Another State Legalizes gay Marriage

[ICantSpellDawg]

BS - historically very few people identified with strict homosexuality. Find most of the historical people that you associate with homosexuality and you will find a string of heterosexual liasons even after they've come to "know themselves" by your standard.

Couple the idea that humans can have sex with whatever they want, but that sex between one man and one woman is the building bloc of human life and deserves special recognition - you have my understanding of the issue. If no man can marry any other man nor woman marry any other woman irrespective of their sexual attraction - there is no discrimination and our "special social recognition" should be changed by legislation if at all.

You idealise homosexuality by a historical standard, Koga.

[Koga No Goshi]

BS - historically very few people identified with strict homosexuality.

Point being what? When homosexuals have been burned at stakes and killed and were even targets in the Holocaust, I wouldn't expect any form of accurate headcount throughout history. Are you arguing that if some group is only 1% of the population, it's okay to oppress or persecute them, or revoke rights?

Find most of the historical people that you associate with homosexuality and you will find a string of heterosexual liasons even after they've come to "know themselves" by your standard.

Couple the idea that humans can have sex with whatever they want, but that sex between one man and one woman is the building bloc of human life and deserves special recognition - you have my understanding of the issue. If no man can marry any other man nor woman marry any other woman irrespective of their sexual attraction - there is no discrimination and our "special social recognition" should be changed by legislation if at all.

You idealise homosexuality by a historical standard, Koga.

Yes you have stated this before. There are two problems with it and they've been repeatedly pointed out. One is that it is unconstitutional to extend special rights exclusive only to people of a certain set of sexual habits. Two is that gay marriage in no way will deter heterosexual people from forming the "building block of life" relationship and have children.

Since you have repeatedly failed to illustrate that either point is incorrect, your argument is merely a statement of your own personal belief that the nature of our legal system should bend, in this one case, to make special privilege for one group and marked unrecognition of another.

And how the heck am I "Idealizing" homosexuality? Homosexuals throughout history, either in the desire to have children, appease social and familial pressures, or even for basic survival, have engaged in heterosexual relationships. And there is a complex stretch of sexuality which doesn't embrace either strict homo or heterosexuality. What is your point with that? There are heterosexuals who likewise have engaged in homosexual acts, under voluntarily or under duress, while otherwise not having any personal sexual leanings towards the same gender. I am not sure what "point" you believe you are proving with that.

[m52nickerson]

BS - historically very few people identified with strict homosexuality. Find most of the historical people that you associate with homosexuality and you will find a string of heterosexual liasons even after they've come to "know themselves" by your standard.

I have an idea Tuff, if you are so sure that people choose to be homosexual you try it! Go look at some naked pictures of men and make your self get aroused. Go watch some gay porn and see if you can really enjoy it. It should not be hard, since it is just a fetish.

What is that comment about walking in another man's shoes?

[Strike For The South]

I have an idea Tuff, if you are so sure that people choose to be homosexual you try it! Go look at some naked pictures of men and make your self get aroused. Go watch some gay porn and see if you can really enjoy it. It should not be hard, since it is just a fetish.

What is that comment about walking in another man's shoes?

walk a mile in another man's shoes before you judge him. That way you're a mile away and have his shoes

[woad&fangs]

walk a mile in another man's shoes before you judge him. That way you're a mile away and have his shoes

[ICantSpellDawg]

I have an idea Tuff, if you are so sure that people choose to be homosexual you try it! Go look at some naked pictures of men and make your self get aroused. Go watch some gay porn and see if you can really enjoy it. It should not be hard, since it is just a fetish.

What is that comment about walking in another man's shoes?

No problem! I could have sex with pretty much anything PARTICULARLY if it was a dare. I do recognize a particularly unique element to male/femal sexuality.

I think that I see it from a unique perspective in that I am honest with myself. I could engage in a sexual relationship with a man if I had to - and most likely enjoy it. I prefer females and am currently dating a girl that I love very much and that I am attracted to.

Here are some estimates for you:
I'd have to say that 99% of the porn that I watch is heterosexual. The other 1% is gay, but the interest clicks on or off for me. Of the heterosexual porn that I watch around 50% is exotic women (Black or Asian in particular), 25% is some sort of professional or scenario based fantasy and the rest is a mishmash of whatever I was thinkign about all day. I am liberated sexually. I don't engage in promiscuous sex (by todays standards) and strongly believe in heterosexual monogomy.

