Thread: Homosexuals and polygamy

Originally Posted by LJ2

But you left something out that homosexuals are incapable of.

An impotent man is unable to perform sexual intercourse so what's the big deal?

Originally Posted by Mrs. M

An impotent man is unable to perform sexual intercourse so what's the big deal?

Are you saying that homosexuals are like injured or diseased heterosexuals?

Originally Posted by LJ2

Are you saying that homosexuals are like injured or diseased heterosexuals?

I'm saying just what I said.:rolleyes: You're making a big deal out of how homosexuals have sex and yet, there are plenty of heterosexuals that have sex in the same way. If you'd stay out of the bedrooms of homosexuals, you wouldn't have to be bothered with how they perform in there.

Originally Posted by Mrs. M

Oh really? Then why would you write "if two gay people have a sexual attraction toward each other and want to get married, then I believe they should be allowed too." I'm sure all of us have felt sexual attraction for others at one time or another in our lives without being in love with them and since I don't recommend a loveless marriage, I stand by what I originally wrote.

Why should they get special benefits from the government just because they have a love each other. Can't they love someone of the opposite sex? Why should anyone including the opposite sex marriages get special benefits? How is that fair to the person who does not have someone he can love. I believe that marriage should be a completely private matter, but I don't think that love is a good reason for gays to be able to marry the same sex. I believe that freedom is the only good reason. Why can't a gay love someone of the opposite sex if "sexual attraction" had nothing to do with love?

Originally Posted by Mrs. M

I'm saying just what I said.:rolleyes: You're making a big deal out of how homosexuals have sex and yet, there are plenty of heterosexuals that have sex in the same way. If you'd stay out of the bedrooms of homosexuals, you wouldn't have to be bothered with how they perform in there.

They're asking me to recognize their bizarre relationship. I didn't ask to be involved.

And there is a public health risk. They're more likely to spread AIDS than heterosexuals. They're more likely to spread hepatitis than heterosexuals. That's because they use their body parts for activities they weren't designed for. And its because they are much likely to come in contact with feces.

Originally Posted by LJ2

They're asking me to recognize their bizarre relationship. I didn't ask to be involved.

And there is a public health risk. They're more likely to spread AIDS than heterosexuals. They're more likely to spread hepatitis than heterosexuals. That's because they use their body parts for activities they weren't designed for. And its because they are much likely to come in contact with feces.

If you don't sleep with a gay person, why would you need to worry about STD's? It is the bisexuals you should be upset with. If a gay man has a STD it will spread only in other gay men. It is the fault of the bisexual that it crossess over into the heterosexuals.

Originally Posted by GrayMan

Why should they get special benefits from the government just because they have a love each other. Can't they love someone of the opposite sex? Why should anyone including the opposite sex marriages get special benefits? How is that fair to the person who does not have someone he can love. I believe that marriage should be a completely private matter, but I don't think that love is a good reason for gays to be able to marry the same sex. I believe that freedom is the only good reason. Why can't a gay love someone of the opposite sex if "sexual attraction" had nothing to do with love?

You're going down a different avenue here. The issue isn't whether or not married couples should get special benefits but rather that homosexuals are not allowed to marry the ones they love. Also, I think you're just trying to be obstinate in saying that love isn't a good reason for gays to be able to marry the same sex. Would it suit you any better if I said that gays should have the freedom to marry the one they love?

As for sexual attraction having nothing to do with love, that's not what I said. One can be sexually attracted to another without love, one can love another without sexual attraction and one can love and be sexual attracted at the same time to another.

Originally Posted by Mrs. M

Thank you...as for the heart, well, I wouldn't have married my late husband had I not loved him with all my heart.

You're late husband? I hope you aren't referring to your recent husband, from a few years ago.

Originally Posted by LJ2

They're asking me to recognize their bizarre relationship. I didn't ask to be involved.

And there is a public health risk. They're more likely to spread AIDS than heterosexuals. They're more likely to spread hepatitis than heterosexuals. That's because they use their body parts for activities they weren't designed for. And its because they are much likely to come in contact with feces.

Are they inviting you to watch them in the bedrooms? Are they inviting you to their weddings? If you answer no to both questions, then there's no need for you to be involved in their relationships.

My late husband had Hepatitis C that he got from a blood transfusion a year or two before blood was screened for it. I had unprotected sex with him for six months before he was diagnosed and then continued to have unprotected sex for the next 19 years. I was tested yearly for 18 years though the doctor felt that the risk was low considering we were in a monogamous relationship. Many gays are also in monogamous relationships and they're risk is no higher than mine was. While we all know that your focus is on where a gay man puts his penis, what we don't know is why you object to how lesbians have sex.

Originally Posted by panteth4H2o

You're late husband? I hope you aren't referring to your recent husband, from a few years ago.

You may have taken a break from here at the time but my husband died in April of 2007.
(You did disappear for awhile but I can't recall exactly when.)

Originally Posted by Mrs. M

You're going down a different avenue here. The issue isn't whether or not married couples should get special benefits but rather that homosexuals are not allowed to marry the ones they love. Also, I think you're just trying to be obstinate in saying that love isn't a good reason for gays to be able to marry the same sex. Would it suit you any better if I said that gays should have the freedom to marry the one they love?

As for sexual attraction having nothing to do with love, that's not what I said. One can be sexually attracted to another without love, one can love another without sexual attraction and one can love and be sexual attracted at the same time to another.

Is it impossible for a homosexual to love someone of the opposite sex, and why not if the only difference is gender attraction? They have the same freedom as everyone else.

Originally Posted by Mrs. M

While we all know that your focus is on where a gay man puts his penis, what we don't know is why you object to how lesbians have sex.

Didn't I point that out a few pages ago?

Something about a "pass."

Originally Posted by GrayMan

Is it impossible for a homosexual to love someone of the opposite sex, and why not if the only difference is gender attraction? They have the same freedom as everyone else.

Yes. It's impossible.

Are you implying that people should enter into sham marriages