Thread: Homosexuals and polygamy

Let's review...the anti-gay marriage crowd likes to focus on the sexual relations in a marriage as if that's the only bond between two people. They claim, without any proof whatsoever, that gay marriage will degrade society because gays don't have "normal" sex. They also say that the rectum isn't a sexual organ but I'm betting that none would the chance to do their wives in the ass. I wonder how many of them have tried the "titty fuck" or have received blow jobs...
I suggest that the anti-gay marriage crowd focus on other aspects of marriage, like LOVE, and then tell us why two people in LOVE shouldn't be allowed to marry.

Originally Posted by Eagle88

Can you deny that marriage and family are in worse straights then they were several years before? Marriage and family were stronger prior to no fault divorce, prior to when the living together outside of wedlock lifestyle became more accepted, etc. These things affected marriage and family in much the same way that homosexual "marriage" will take effect. The results won't occur immediately but will happen over time and marriage, family and, by result, society will be worse off for it.

You are making a false association between gay marriage and the trends in heterosexual infidelity. Your claim that it won't happen immediately is also the fallacy of Moving the Goalpost.

Gay marriage has been institutionalized in Massachusetts for six years now, which happens to also be the state with the lowest divorce rate

And why do so many children need homes? Because of the breakdown of the family. Adding more mud to the pond won't make the pond clearer even if it seems to provide benefits elsewhere.

One doesn't follow the other and that claim falls victim to Circular Reasoning.

Gays helping take care of needy children does not create the problem of broken homes.

This is about degradation, not about what you or I consider moral values. Stop creating straw men. How would you like it if I said something to the effect of, "I've read your past posts and I can clearly see that your morals believe that gay marriage should be allowed. Well, where do you get the gall to legislate your morals?"

You tried to make a broad moral value judgment against gay people in a number of your posts, and now you are trying to deny it or deny that it had anything to do with this debate.

My point in this particular section was that defining marriage as between a man and a woman does not force any action or inaction. If you doubt that then prove me wrong. What action or lack of action does it force? All it does is define what the state will recognize as a marriage, not force anyone to do anything. Indeed, gay people are still allowed to be gay, they can still do what they want in their bedrooms. The law just won't legally recognize it. Heck, we don't even stop them from having their own version of a "ceremony" and calling that a "marriage". It's just that the law won't legally recognize it.

That's one thing about conservatives that absolutely disgusts me. It's the callousness you all have for your fellow human beings.

We are hurting them are we? So if a person doesn't get what they want then somehow others are hurting them. So if I apply for a building permit and don't get it that means that the evil city council has hurt my feelings or something? I hate to sound mean but simply wanting something does not mean one is entitled to it. It seems very childish to imply an argument like that.

Want and need are two separate ideas.

Who says you are the side advocating freedom?

Freedom
-noun

The right to enjoy all the privileges or special rights of citizenship, membership, etc., in a community or the like.

Again, knock off the attempts at demoralizing us. This is just the same old recycled "You're side doesn't stand a chance of winning so just give up" argument. It won't work.

It is working because it's true.

The day is swiftly coming when you will realize the shame in being a bigot.

Originally Posted by compote_tom

You really need to ask yourself, "Why does this interest me".

White people marched with Dr. King didn't they?

Originally Posted by Mrs. M

Let's review...the anti-gay marriage crowd likes to focus on the sexual relations in a marriage as if that's the only bond between two people. They claim, without any proof whatsoever, that gay marriage will degrade society because gays don't have "normal" sex. They also say that the rectum isn't a sexual organ but I'm betting that none would the chance to do their wives in the ass. I wonder how many of them have tried the "titty fuck" or have received blow jobs...
I suggest that the anti-gay marriage crowd focus on other aspects of marriage, like LOVE, and then tell us why two people in LOVE shouldn't be allowed to marry.

Translation: No more science! We damand ignorance!

M is citing alternative sexual practices to vaginal intercourse. What she's not citing is that homosexuals can't engage in vaginal intercourse. It's impossilble because they are mismatched. Anatomy and physiology show that they don't belong together.

There has always been more to marriage than love. Adult men can love children, but we don't permit them to marry. An adult can love more than one other adult, yet we don't permit more than two to marry. Two 15 year olds can love each other, but they aren't permitted to marry except in very few places.

