntary extinction of the human race is a policy me and the other voters can get behind.
> 
> There wouldn't be any problems to vote on if everyone is dead, amirite?


 
I agree, you have my vote.


----------



## Luca (Aug 29, 2010)

Okay so now imagine that sex is banned. How would the government stop it? "Fix" every child that's born?


----------



## Aleu (Aug 29, 2010)

Luca said:


> Okay so now imagine that sex is banned. How would the government stop it? "Fix" every child that's born?


They wouldn't. There would be a revolution because of invasion of privacy.


----------



## Willow (Aug 29, 2010)

How would that even work, that just sounds wrong. 

I think it's more a matter of we need to make kids and teens more aware of the possible dangers of having sex at a young age/being unprotected. 
Parents and adults in general just think that talking about sex with their child is such a taboo topic that they don't do it. 

That's what I think at least.


----------



## Aleu (Aug 29, 2010)

Willow said:


> How would that even work, that just sounds wrong.
> 
> I think it's more a matter of we need to make kids and teens more aware of the possible dangers of having sex at a young age/being unprotected.
> Parents and adults in general just think that talking about sex with their child is such a taboo topic that they don't do it.
> ...


Pretty much...but parents don't do it so the school has to pick up the tab then parents whine and complain about it being their job to do it.


----------



## Willow (Aug 29, 2010)

AleutheWolf said:


> Pretty much...but parents don't do it so the school has to pick up the tab then parents whine and complain about it being their job to do it.


 It's the same as with schools teaching evolution over creationism. Parents get up in arms about it because they either don't like the way the school teaches it or the fact that school is teaching it at all. Not many teachers actually teach it as its own unit, some just go briefly into it. Or at least here they don't.


----------



## Aleu (Aug 29, 2010)

Willow said:


> It's the same as with schools teaching evolution over creationism. Parents get up in arms about it because they either don't like the way the school teaches it or the fact that school is teaching it at all. Not many teachers actually teach it as its own unit, some just go briefly into it. Or at least here they don't.


 Quite a few parents I run into that bitch about schools are trying to advocate that public schools be banned so all that's left is home school or private schooling because apparently "PUBLIC SKOOLS R BRAINWASHING TEH CHILDREN!"


----------



## KaiverT (Aug 29, 2010)

Procreative sex amongst those who cannot support their children should be banned first off.


----------



## Mayonnaise (Aug 29, 2010)

KaiverT said:


> Procreative sex amongst those who cannot support their children should be banned first off.


I support this.


----------



## foxmusk (Aug 29, 2010)

Willow said:


> Sure, losing your virginity is something that should be with someone you really love, but you don't have to get married to show you really care.


 
i disagree. that's a bold step to make. i mean...what if it turns out that you hate having sex with them? you've bought the shirt and can't return it now. that's why it's good to try on shirts before you buy them, and sometimes try other shirts before deciding on the one you want. losing your virginity before marriage really doesn't feel that different the first time you do it...that's kinda rude for someone to be upset you're not a virgin, anyway.


----------



## Aleu (Aug 29, 2010)

HarleyRoadkill said:


> i disagree. that's a bold step to make. i mean...what if it turns out that you hate having sex with them? you've bought the shirt and can't return it now. that's why it's good to try on shirts before you buy them, and sometimes try other shirts before deciding on the one you want. losing your virginity before marriage really doesn't feel that different the first time you do it...that's kinda rude for someone to be upset you're not a virgin, anyway.


 That makes it seem you only love the person if they're good in bed


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Aug 29, 2010)

HarleyRoadkill said:


> i disagree. that's a bold step to make. i mean...what if it turns out that you hate having sex with them? you've bought the shirt and can't return it now. that's why it's good to try on shirts before you buy them, and sometimes try other shirts before deciding on the one you want. losing your virginity before marriage really doesn't feel that different the first time you do it...that's kinda rude for someone to be upset you're not a virgin, anyway.



1: You make it sound like sex is the most important part of marriage.

2: You make it sound like someone ONLY loves/cares for someone AFTER marriage.

I'd still love someone just the same whether I was married to them or not. Marriage means shit. I don't see why someone NEEDS to be married to someone to show they care for that person, that's just plain stupid imo.


----------



## foxmusk (Aug 29, 2010)

AleutheWolf said:


> That makes it seem you only love the person if they're good in bed



no. it doesn't. but you're faithful to that person and that person only. the human mind DESIRES sex. if you two are totally sexually unattracted to eachother, that is going to build up worlds of tension and could ultimately ruin the marriage. it's not like marriage is anything sacred anymore. test the waters for god's sake.