I can say all of this because I believe that it gives me credit to talk with more authority on the subject. I've said it all before - I'm sure much to the chagrin of posters who recall and are not intoxicated by my musky allure. I believe that sexual interests are largely chosen or pursued for conscious or subconscious reasons. I believe that if you closed your eyes and thought about it that you could become aroused by anything. I believe that homosexuals closed their eyes and thought about the wrong thing too long and it made them neurotically averse to their inherent biological function.

I stand by peoples choices to do what they want and not be pursued by the law as long as it hurts no one even abstractly., but male female unions are something that we are all equipped for biologically (barring an actual mutation or malformation). My religious slant on the issue is something else entirely. I believe that it is common sense that male/female unions are special - and so long as they are open to all, non-discriminatory.

Short of that I'd say get the government out of marriage and allow any two people to engage in contractual agreements in civil unions with no tax breaks. Why should couples get tax breaks? Why should single people be persecuted for their lifestyle choice? I think that is a better Idea anyway.

(post note : Thinking about it the heterosexual pornography is probably closer to 99.99% - but out of 100 that is still enough to make my point)

[woad&fangs]

Short of that I'd say get the government out of marriage and allow any two people to engage in contractual agreements in civil unions with no tax breaks. Why should couples get tax breaks? Why should single people be persecuted for their lifestyle choice? I think that is a better Idea anyway.

It's amazing that we've amassed over 200 posts when everyone appears to agree on this.

[ICantSpellDawg]

It's amazing that we've amassed over 200 posts when everyone appears to agree on this.

My basic point is that the government shouldn't celebrate homosexual unions. I'd rather have them celebrate NO unions at all.

I used to say that tax breaks for couples were stupid since they get a shared income bulk buying benefit anyway. If couples got rid of their tax benefits and it was combined with an overall diversification of the burden - everyone would have lower taxes relatively.

Kids benefit irrespective of government support because thye have two guardians and a more stable home life. The tax breaks and combined earnings bracket are stupid ideas for the modern era.

I honestly believe that Catholic marriage will be strengthened by a repeal of civil marriage as opposed to allowing homosexuals marry. I'm all for strenghtening spiritual marriage. Maybe then the people who have a joke of a marriage won't call it that and only those who want to go the extra mile will. The church could even make the requirements more strict.

[Koga No Goshi]

My basic point is that the government shouldn't celebrate homosexual unions. I'd rather have them celebrate NO unions at all.

How do equal rights constitute celebrating something?

[ICantSpellDawg]

How do equal rights constitute celebrating something?

Then don't think of them as celebrating people. Think of it as celebrating the union of a human penis and testes and a human vagina and ovaries. Everyone (execpt for people with a legitimate legal qualm) has one of the two of these and the union is clearly unique. It serves to bring people together more often that it forces them apart. It serves to bring new life into this world through a process that is the most magnificent and complicated that we have a handle on.

It is special - everyone should realize this and it should offend no one. If they don't want to recognize it as special anymore for whatever reason they don't have to. The fact remains that the laws are still on the books and the laws should be changed by democratic brainstorming.

I just remember that arguements always sound better when other people chime in an pretend like it is the only real way to think. I think my point of view is radical and shows a more complex understanding of human sexuality than people are giving me credit for here. But that is ok

[Askthepizzaguy]

I tend to agree that the government has little business telling churches or couples that their union is legitimate, and the idea of marriage automatically getting a tax benefit is absurd to me.

Marriage should be marriage, not a tax dodge. Children should not be used as tax shelters. At the same time, I'm not prepared to raise taxes on working families.

Let's get real, though. This debate is not about taxes for one side. The debate is about legitimizing a union they disagree with.

Bottom line, gay people deserve equal rights as straight people. They are allowed to be with the one they love, they are allowed to live together and express themselves freely in public, and they pay their taxes and are a large minority of our society. When two people who don't love each other can get married under the law for the purposes of tax benefits, and divorce quite easily, the thing we call marriage is diminished. One solution is to eliminate all the benefits for all, that would make things equal.

But then, married couples' taxes would increase because of the denial of exceptions in the tax code. They would lose many of their protected legal rights, and people would lose the right to speak in their spouse's interest in medical matters, settle their estates, or visit in the hospital.

The alternative is to simply allow gays the same civil rights as straight people. But then, conservatives and religious types object that two men can call themselves "married". So to compromise, they call it a "civil union", and many people, including people who aren't even couples, can enter into a legal union like this.