And there there's the original post about the research conducted by SF State. In reality, many or maybe even most homosexuals don't want a marriage. They want an arrangement where they can engage in sex with any other willing adult. That's a relationship, but it isn't a marriage.

It has been fascinating to me just how fast this conversation has been moving. Not in this thread, I mean in public opinion in general.

Look at how in 1993, Colorado adopted a constitutional amendment banning even the consideration of any LGBT rights legislation, which was struck down in 1996 by the Supreme Court in the Romer vs. Evans case. After sixteen years, Colorado is now a leader in LGBT civil rights with a domestic partnership law and LGBT non-discrimination law which outdoes even Massachusetts.

Sixteen years is a rather short amount of time to change public opinion on such a controversial social issue.

Gay marriage has seen a similar leap in public opinion, now on the verge of being a majority in a number of states including California and Maine. Polls also indicate that a majority favor gay marriage in states like Massachusetts and Rhode Island as well, as I have shown in my first post.

Originally Posted by LJ2

Translation: No more science! We damand ignorance!

M is citing alternative sexual practices to vaginal intercourse. What she's not citing is that homosexuals can't engage in vaginal intercourse. It's impossilble because they are mismatched. Anatomy and physiology show that they don't belong together.

There has always been more to marriage than love. Adult men can love children, but we don't permit them to marry. An adult can love more than one other adult, yet we don't permit more than two to marry. Two 15 year olds can love each other, but they aren't permitted to marry except in very few places.

And there there's the original post about the research conducted by SF State. In reality, many or maybe even most homosexuals don't want a marriage. They want an arrangement where they can engage in sex with any other willing adult. That's a relationship, but it isn't a marriage.

This is just toooooo funny. No, we don't allow polygamy, nor do we allow children to marry but both are forbidden for reasons other than "they can't have sex the way heterosexuals do".

So the little "research" conducted concluded that no gays people can ever engage in a monogamous marriage? Come on man, your bullshit is getting deeper and deeper....time to pull out the waders!

Originally Posted by Eagle88

It affects how people view marriage, what it means in general, etc and all of these things have a general effect on how people act towards marriage, what mindsets they enter marriage with, etc.

I have no doubt what marriage means. Allowing gays to marry would not change that an iota...

Also, I've already demonstrated some of the degradation. Do you deny that no fault divorce, the overall acceptance of the "I don't need to be married to prove that I love someone" lifestyle and other such things haven't had a general negative effect on marriages, families and thus society? Homosexual "marriage" will be like unto these. The effects may not take hold immediately but they will cause degradation of marriage over time.

Hmmm... See, here's the thing: Hetertosexuals have fucked that all up pretty well on their own. Any suggestion that, somehow, it's suddenly gonna' get all fucked up if homosexuals start to marry, is absolutely ridiculous...

Absolute baloney. This is a false attempt at stating that the only reason we oppose gay "marriage" is because our religions don't like it. It's a tactic used every time this topic comes up and ignores any points we make. Basically what you are saying is that it doesn't matter what evidence we provide, you think we should be dismissed regardless. That form of logic is on par with the debate on global warming stating that "the issue is settled science" or "scientific consensus". It allows for no real discussion on the subject and is about as close minded as things come.

Call it what you will. Reasonable people don't give a fuck if gays can marry. Homophobic Right Wing Christian zealots seem to be the only ones who care. Your points deserve to be ignored, because, at best, they're laughable. Don't get pissed at me, though, you're the one bring those "points" up...

The image you posted is ridiculous because it ignores what the point was. The sexual organs of men go with the sexual organs of women. Homosexual relationships do not have that and the sexual organs of men do not go with the sexual organs of men.

You ever get a blowjob?

I have; they're fucking great.

Yet we're told that the mouth is not a sexual organ.

My dick would disagree...

My side says that marriage will be negatively affected as in a general sense. You are making a specific statement about your own marriage. Will every marriage fall apart if we institute gay "marriage"? No.

I wouldn't expect any marriage to fall apart if we allow gays to marry. If we allow gays to marry, and any marriages fall apart, it's due to something other than Paul and Bob being able to get married...

Not every marriage will fall apart but the institution in general will be negatively affected.

How??

What will happen?

Think about it. If you are the owner of a club and you choose to change the membership requirements of the club does it not effect the club in general. It may not change everything but it does have a general effect on things.

Marriage isn't a club. You should stop trying to treat it like one...

Originally Posted by LJ2

We damand ignorance!

