Homosexuality: Right or Wrong?

[obfuscator]

 

The majority of people in the world believe homosexuality is wrong also, but it is accepted. I live in Canada. When polls were done, about public opinion as to whether gay marriage should be legalized, 53% of Canada's population was against it. If one of the most "progressive" countries in the world is more against than for it, how do you think the billions of people in the more traditional countries feel? I can assure you, there are far more who oppose then support gay marriage.

 

 

You have absolutely no idea about global feelings about homosexuality. You're making things up.

 

 

As I have said before, if you actually read my posts, I am merely attempting to clarify the church's position on this issue. I have many gay friends. They all know my beliefs and accept them as my opinions. I have never tried to force them to change their ways and never will, because in their opinion, what they are doing is fine, and as much as I disagree with it I accept it, because I cannot and should not force people to change their minds. I am merely trying to explain my views and my reasons for having them.

 

 

 

You think you are so "progressive" to be able to call me closed minded just because I believe in something that doesn't have to be shoved right in front of my face? There are a lot of things that have no "evidence" for existence, and just because you don't agree with the existence of sin you point out the fact that there is no writing on the wall. I am sure there are many things you believe that have no evidence for them, or less evidence then sin does, either way. Global warming perhaps?

 

 

There's a difference between not having to have things shoved right in front of your face and plain ignorance. For years and years scientists in all fields have presented non-religious evidence and all the church does is "nananana, I can't hear you", desperately trying to keep their primitive beliefs alive.

 

 

You say society cannot function with Hitler killing whoever he wanted? He killed 6 million people. That was a horrible loss of life.

 

Abortion kills 1.7 million children in the United States ALONE each year, probably close to 100 million world wide. That is accepted, isn't it? Society still functions? Yes it does.

 

 

Ok, that's just being sad

 

 

And yes, it is a test of faith, being gay. We all have tests of faith. Even if you are not religious, daily life, and society requires that time and time again, we chose between what is right and what is easy.

 

 

Fact is, there's nothing wrong with homosexuality. And "test of faith" is one of those non-arguments religious people make up whenever something can't be explained with normal reasoning.

 

 

I am sure you have made those choices, for better or worse, at some point, and I am sure you will again, as will I. Just because you want to do something doesn't mean you have to do it. You suggest that we should act on whatever feels natural, but if we did that, we would be no better than animals.

 

Fact is, we are animals. We're built exactly the same.

 

 

 

You say I am ignoring things, but it's really not true. There have been polls done that show that the most progressive areas are very closely divided about this issue. If the 10% of the worlds !st world country population are closely divided, how do you think the third world countries feel.

 

 

 

http://www.compas.ca/polls/050202-SameSex-EPC.htm

 

 

 

You say there is nothing wrong with homosexuality. That is my opinion, yours differs, get over it.

 

 

 

If we are animals, why can we think?

 

 

 

You say I am being sad to talk about abortion? Try explaining yourself rather then blustering away.

[Serpent Eye]

[hide=Totally off-topic]I think we should and debates before a whole seperate, nasty can of worms is opened up...

 

 

 

While it's certainly 100% okay to base your opinions on homosexuality around religion, I don't think it's wise for anyone to start arguing about their religion, no matter how "misunderstood" it may be to some. This is a seperate issue, which has a fair few seperate topics devoted to it.

 

 

 

We seem to be deviating from the OT.[/hide]

[Sly_Wizard]

This was started by someone asking for proof that being homosexual isn't a choice. Some of us came to the conclusion that we do not "decide" what orientation we are - it just comes down to personal preferences which is on a subconscious level I am pretty sure. Now, where is your proof that we're wrong?

 

 

 

You haven't provided proof that you're "right". That's the problem.

 

 

 

They are different - that's the whole point of my response. Your age =/= your gender. We don't have bathrooms based on age. The reason pedophilia relationships aren't allowed are because it is an endangerment to the well-being of the children. What types of moral reasons are there for why homosexuality isn't allowed?

 

 

 

You... Still didn't get the point :|

 

 

 

So we're just assuming that they are lying about not being able to control themselves? A thief makes the conscious decision to take what is not his. A homosexual is more turned on by the same sex. You can control what you take from others but you can't control what turns you on. Analogically speaking, can you make yourself like eating cardboard?