This should satisfy all sides, but it doesn't. It overlooks the right of two people to consider themselves married under the law, when by all measures, they are married. It's stepping on their liberties. Unless we are prepared to condemn gays back to the dark ages, it's time to welcome them as part of civilized society, and decide for ourselves whether or not we think it's "marriage".

The thing is, it is not up to us, and it never was. if two people want to be married, neither religions nor governments nor votes can stop them. They will live as a married couple, make their vows and celebrate their union in whatever way they deem fit, remember their anniversary, and defy any law we pass which tramples on their rights.

Some states have had it with the complications. Churches will not have to accept gay marriage, but states will have to. It's the fairest way forward, it's equality and justice under the law. If that makes people squeamish, too bad.

A miscarriage of justice would be to have churches be forced to accept gay marriage. I won't go that far. Church is a private group with it's own rules. They don't have to believe "God" likes gay marriage if they don't want to. But their rights will be upheld, as well as gays. Those who refuse to accept, will go to their graves disagreeing on principle. But everyone's rights will be protected.

[m52nickerson]

I could engage in a sexual relationship with a man if I had to - and most likely enjoy it.

Congratulations, your bisexual!

[Koga No Goshi]

No problem! I could have sex with pretty much anything PARTICULARLY if it was a dare. I do recognize a particularly unique element to male/femal sexuality.

I think that I see it from a unique perspective in that I am honest with myself. I could engage in a sexual relationship with a man if I had to - and most likely enjoy it. I prefer females and am currently dating a girl that I love very much and that I am attracted to.

Here are some estimates for you:
I'd have to say that 99% of the porn that I watch is heterosexual. The other 1% is gay, but the interest clicks on or off for me. Of the heterosexual porn that I watch around 50% is exotic women (Black or Asian in particular), 25% is some sort of professional or scenario based fantasy and the rest is a mishmash of whatever I was thinkign about all day. I am liberated sexually. I don't engage in promiscuous sex (by todays standards) and strongly believe in heterosexual monogomy.

I can say all of this because I believe that it gives me credit to talk with more authority on the subject. I've said it all before - I'm sure much to the chagrin of posters who recall and are not intoxicated by my musky allure. I believe that sexual interests are largely chosen or pursued for conscious or subconscious reasons. I believe that if you closed your eyes and thought about it that you could become aroused by anything. I believe that homosexuals closed their eyes and thought about the wrong thing too long and it made them neurotically averse to their inherent biological function.

What you've just said is probably true, just in inverse, of most gay men who would identify as gay and not bi. Although probably many more of them have actually had relationships with women and seen more straight porn, due to availability and social pressures.

The question Tuff is... did you choose to be .... 99% drawn to heterosexual sexual activity? Was that a choice where at one point you had been 50% drawn one way and 50% drawn the other? For me the answer is no, I didn't choose to be straight. And I can't think of a single logical reason that people would choose to be gay.

And regarding the "special" male-female relationship... I ask again, how is that in any way challenged or questioned? At all? No one denies that is the basic foundation of procreation. Some would just deny it is the only possible, healthy or acceptable path to procreation, though no one is suggesting eliminating it or elevating something over it. Certainly women, for instance, are single mothers, or artificially inseminate, just as one example.

[ICantSpellDawg]

What you've just said is probably true, just in inverse, of most gay men who would identify as gay and not bi. Although probably many more of them have actually had relationships with women and seen more straight porn, due to availability and social pressures.

The question Tuff is... did you choose to be .... 99% drawn to heterosexual sexual activity? Was that a choice where at one point you had been 50% drawn one way and 50% drawn the other? For me the answer is no, I didn't choose to be straight. And I can't think of a single logical reason that people would choose to be gay.

I don't beleive that we choose to be straight. Heterosexuality is based on biological evidence. My parts are designed to engage in intercourse with a female irresepective of anything else I think or feel. I beleive that homosexuals are actually heterosexuals with a strong subconscious desire to engage in a specifc fetish due to varied reasons. Since there are only illusory claims of biological homosexual function (some people claim that there is a lockness monster and even provide pictures - because they want it to be there) I am skeptic that it is anything but a desired myth for some.

I have a huge desire for asian women. Why asian women? Because my first "real" relationship was with an asian woman - because she had a nice body. OR I could lie to myself and say that I was born that way and that maybe my genetic ancestors were asians and that one was adopted or something. Bunk.

The mind invents logic for the whims of the will. I'll side with the the biological reality beofre I beleive the fantasy that sounds good politically right now.

[Strike For The South]

Tuff if you are not hurting anyone or destroying property why should human whims not be indulged?