Oh, the fucking irony...

Originally Posted by lutherf

OK. I'm going to explain this really slow for you. As things stand pretty much any man can marry pretty much any woman. There are age restrictions and relationship restrictions and so forth but there is not a sexual orientation restriction. A homosexual woman is free to marry a homosexual man or a heterosexual man. A homosexual man may be married to either a heterosexual or a homosexual woman.

What is not allowed is for a man to marry a man or a woman to marry a woman. Again, there is no discrimination based on sexual orientation. No hetero male can marry another hetero male and so on and so forth. Nobody, in any of these scenarios is being treated any differently than anyone else.

What you have written is completely preposterous. You've invented a Rube Goldberg type of logical framework to support a bigoted position.

"A homosexual woman is free to marry a homosexual man."

..................... I don't even think its worth responding to someone who can state that and think they're making sense. To ignore the fact that consumation of a marriage means having SEX with your spouse is absurd.

Now, let's take this to the extreme. If we recognize that allowing homosexuals to marry is discriminatory then, logically, the easiest way to resolve the issue is to legalize marriage for any 2 people without regard to gender or sexual orientation. If we do that then what is to differentiate "marriage" from "living together".

Oh about a thousand things would still be different, such as all of the legal issues and estate laws regarding spouses. Right now a man and woman can live together and they aren't considered married unless they actually get married, right? If the man dies without leaving a will, his live-in girlfriend doesn't get his estate. Nor did she qualify for insurance discounts or spousal insurance coverage, or the right to file jointly, etc etc. Nor does she become the primary custodian of his children.

Your paragraph I quote here (above) almost shows you 'get it'. The main problem you have is you consider it an extreme situation, and most people consider it a normal situation that logically the easiest way to resolve the issue is to legalize marriage for any 2 people without regard to gender or sexual orientation.

Any two people could just sign up and be "married" for whatever legal benefits there were (if any). The whole traditional institution of marriage would disappear. Any semblance of "specialness" would disappear. There would, in effect, be no reason to seek the status that you folks are now looking for.

This is complete BS, because if that's what you're genuinely afraid of, then theres only about 50 million male-female couples living together who could already do this .... but for some strange reason they don't. I wonder why? BECAUSE EVERYONE KNOWS MARRIAGE IS MORE BINDING THAN A WINK.

You want a special dispensation for homosexual couples OF THE SAME SEX to marry.

It would certainly only make sense to allow people to marry someone of the gender they are sexually attracted to, but I guess I'm old fashioned like that. I don't see how that is "special dispensation". Its common sense, in complete contrast with your grand idea that gay men can freely marry gay women.

Not a single gay-basher has ever answered the question I have posed on many occasions (and I realize I'm not the first to ask this). Its not really a hard question since they all seem to think that sexual orientation is a choice.

When did you decide to become heterosexual?

Originally Posted by LJ2

It helps to have nerves in your anus so you don't soil your pants.

The clinical and pathological findings in a group of 260 homosexual men comprising 10%... A clinical pattern of anorectal and colon diseases encountered with unusual frequency in these homosexual patients is termed the gay bowel syndrome. The clinical diagnoses in decreasing order of frequency include condyloma acuminata, hemorrhoids, nonspecific proctitis, anal fistula, perirectal abscess, anal fissure, amebiasis, benign polyps, viral hepatitis, gonorrhea, syphilis, anorectal trauma and foreign bodies, shigellosis, rectal ulcers and lymphogranuloma venereum...

The gay bowel syndrome: clinico-pathologic correla... [Ann Clin Lab Sci. 1976 Mar-Apr] - PubMed result

My wife used to be an ER Nurse. She used to come home with stories about gay men with candles stuck up their rear ends, polyps that had to be surgically removed, or stories about failed rectums on gay patients having to wear "crap bags" or whatever you call them.

Originally Posted by panteth4H2o

My wife used to be an ER Nurse. She used to come home with stories about gay men with candles stuck up their rear ends, polyps that had to be surgically removed, or stories about failed rectums on gay patients having to wear "crap bags" or whatever you call them.

My mom is also a nurse, what do you know!

She comes home with stories about black people with stabbings, gunshot wounds, and and drug addictions.

See what I'm getting at? But I wouldn't use it to paint an entire minority or use it as a reason to take away their rights.

Originally Posted by Disillusioned_1

.....

When did you decide to become heterosexual?

I was born this way.