 

 

 

That's not what I'm saying, either. Your argument seems to be that gay people are born gay because someone who is gay said he or she was born gay. Such an argument means nothing, as it basically relies on the person's personal testimony about themselves to determine whether or not something is true or false. If someone who is gay is allowed to use the argument that they are born gay and it to be taken as true, then why can't a thief argue that he was born to steal and it be taken as true, as well.

 

 

 

Of course it is, you assumed to know my response and misrepresented my opinion and stance. But that's not what matters.

 

 

 

Maybe so, but it was done to make a point.

 

 

 

Love is hard to define and measure, so these questions are difficult to reach a consensus about. But in both cases (age and gender) the feelings of love might well be equivalent. The problems arise when you look at why society prevents one kind of relationship and allows the other. We don't allow relationships between old men and young girls because although the feelings of love on the old man's behalf might well be genuine the young girl isn't developed to a stage where she can make an informed decision as to whether or not she reciprocates. The law serves to protect the child but doesn't necessarily discredit the love of the old man. Besides, if the old man pleaded that he loved the child then surely he wouldn't abuse her?

 

 

 

The point isn't that it's all fatalistic and predetermined. There are lots decisions and choices that will probably be made before falling for someone. But the experience of most relationships is that once you feel attracted to someone it's very hard to shake that feeling, as much as you might want to.

 

 

 

And now you're grasping the point. If love is hard to define and measure, then you can't use the "They should be allowed to marry because they're in love!" argument, as it is essentially meaningless.

 

 

 

Sexual attraction is more deeply rooted in our genetic makeup than a tendency to steal or commit murder. It's more likely that a propensity to steal results from the way someone is brought up and the circumstances that they are in, particularly the latter. Although sexual attraction probably isn't entirely genetic, there is more evidence of things like testosterone levels in the womb having a strong correlation to the likely sexual orientation of the child. This is why they are inappropriate to compare.

 

 

 

Wow... Way to overanalyze. See my response to Zierro above :

[ThurinEthir]

 

That's not what I'm saying, either. Your argument seems to be that gay people are born gay because someone who is gay said he or she was born gay. Such an argument means nothing, as it basically relies on the person's personal testimony about themselves to determine whether or not something is true or false. If someone who is gay is allowed to use the argument that they are born gay and it to be taken as true, then why can't a thief argue that he was born to steal and it be taken as true, as well.

 

 

Aren't there lie detectors? Of course, those aren't 100% accurate and there would be exceptions, but I'd think that if someone did some testing, they would find a solid answer.

 

It's not concrete proof either, but the fact that such a large majority of the homosexual population says it wasn't a choice is rather convincing. I don't think a large percentage of thieves say they were naturally thieves, or do they?

[Shinjula]

OK I've posted this several times in this thread to no avail (admittedly I havent grouped it all together like this before), I guess im still vainly hoping Sly will pay attention to it although I know he almost certainly wont.

 

 

 

Reasons scientists believe homosexuality is not a choice.

 

 

 

1) Animals. Homosexual behaviour is seen in all known mamalian life. Even lower mammalian forms show homosexualality, these creatures have small enough brains that it is incredibly unlikely that they are capable of choice in the manner suggested.

 

2) Twin studies. Several studies on twin show a large correlation between homosexuality and genetics.

 

3) Success of 'curing' programs. Although many programs report success levels between 40% and 80%, when actually checked scientifically using te same methods in a controlled environment success rates of only 0.5% have been achieved.

 

4) Psychological analysis. General practice of therapy of homosexuals invariably brings no results when psychologists go looking for a 'choice'.

 

5) Straight people. Invariably straight people can never recount a point where they chose to be straight

 

6) Homosexuals. Invariably homosexuals can never recount a point when they chose to be straight

 

 

 

ok? you wanted more than anecdotal evidence, well here it is.

[Bauke]

 

You say I am ignoring things, but it's really not true. There have been polls done that show that the most progressive areas are very closely divided about this issue. If the 10% of the worlds !st world country population are closely divided, how do you think the third world countries feel.

 

 

 

http://www.compas.ca/polls/050202-SameSex-EPC.htm

 

 

That poll was in 2005, and is Canada only. You can't generalize that to a global population. Also just because a lot of people presumingly agree with you doesn't mean you are right. It's not an argument about the actual content, it's a demographic factor.