RandyDarkshade said:


> 1: You make it sound like sex is the most important part of marriage.
> 
> 2: You make it sound like someone ONLY loves/cares for someone AFTER marriage.
> 
> I'd still love someone just the same whether I was married to them or not. Marriage means shit. I don't see why someone NEEDS to be marfried to someone to show they care for that person, that's just plain stupid imo.


 
as i said to aleu, that is not what i meant. i'm just saying that not being attracted to your partner is bad for a relationship. and i agree with you on the last point.


----------



## Willow (Aug 29, 2010)

HarleyRoadkill said:


> i disagree. that's a bold step to make. i mean...what if it turns out that you hate having sex with them? you've bought the shirt and can't return it now. that's why it's good to try on shirts before you buy them, and sometimes try other shirts before deciding on the one you want. losing your virginity before marriage really doesn't feel that different the first time you do it...that's kinda rude for someone to be upset you're not a virgin, anyway.


 


AleutheWolf said:


> That makes it seem you only love the person if they're good in bed


 This.


RandyDarkshade said:


> 1: You make it sound like sex is the most important part of marriage.
> 
> 2: You make it sound like someone ONLY loves/cares for someone AFTER marriage.
> 
> I'd still love someone just the same whether I was married to them or not. Marriage means shit. I don't see why someone NEEDS to be marfried to someone to show they care for that person, that's just plain stupid imo.


And this. 

I really don't plan on getting married, or getting married after being with someone I really, really love for about a year give or take, so what am I supposed to do. 
I won't force myself into marriage just to have sex.


----------



## foxmusk (Aug 29, 2010)

Willow said:


> This.
> 
> And this.


 
you missed my explanation post.


----------



## Willow (Aug 29, 2010)

HarleyRoadkill said:


> you missed my explanation post.


 Yea I know, you ninja'd me. 

Anyway, what you're implying is that you can't be faithful without a piece of paper binding you to someone the way I read it. Though that might not be true.


----------



## foxmusk (Aug 29, 2010)

Willow said:


> Yea I know, you ninja'd me.
> 
> Anyway, what you're implying is that you can't be faithful without a piece of paper binding you to someone the way I read it. Though that might not be true.


 
naw, that's not what i meant. what i mean is that marriage means you're faithful to only one person. you can be faithful to only one person and not be married, yea. but, marriage is a permanent (or at least hard to sever) bond. if it turns out you are totally unattracted to them, that's gonna hurt it.


----------



## Willow (Aug 29, 2010)

HarleyRoadkill said:


> naw, that's not what i meant. what i mean is that marriage means you're faithful to only one person. you can be faithful to only one person and not be married, yea. but, marriage is a permanent (or at least hard to sever) bond. if it turns out you are totally unattracted to them, that's gonna hurt it.


 I get what you're saying, but wouldn't that mean sex before marriage is a good thing? Though getting married just for sex is shallow in itself.


----------



## foxmusk (Aug 29, 2010)

Willow said:


> I get what you're saying, but wouldn't that mean sex before marriage is a good thing? Though getting married just for sex is shallow in itself.


 
sex before marriage IS a good thing. it's not a good idea, especially in today's society, to go into marriage completely unprepared for mating.


----------



## Aleu (Aug 29, 2010)

HarleyRoadkill said:


> sex before marriage IS a good thing. it's not a good idea, especially in today's society, to go into marriage completely unprepared for mating.


 can you talk to my boyfriend. Please?


----------



## Willow (Aug 29, 2010)

HarleyRoadkill said:


> sex before marriage IS a good thing. it's not a good idea, especially in today's society, to go into marriage completely unprepared for mating.


 Okay then, I gotcha.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Aug 29, 2010)

Willow said:


> Yea I know, you ninja'd me.
> 
> Anyway, *what you're implying is that you can't be faithful without a piece of paper binding you to someone* the way I read it. Though that might not be true.


 
Actually, marriage is a vow of commitment and trust... having sex before marriage, especially having done so with a person or persons you didn't marry, brings doubt on your commitment and your trustability.  Really, that's all marriage is... exchanging vows of commitment in front of witnesses.  A promise to be true and trustable.  The paper is just a legal formality.  Without that vow, sex simply becomes a "wham bam thank you m'am" affair.  At least for most, if you've ever paid attention to how it all works in today's world.  Of course, in today's world, even marriage is no guarantee of commitment or trust.  Crying shame, really.


----------



## Jashwa (Aug 29, 2010)

Roose Hurro said:


> Actually, marriage is a vow of commitment and trust... having sex before marriage, especially having done so with a person or persons you didn't marry, brings doubt on your commitment and your trustability.  Really, that's all marriage is... exchanging vows of commitment in front of witnesses.  A promise to be true and trustable.  The paper is just a legal formality.  Without that vow, sex simply becomes a "wham bam thank you m'am" affair.  At least for most, if you've ever paid attention to how it all works in today's world.  Of course, in today's world, even marriage is no guarantee of commitment or trust.  Crying shame, really.