[Rhyfelwyr]

No problem! I could have sex with pretty much anything PARTICULARLY if it was a dare. I do recognize a particularly unique element to male/femal sexuality.

I think that I see it from a unique perspective in that I am honest with myself. I could engage in a sexual relationship with a man if I had to - and most likely enjoy it. I prefer females and am currently dating a girl that I love very much and that I am attracted to.

Here are some estimates for you:
I'd have to say that 99% of the porn that I watch is heterosexual. The other 1% is gay, but the interest clicks on or off for me. Of the heterosexual porn that I watch around 50% is exotic women (Black or Asian in particular), 25% is some sort of professional or scenario based fantasy and the rest is a mishmash of whatever I was thinkign about all day. I am liberated sexually. I don't engage in promiscuous sex (by todays standards) and strongly believe in heterosexual monogomy.

Gah!

Why do you do this, you are a Christian?!

Talk about fuel for the fires of hypocrisy.

Also, why on earth would you watch specifically homosexual porn? I would cut my throat sever my limbs and pluck my eyes out before I engaged in sodomy.

[Lemur]

I would cut my throat sever my limbs and pluck my eyes out before I engaged in sodomy.

Dude, that's some sick, kinky stuff you're talking about. Most people have some dark fantasies, but self-mutilation and self-blinding? That is some sick kink you got going there.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Well I was just making a point. The point was, I do not like sodomy, and I do not like losing my limbs. But I'd nonetheless choose the latter.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Rhyfelwyr-

Lemur beat me to it. Don't forget the spankings.

quite honestly christian hypocrisy is not that surprising. Much of the Bible contradicts itself, for one. Secondly, pastors, cardinals, preachers, and popes alike are guilty sinners, who often do not live up to their own standards. The people who go to church are not pure, and that is probably why they go.

I won't bash TuffStuff for being honest about his thoughts and feelings on the subject. I won't bash TuffStuff personally or use ad hominems. I will point out the inconsistencies of his argument and ask him to correct them, before I consider his argument valid.

If I cannot beat a validly presented argument from the other side, I haven't won the debate, and at best it's an "agree to disagree" situation. But the other side hasn't presented a valid argument yet, by most reasonable standards.

PS- keeping this PG-rated, I'd much rather be explored from behind than lose a limb or an eye. Temporary discomfort is worse than permanent amputation/blindness.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Gah!

Why do you do this, you are a Christian?!

Talk about fuel for the fires of hypocrisy.

Also, why on earth would you watch specifically homosexual porn? I would cut my throat sever my limbs and pluck my eyes out before I engaged in sodomy.

I'd kill a man, too if he was a jerk and I could get away with it.

Sodomy means BJ's too.

I view people as inherently amoral - probably because I am inherently amoral. I'm also a reformed vicious psychopath. I'm a Christian because I am so fundamentally flawed. I look to reduce my reliance on things that don't matter or are harmful physically, emotionally or spiritually. Or I could just embrace them and tear the world apart.

The only borders that we have are self imposed; consciously or not. Unless there is a clear biological function to something physiological that can be scientifically quantified - I will err on the side of caution. I firmly believe that our minds and "free-wills "determine much more than we think they do.

[Askthepizzaguy]

I think that using a q-tip on your ear, or having a colonoscopy could qualify as sodomy as well. It's just an archaic and senseless term for something which should be legal between consenting adults, because it's no one else's business.

[Lemur]

For some reason this thread is reminding me of this girl Ana's license plate ...

[Koga No Goshi]

I'd kill a man, too if he was a jerk and I could get away with it.

Sodomy means BJ's too.

Where the hell were you when I was in Catholic high school, Tuff? You wouldn't believe the bent over backwards metal slinky arguments they can come up with to try to deny that sodomy is anything other than anal sex between two men. Even right after the teacher in religion class made explicit what it constituted.

[Askthepizzaguy]

You are a sick, sick man Lemur.

Don't ever change!

[ICantSpellDawg]

Where the hell were you when I was in Catholic high school, Tuff? You wouldn't believe the bent over backwards metal slinky arguments they can come up with to try to deny that sodomy is anything other than anal sex between two men. Even right after the teacher in religion class made explicit what it constituted.

I was the kid in class using every biblical argument about why the book was garbage. I was the one investigating the dead sea scrolls and earlier christian sects that pre-dated the Nicene creed. I flunked Theology in my Senior year because I refused to pass even thought the teacher told me he would pass me - i did summer school.

I literally received a detention for heresy, thinly veiled in class disruption. I was a terror.


I now see why I was wrong