 

 

You say there is nothing wrong with homosexuality. That is my opinion, yours differs, get over it.

 

 

Great way to defend yourself. Out of arguments or something? You have been completely ignoring all my arguments in the posts above. Not that it's new. That always happens with religious people run out of arguments and need to find other ways to defend their idiotic beliefs.

 

 

If we are animals, why can we think?

 

 

Quite an odd definition of animals do you have there. You have absolutely no idea about what defines being an animal. Also, fyi: animals do think, they just don't have the cognitive capacities that we have.

 

 

You say I am being sad to talk about abortion? Try explaining yourself rather then blustering away.

 

If you'd actually read the link... Comparing with Hitler is just a sad way to prove your point. Godwin's law = you fail.

 

 

 

Also it doesn't make sense at all. But that's coherent with the rest of your post.

 

 

 

And to add to the poster above: there are also biological differences in the brain between straights and gays. Structural differences have been observed in the brains of homosexuals.

[assassin_696]

And now you're grasping the point. If love is hard to define and measure, then you can't use the "They should be allowed to marry because they're in love!" argument, as it is essentially meaningless.

 

 

 

That wasn't really my argument though. My point was simply this: Love is a way of saying that you're attracted to someone. People tend not to choose who they fall in love with. Hence who you are attracted to is not a simple choice.

 

 

 

Don't get hung up on me wording it as if it was a logical argument, I know it's not and was just using it to illustrate a point.

[obfuscator]

 

That poll was in 2005, and is Canada only. You can't generalize that to a global population. Also just because a lot of people presumingly agree with you doesn't mean you are right. It's not an argument about the actual content, it's a demographic factor.

 

 

 

 

What about the fact that California, one of the most progressive states, just voted by public opinion to take away the rights of gays to marry?

 

 

Great way to defend yourself. Out of arguments or something? You have been completely ignoring all my arguments in the posts above. Not that it's new. That always happens with religious people run out of arguments and need to find other ways to defend their idiotic beliefs.

 

 

 

I would defend myself if you gave me any reason for your assumptions. So far all you have been doing is calling me medieval and idiotic.

 

 

 

 

Quite an odd definition of animals do you have there. You have absolutely no idea about what defines being an animal. Also, fyi: animals do think, they just don't have the cognitive capacities that we have.

 

 

 

 

Something makes us different. Because we can think far more than animals, we are more then just animals. Look at society around you, and what we have created, and I think it is foolish to say we are no better then animals.

 

 

If you'd actually read the link... Comparing with Hitler is just a sad way to prove your point. Godwin's law = you fail.

 

 

 

Also it doesn't make sense at all. But that's coherent with the rest of your post.

 

 

 

It really seems all you can do it personally attack me rather then actually say anything worthwhile. And if you actually read my posts, I only brought up Hitler as an example because someone else did. I was replying to their point. But as you say, it is pretty sad to use Hitler as an example.

 

 

 

 

 

 

You don't seem to understand what I'm saying. "Wrong" does not exist in the sense that it is "wrong" because God says so. Things are only "wrong" because it is what the majority of certain groups/nations/etc believes. The reason what Hitler did was "wrong" was because the majority of the people in the world thought it was wrong. The reason the majority thinks this is because they believe that society would not be able to function if we allowed these things. Sorry if you don't like it, but until you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt/even show me the slightest bit of evidence for a) God's existence, B) That you know HIS MIND AND HIS WILL, then I don't believe a word you say. I'm not defending Hitler here, what he did was despicable, but it wasn't "wrong" in the sense that you believe.

 

 

 

 

 

And to add to the poster above: there are also biological differences in the brain between straights and gays. Structural differences have been observed in the brains of homosexuals.

 

 

 

I'm not arguing that. Sexual attraction, is, for sure, mostly genetic. What I am saying is because we are human, we can choose to act on our want's and desires, we don't have to let our instincts control us.

[Ginger_Warrior]

I'm not arguing that. Sexual attraction, is, for sure, mostly genetic. What I am saying is because we are human, we can choose to act on our want's and desires, we don't have to let our instincts control us.

 

No one is disputing this.

 

 

 

But can you come up with one decent reason why heterosexual couples should be allowed to act on their "wants", yet homosexual couples should not?

 

 

 

Something makes us different. Because we can think far more than animals, we are more then just animals.