You don't need to get a piece of paper signed and have a ceremony to make a vow of trust and commitment with someone. That implies that all boyfriend-girlfriend couples don't have trust or commitment because they aren't married.


----------



## foxmusk (Aug 29, 2010)

AleutheWolf said:


> can you talk to my boyfriend. Please?


 
uhm
i guess
yea?


----------



## Willow (Aug 29, 2010)

Roose Hurro said:


> Actually, marriage is a vow of commitment and trust... having sex before marriage, especially having done so with a person or persons you didn't marry, brings doubt on your commitment and your trustability.  Really, that's all marriage is... exchanging vows of commitment in front of witnesses.  A promise to be true and trustable.  The paper is just a legal formality.  Without that vow, sex simply becomes a "wham bam thank you m'am" affair.  At least for most, if you've ever paid attention to how it all works in today's world.  Of course, in today's world, even marriage is no guarantee of commitment or trust.  Crying shame, really.


 So basically, if I'm not married to my partner we're not committed or trust each other?


----------



## Shouden (Aug 29, 2010)

But sex is so fun. Yeah, the guy the OP quoted is crazy. But really the for argument is that "FATHERS don't love their kids cause they can't have sex with them"? WTF? Really? it's not "the world is overpopulated" (which it really isn't...yet) or "There's not enough food" (which, actually, there is plenty of food to cure world hunger. Seriously, America alone throws out enough food to feed everyone in the world for a year.) Or something like that? Man, that's an extremely sexist argument.

I don't want to have sex with my kids. And I know a LOT of guys who love their kids. Seriously, this is a stupid argument.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Aug 29, 2010)

Jashwa said:


> You don't need to get a piece of paper signed and have a ceremony to make a vow of trust and commitment with someone. *That implies that all boyfriend-girlfriend couples don't have trust or commitment because they aren't married.*


 
Tell me something, Jashwa... can you give me examples of unmarried couples who have stayed together... and raised children together, perhaps... for life?  If a marriage vow can be broken... if marriage itself is not foolproof... then having never made a vow in front of others makes the relationship far more likely to suffer.  After all, marriage is a bond... without that bond, on paper or otherwise, there is really nothing there to keep someone else from breaking you apart.  No legal recourse, anyway.

But then again, nowadays, either no one wants to be "hitched", or they cry about not being able to marry, which I find kinda strange in contrast.




Willow said:


> So basically, if I'm not married to my partner we're not committed or trust each other?


 
The question is, will you and your boyfriend be partners for life?  Will you only ever have sex with each other, for the rest of your lives?  Marriage is a public sign... a witness to others of you commitment and trust towards each other.  A promise vowed, so OTHERS know you mean it.  You may not feel it's necessary, but it is a courtesy to family and friends, at the very least.  Remember, that commitment and trust should already be there, even before marriage... marriage is simply an outward sign of that commitment and trust, IN FRONT OF WITNESSES.

Really, you should study the subject of marriage... it's fascinating.


----------



## Endless Humiliation (Aug 29, 2010)

Roose Hurro said:


> Tell me something, Jashwa... can you give me examples of unmarried couples who have stayed together... and raised children together, perhaps... for life?


 
GENE SIMMONS

awful awful man though


destroy the gender binary


----------



## Willow (Aug 29, 2010)

Roose Hurro said:


> The question is, will you and your boyfriend be partners for life?  Will you only ever have sex with each other, for the rest of your lives?  Marriage is a public sign... a witness to others of you commitment and trust towards each other.  A promise vowed, so OTHERS know you mean it.  You may not feel it's necessary, but it is a courtesy to family and friends, at the very least.  Remember, that commitment and trust should already be there, even before marriage... marriage is simply an outward sign of that commitment and trust, IN FRONT OF WITNESSES.
> 
> Really, you should study the subject of marriage... it's fascinating.


Why should I need a piece of paper to show that they belong to me? Why do I need witnesses to show that we promise to be with each other. Now it would be nice if me and my boyfriend [or girlfriend] were in fact partners for life. Hell, it would be just dandy to have someone in the first place. 

Also not every married couple stays together forever you know. 

Note though: I don't plan on getting married in the future, but I would try to stay loyal to one person. If they're not loyal to me then, oh well, I guess I wasn't good enough.


----------



## Endless Humiliation (Aug 30, 2010)

what does it matter

polyamory works for some folks


----------



## Willow (Aug 30, 2010)

Senzuri Champion said:


> what does it matter
> 
> polyamory works for some folks


 Not a fan of it myself personally.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Aug 30, 2010)

Senzuri Champion said:


> GENE SIMMONS



Ahhh, thank you.  I found this:



> Simmons, who has never been married, currently lives in Beverly Hills, California with longtime partner and former Playboy Playmate and actress Shannon Tweed. They have two children: a son, Nick Simmons (born January 22, 1989), and a daughter, Sophie Simmons (born July 7, 1992). He formerly has had live-in relationships with Cher and Diana Ross.