 

Thumbs. Essentially, our sophistication as humans stems from our ability to use tools and write in a common language. Nothing to do with homosexuality.

 

 

 

Now stop raising strawmen.

[Zierro]

You haven't provided proof that you're "right". That's the problem.

 

 

 

I don't think stubbornly refusing to look at the evidence constitutes as us being wrong. Are you really gonna debunk all of Shinjula's list?

 

 

 

That's not what I'm saying, either. Your argument seems to be that gay people are born gay because someone who is gay said he or she was born gay. Such an argument means nothing, as it basically relies on the person's personal testimony about themselves to determine whether or not something is true or false. If someone who is gay is allowed to use the argument that they are born gay and it to be taken as true, then why can't a thief argue that he was born to steal and it be taken as true, as well.

 

 

 

I never chose to be aroused by women - my hormones dictate that. Guess my testimony is bologna too then right?

 

 

 

And now you're grasping the point. If love is hard to define and measure, then you can't use the "They should be allowed to marry because they're in love!" argument, as it is essentially meaningless.

 

 

 

Homosexuals should be allowed to marry because they're in love and there is no harm done. Quite different from a relationship of a pedophile. Pedophiles have valid reasons against why they shouldn't be in love and why they shouldn't have relationships. This doesn't apply to homosexual relationships - unless you want to bring up the bible. :roll: By the way, what's the name of this thread? Oh yeah! Homosexuality - Right or Wrong?

[Bauke]

 

What about the fact that California, one of the most progressive states, just voted by public opinion to take away the rights of gays to marry?

 

 

How about read my post and understand what I say? This is exactly why you can't generalize.

 

 

 

 

I would defend myself if you gave me any reason for your assumptions. So far all you have been doing is calling me medieval and idiotic.

 

 

I suggest you re-read.

 

 

Something makes us different. Because we can think far more than animals, we are more then just animals. Look at society around you, and what we have created, and I think it is foolish to say we are no better then animals.

 

 

We have achieved more to what I stated above, our cognitive capacities, our ability to learn and all other brain stuff unique to humans. Yet, we are built up exactly the same. Heck, embryo's of most mammals look exactly the same in early stages. Genetic markup only differs by a few percent. We're just like monkeys, with just a tad bit more brain capacity.

 

 

 

What humans have created as an society is an effect which says nothing about conceptual differences between humans and other animals.

 

 

 

Humans being animal is simply a fact. Doing great stuff like shooting rockets in the sky doesn't change our biology.

 

 

But as you say, it is pretty sad to use Hitler as an example.

 

 

Then that's something we agree on.

 

 

I'm not arguing that. Sexual attraction, is, for sure, mostly genetic.

 

 

Not "mostly". There is a genetic influence, that's all science can tell us at this point.

 

 

What I am saying is because we are human, we can choose to act on our want's and desires, we don't have to let our instincts control us.

 

Yeah... so? What's the point in saying that? Just because you can control you should? Non-argument.

[Zierro]

I'm not arguing that. Sexual attraction, is, for sure, mostly genetic. What I am saying is because we are human, we can choose to act on our want's and desires, we don't have to let our instincts control us.

 

 

 

In the context of murder, that's understandable. Animals kill each other all the time but they do so because they have no understanding of morality. The point behind cognitive thinking is to solve problems. Humans can make the choice not to murder because we understand that it is a problem that should be solved (by not murdering). That doesn't hold true for homosexuality though. Nothing points to homosexuality being a problem other than bogus procreation arguments.

[Howlin0001]

I'm not arguing that. Sexual attraction, is, for sure, mostly genetic. What I am saying is because we are human, we can choose to act on our want's and desires, we don't have to let our instincts control us.

 

 

 

In the context of murder, that's understandable. Animals kill each other all the time but they do so because they have no understanding of morality.

 

 

 

I though animals killed each other for food and women and invasion of land?

[Rainy_Day]

I'm not arguing that. Sexual attraction, is, for sure, mostly genetic. What I am saying is because we are human, we can choose to act on our want's and desires, we don't have to let our instincts control us.

 

 

 

In the context of murder, that's understandable. Animals kill each other all the time but they do so because they have no understanding of morality.

 

 

 

I though animals killed each other for food and women and invasion of land?

 

Just about what I was thinking. I don't believe it's their understanding of morality, it's just that their morals don't have anything regarding killing, since it is simply in their nature.

[Tahvo]

Personally I'm not Homosexual but i mean i don't believe its someone's choice to be homosexual.

 

 

 

If Someones Homosexual, Im fine with that.

[BlueLancer]

I'm not arguing that. Sexual attraction, is, for sure, mostly genetic. What I am saying is because we are human, we can choose to act on our want's and desires, we don't have to let our instincts control us.

 

 

 

In the context of murder, that's understandable. Animals kill each other all the time but they do so because they have no understanding of morality.

 

 

 

I though animals killed each other for food and women and invasion of land?

 

 

 

Female animals kill too.. In fact when it comes to the most powerful animal species like lions, the male head of the pack just sits there in the savannah sleeping like an [wagon] all day & gets food brought to him.. It's the mothers who kill other animals and teach their offspring how to kill as well.

[Zierro]

I'm not arguing that. Sexual attraction, is, for sure, mostly genetic. What I am saying is because we are human, we can choose to act on our want's and desires, we don't have to let our instincts control us.

 

 

 

In the context of murder, that's understandable. Animals kill each other all the time but they do so because they have no understanding of morality.

 

 

 

I though animals killed each other for food and women and invasion of land?

 

 

 

Mostly, but sometimes it's unnecessary. Cats kill critters all the time just for fun. Anyways, if we killed each other over territory, women, and food then that would be a pretty bad thing. For animals, killing can be very necessary for survival. People can survive without killing - killing just causes us more problems and since we have the mental capacity to comprehend that, we deem killing as morally unacceptable. What kind of problems does homosexuality cause us? The difference between an animal's actions and a human's actions would be that we have morality to show us what we should or shouldn't do, but what is so immoral about homosexuality?

[jetset516]

What kind of problems does homosexuality cause us?

 

 

 

Much like bestiality, public masturbation, bigamy, and necrophilia just to name a few, there are no "problems" caused by homosexuality. But, the common theme between homosexuality and those other kinks I just mentioned are that they are all just that...kinks. None of them are anything beyond a preferred method of getting yourself off. Regardless of whether it is genetic or not, to act on such thoughts (or rather to not act) is part of what separates us from lower forms of life.

 

Point being on topic, it's wrong. Now, that said what one does in private - hey more power to ya. However those of us who don't engage in those acts do not wish to hear about it 24/7 on television, in print, movies, etc...keep it in the proverbial closet where your chosen method of orgasm belongs.

 

And the whole marriage thing? IDK...it should be given as much credence as my wanting to marry a tree, or a dog, or an abstract concept, like November 23rd, or the color brown. Laughable IMO.

[Zierro]

Much like bestiality, public masturbation, bigamy, and necrophilia just to name a few, there are no "problems" caused by homosexuality. But, the common theme between homosexuality and those other kinks I just mentioned are that they are all just that...kinks.

 

 

 

Exactly, but I don't think homosexuality should belong on that list of kinks because it is very different.

 

 

 

Bestiality is essentially rape. How can an animal give it's consent to a human? In a relationship between two consenting homos, there is no rape involved.

 

 

 

As for public masturbation, I guess I'm stumped on that one. I was going to say because it's gross and no one wants to see it but that could be used against homosexuality too. However, I don't think having a different preference than you is usually considered just as gross as doing sexual things out in the open where everyone can see. That would only apply to homophobes. Sex should stay out of public - appropriate PDA (kissing, hugging) shouldn't be classified on the same level, no matter who's doing it.

 

 

 

Necrophilia is disrespectful to those being violated. I don't know if you can consider it as rape, but it's very identical. Plus, if anyone heard the news that one of their deceased family members were molested then I'm sure they wouldn't be too happy.

 

 

 

As long as both partners are consenting and they don't go as far as having sex in public, then I see homosexuality as a totally different concept than those things. Bigamy I'm not too sure of. I don't see a problem in marrying more than one person so I think that it should be legal as well - as long as both wives/husbands are fully aware of the situation and as long as it's really possible to love more than one person at a time.

[Howlin0001]

Point being on topic, it's wrong. Now, that said what one does in private - hey more power to ya. However those of us who don't engage in those acts do not wish to hear about it 24/7 on television, in print, movies, etc...keep it in the proverbial closet where your chosen method of orgasm belongs.