Wow, Cher and Diana Ross!




Willow said:


> Why should I need a piece of paper to show that they belong to me? Why do I need witnesses to show that we promise to be with each other. Now it would be nice if me and my boyfriend [or girlfriend] were in fact partners for life. Hell, it would be just dandy to have someone in the first place.
> 
> Also not every married couple stays together forever you know.
> 
> Note though: I don't plan on getting married in the future, but I would try to stay loyal to one person. If they're not loyal to me then, oh well, I guess I wasn't good enough.


 
Like I keep saying, the piece of paper is a LEGAL formality... the marriage CEREMONY is a cultural/social convention, a vow IN FRONT OF WITNESSES.  Nothing more, nothing less.  And I already mentioned that marriage is no guarantee... nothing in life is EVER guaranted (except death and taxes).




Senzuri Champion said:


> what does it matter
> 
> polyamory works for some folks


 
True, but then, that shows a lack of commitment... as I said, a "wham bam thank you m'am" attitude.  No marriage, no single partner, no stable family structure in which to raise children.  Which is an aspect marriage addresses, by providing a stable father/mother/children family structure.


----------



## Waffles (Aug 30, 2010)

Sometimes when I see human ideas like this (Sex banned?), it makes me wonder if humanity is getting dumber or smarter. I'm not sure which. And I think I learn more to "dissaprove" because if people get it into their heads about safe sex, etc then there would be no reason to ban it.


----------



## Willow (Aug 30, 2010)

Roose Hurro said:


> Like I keep saying, the piece of paper is a LEGAL formality... the marriage CEREMONY is a cultural/social convention, a vow IN FRONT OF WITNESSES.  Nothing more, nothing less.  And I already mentioned that marriage is no guarantee... nothing in life is EVER guaranted (except death and taxes).


 But I..why would I need a witness for it. Isn't a private "unofficial" vow with my partner good enough?

Whatever though. I guess me and my boyfriend or girlfriend will just have to trust each other and hope that we're not just lying to each other.


----------



## Endless Humiliation (Aug 30, 2010)

i wish everyone's life partners much love

and porking

lots & lots of porking


----------



## Roose Hurro (Aug 30, 2010)

Willow said:


> But I..why would I need a witness for it. Isn't a private "unofficial" vow with my partner good enough?
> 
> Whatever though. *I guess me and my boyfriend or girlfriend will just have to trust each other and hope that we're not just lying to each other.*


 
That's pretty much what it comes down to, marriage or no marriage.


----------



## Point_Blank (Aug 30, 2010)

GUYS IT'S JUST LIKE HALF-LIFE 2
CONSERVATIVES ARE ACTUALLY THE TRANSHUMAN ARM OF THE COMBINE


----------



## Tufts (Sep 1, 2010)

yes, lets ban sex and end the human race. *eyerolls*


----------



## Aleu (Sep 1, 2010)

Tufts said:


> yes, lets ban sex and end the human race. *eyerolls*


 I guess someone didn't read the OP.

Does Octo-Mom ring a bell?


----------



## Heliophobic (Sep 2, 2010)

Without Adam and Eve fucking each other, you wouldn't exist.

So yeah, who the hell bans natural human reproduction?


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Sep 2, 2010)

Grycho said:


> Without Adam and Eve fucking each other, you wouldn't exist.
> 
> So yeah, who the hell bans natural human reproduction?


 
Someone who is a wheel short of a trailer park.


----------



## slydude851 (Sep 2, 2010)

It was banned in different countries around the world a while back.  They failed misrably.  Enforcing the no-sex rule is going to be insanely hard in itself.  Plus, I'd like to try it before it ever does get banned.  Gay and regular.


----------



## foxmusk (Sep 3, 2010)

Grycho said:


> Without Adam and Eve fucking each other, you wouldn't exist.
> 
> So yeah, who the hell bans natural human reproduction?


 
eve was impregnated by the serpent, creating bestiality, which is why they were kicked out of the garden. adam later became attracted to the he-spawn of the snake and female, and thus created homosexuality. the serpent then went off and mated with his she-spawns, creating incest, and they continued to thrive until mutation drove them into becoming what we call "humans". eve died of complications and bite wounds.

that's the real story. i promise.


----------



## Scruffaluffagus (Sep 3, 2010)

I don't understand how one can go about banning sex.

Like the anti-sodomy laws that used to be in effect in America. Like, it's near impossible to enforce because it happens in the privacy of people's homes.

You'd have to be all Orwellian society in order to like, totally ban sex.

I like sex, it's nice. I don't want it banned. *shrug*


----------