 

 

 

What about straight people are they meant to keep it in the proverbial closet where your chosen method of orgasm belongs as well or are they let to have it 24/7 on television, in print, movies, etc?

[jetset516]

Point being on topic, it's wrong. Now, that said what one does in private - hey more power to ya. However those of us who don't engage in those acts do not wish to hear about it 24/7 on television, in print, movies, etc...keep it in the proverbial closet where your chosen method of orgasm belongs.

 

 

 

What about straight people are they meant to keep it in the proverbial closet where your chosen method of orgasm belongs as well or are they let to have it 24/7 on television, in print, movies, etc?

 

 

 

Well, straight people for lack of a better word are, "normal", at least sexually. Whether you believe in the bible, or in evolution, homosexual activity goes against the fundamental "norm". As it's been said before, God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. Or if you are totally believing in evolution (which is myself) 99% of species on this planet procreate between genders, not within them.

 

 

 

So back to your reply, I don't think public displays are 100% appropriate, and straight people can be just as rude as gays, no argument there. However this whole "choice" word is a bit laughable to me (as is the word homophobe). If being gay is genetic, then how are there more now than ever in the history of mankind? Think of a genetic event, say blue eyes. If people with blue eyes suddenly stopped reproducing...for say, 3000 years. How many blue eyed people would there be?

 

 

 

My main point again...is it wrong...in private? Well that's not mine to say. In public? Yep.

[Nenga]

Point being on topic, it's wrong. Now, that said what one does in private - hey more power to ya. However those of us who don't engage in those acts do not wish to hear about it 24/7 on television, in print, movies, etc...keep it in the proverbial closet where your chosen method of orgasm belongs.

 

 

 

What about straight people are they meant to keep it in the proverbial closet where your chosen method of orgasm belongs as well or are they let to have it 24/7 on television, in print, movies, etc?

 

 

 

Well, straight people for lack of a better word are, "normal", at least sexually. Whether you believe in the bible, or in evolution, homosexual activity goes against the fundamental "norm". As it's been said before, God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. Or if you are totally believing in evolution (which is myself) 99% of species on this planet procreate between genders, not within them.

 

 

 

So back to your reply, I don't think public displays are 100% appropriate, and straight people can be just as rude as gays, no argument there. However this whole "choice" word is a bit laughable to me (as is the word homophobe). If being gay is genetic, then how are there more now than ever in the history of mankind? Think of a genetic event, say blue eyes. If people with blue eyes suddenly stopped reproducing...for say, 3000 years. How many blue eyed people would there be?

 

 

 

My main point again...is it wrong...in private? Well that's not mine to say. In public? Yep.

 

How do you know there are more now than ever in history? Gays don't make it into history, and in older history people believed more in the bible and would have probably killed them for being gay. You have no proof that now there are more gay people. I don't remember any gay people from before I was born, i'm sure they were still around though.

[kehllz]

I have no problem with homosexuality. First of all, it isn't really a choice. You can't choose who to love. Second, it's their life, why should we judge their actions. I say let two dudes kiss as long as they're not shoving the fact in my face. Yes, I'm a christian, a devote one too, but I can't see a loving God judging people merely on who they love. And to everyone who says that it's in the Bible, so is not sitting in a chair someone else has flatulated in. If you don't do that, then go ahead and use the bible to argue against homosexuality, but until then, don't pick and choose what portions of the Bible you should select.

 

 

 

Oh, and one more thing that gets me. Why isn't homosexuality on of the Ten? The fourth is "Obey thy father and mother." Why is it then no one gets in such big deals about doing what mommy says as they do about two guys/gals get hitched.

[r4ngewarlord]

im okay with gay people ive got nothing against them its just if find well gay men kissing a bit odd thier nice people but what they do in thier spare time sorta freaks me out.

 

as for the lesbians they dont wierd me out as much but i think thats because im a guy and theres not that fear...

[3rkid]

im okay with gay people ive got nothing against them its just if find well gay men kissing a bit odd thier nice people but what they do in thier spare time sorta freaks me out.

 

as for the lesbians they dont wierd me out as much but i think thats because im a guy and theres not that fear...

 

 

 

I don't think you've seen ugly lesbians kiss.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

:ohnoes: :ohnoes: