NationStates Jolt Archive

I don't really understand it. People on both sides of the argument get more passionate in their debating about gay marriage than they do about things which affect them, such as trade policy.

PS Please don't turn this into thread about whether gay marriage is right or wrong. There are ~45,363,466,000 threads for that.

Its a lightning rod issue between Liberals and Conservatives. They fight on this battle ground to gain victory in a larger idea war.

It's only a hot issue because some people have been brought up with an irrational fear and hatred of gays. That and because lesbians have hot girl on girl sex. Now that's a hot issue.

I don't really understand it. People on both sides of the argument get more passionate in their debating about gay marriage than they do about things which affect them, such as trade policy.

PS Please don't turn this into thread about whether gay marriage is right or wrong. There are ~45,363,466,000 threads for that.

People use arguing over things that do not affect them as an escape from the reality of their lives. this is why fox hunting (In the UK) is such a big issue. no-one who argues over this is a fox or has friends or family who are foxes. It's just a dodge from reality!!!

It's a hot issue because all the button-down Santorums of the world are paranoid that somewhere, somehow, people are enjoying their hoo-das and wang-dongs more than said Santori. Which, honestly, is no great feat.

Its a lightning rod issue between Liberals and Conservatives. They fight on this battle ground to gain victory in a larger idea war.
And then there's the 3rd-wheel libertarians, some of whom advocate NO gov't-administered marriage *whatsoever,* and get IGNORED

I don't really understand it. People on both sides of the argument get more passionate in their debating about gay marriage than they do about things which affect them, such as trade policy.

PS Please don't turn this into thread about whether gay marriage is right or wrong. There are ~45,363,466,000 threads for that.

It is because trade is a 'trade' issue - it is about money, and about where it goes... and, in the real world - money attracts money... so the people who make the decisions are the people who ALREADY have the money... or who stand to MAKE money from lending their support in the 'right' places.

Gay Marriage, on the other hand - strikes at the very definition of a 'human' issue.

The 'Religious', see 'gay marriage' as a "moral" issue, which they MUST fight, to stop the spread of 'depravity'.

Homosexuals see 'gay marriage bans' as very real evidence of the fact that they ARE being discriminated against.

The 'Liberal' sees 'gay marriage' as an issue of personal freedom, liberty, and choice.

The 'Conservative' sees 'gay marriage' as an upset to an 'established order'.

Some people don't really fit into any of those categories... but believe that love is love, and that it is separate from law and legislation.

Some people don't really fit any of those categories... and get icky feelings when they think about 'gay people together', and strike out against their fears.

People on EVERY side of the 'gay marriage' debate feel that they have much to lose by the 'other side' winning.

I don't really understand it. People on both sides of the argument get more passionate in their debating about gay marriage than they do about things which affect them, such as trade policy.

gay marriage is important to all the terrified heterosexuals who realize their own relationships are based only on sex and procreation...it's horrible to realize that other people are capable of forming unions based on loving, honoring, and cherishing, when you yourself have committed your life to the squishing of genitals.

Apparently, in some states, the idea of two boys kissing ruins marriage for them. Ironically, these are Red states in the South, with I believe 9 of the 10 highest divorce rates in the country.

Because its politics and religion all roled into one debate. Just like abortion.

Apparently, in some states, the idea of two boys kissing ruins marriage for them. Ironically, these are Red states in the South, with I believe 9 of the 10 highest divorce rates in the country.
10 out of 10, actually; 9 out of 10 are Bible Belt states, but the 10th is still a Red State.

and Massachusetts has the lowest divorce rate in the country :).

As much as I love to bash religious zealots, this is the one time I support them.

And then there's the 3rd-wheel libertarians, some of whom advocate NO gov't-administered marriage *whatsoever,* and get IGNORED

Well this is true. Which I take the libertarian view on this matter. The government should not be involved whatsoever in marriage.

And then there's the 3rd-wheel libertarians, some of whom advocate NO gov't-administered marriage *whatsoever,* and get IGNORED
yeah. *pout* nobody ever pays attention to us!

yeah. *pout* nobody ever pays attention to us!
I do

I do
yay! attention and validation! :)

As much as I love to bash religious zealots, this is the one time I support them.
Why? Do you think seeing a couple of guys holding hands will stir up some scary feelings in you?

Its a lightning rod issue between Liberals and Conservatives. They fight on this battle ground to gain victory in a larger idea war.
Hold on Tolkien, this is epic sh*t! Elaborate, please.

gay marriage is important to all the terrified heterosexuals who realize their own relationships are based only on sex and procreation...it's horrible to realize that other people are capable of forming unions based on loving, honoring, and cherishing, when you yourself have committed your life to the squishing of genitals.
:rolleyes:

Just because we're for gay marriage doesn't mean we have to demean straight sex, now does it? I mean, come on, "the squishing of genitals"? By saying things like that you are only feeding paranoid conservative delusions about "militant homosexuals" and "the homosexual agenda".

It's only a hot issue because some people have been brought up with an irrational fear and hatred of gays. That and because lesbians have hot girl on girl sex. Now that's a hot issue.
Couldn't agree more! :D

yeah. *pout* nobody ever pays attention to us!
I know!
I take the libertarian view, and I don't even pay attention to us!

Apparently, in some states, the idea of two boys kissing ruins marriage for them. Ironically, these are Red states in the South, with I believe 9 of the 10 highest divorce rates in the country.
Who would have guessed the states with the highest marriage rates have the highest divorce rates.

Its more useful to look at the marriage/divorce ratio, in which blue and red states are fairly evenly split.

:rolleyes:

Just because we're for gay marriage doesn't mean we have to demean straight sex, now does it? I mean, come on, "the squishing of genitals"? By saying things like that you are only feeding paranoid conservative delusions about "militant homosexuals" and "the homosexual agenda".

i wasn't demeening straight sex in the slightest. i happen to enjoy straight sex a great deal, and i am in a loving straight relationship at this very moment.

what i was demeening was the attitude that marriage is about procreation or about a particular genital configuration, which is the claim being made by anti-gay-marriage advocates. they insist that the insertion of a penis into a vagina for the purposes of fertilizing an ovum is the essense of marriage...that's pathetic and sad, and says a lot about their own relationships.

Firstly, though they're in the minority (5-10 percent), there ARE those, like myself, for whom the question actually is pertinent. Some do want to exercise the right, after all.

But I think it's a lot like the under god in the pledge thing. It's not something that really matters much to most people, but it's symbolic. Liberals see it as a way to get religion out of the hair of the government once again, conservatives see it as another example of thye godless heathens taking over America. It's more important for the symbolic/emotional victories of either side than it is for the actual right itself.

i wasn't demeening straight sex in the slightest. i happen to enjoy straight sex a great deal, and i am in a loving straight relationship at this very moment.

what i was demeening was the attitude that marriage is about procreation or about a particular genital configuration, which is the claim being made by anti-gay-marriage advocates. they insist that the insertion of a penis into a vagina for the purposes of fertilizing an ovum is the essense of marriage...that's pathetic and sad, and says a lot about their own relationships.

Indeed.

The 'classic' argument AGAINST gay marriage - is that it is 'non-productive' of children.

Thus, the anti-gay-marriage platform sets itself the unenviable platform of being defined by the ability of a partnership, to both ejaculate AND conceive.

Thus - while the largest arguments FOR gay marriage tend to follow liberty and love, the opposition is largely defined by 'Sperm Migration'.

For the people behind the debate, it's a convenient political tool. Gay marriage was a key part of Karl Rove's campaign strategy, as we can clearly see looking back [at least, it didn't seem so clear to me at the time]. But without it, it's arguable that Kerry would have won. Thus, it's an effective political tool for the Right in the U.S.

The Left, by virtue fo the Right opposing Gay Marriage, must of course support it while not supporting it in a vain attempt to siphon votes from the Right while still getting a large amount of votes from the Left.

It's all a game to them. It's all about power. They don't care about boys kissing boys. They care about their expense accounts.

It's only a hot issue because some people have been brought up with an irrational fear and hatred of gays. That and because lesbians have hot girl on girl sex. Now that's a hot issue.


mmm hmmm :D :fluffle:

Indeed.

The 'classic' argument AGAINST gay marriage - is that it is 'non-productive' of children.

Thus, the anti-gay-marriage platform sets itself the unenviable platform of being defined by the ability of a partnership, to both ejaculate AND conceive.

Thus - while the largest arguments FOR gay marriage tend to follow liberty and love, the opposition is largely defined by 'Sperm Migration'.

Wait. I am in a heterosexual marriage, but I can't conceive. So whose side am I on?

And while sex is great and everything, I specifically chose a marriage that wasn't based on how much time we spent loving each other, but how much we love each other. And how well we get along both inside and outside the bedroom and how well our ideals match up.

I believe that idealogically, I am in favor of love and committment (unless being in love means you are going to be committed, I guess) regardless of the gender of the people involved. But then, for the record, I find guy on guy sex to be a much hotter idea than girl on girl. But that's just me. :p

It is because trade is a 'trade' issue - it is about money, and about where it goes... and, in the real world - money attracts money... so the people who make the decisions are the people who ALREADY have the money... or who stand to MAKE money from lending their support in the 'right' places.

Gay Marriage, on the other hand - strikes at the very definition of a 'human' issue.

The 'Religious', see 'gay marriage' as a "moral" issue, which they MUST fight, to stop the spread of 'depravity'.

Homosexuals see 'gay marriage bans' as very real evidence of the fact that they ARE being discriminated against.

The 'Liberal' sees 'gay marriage' as an issue of personal freedom, liberty, and choice.

The 'Conservative' sees 'gay marriage' as an upset to an 'established order'.

Some people don't really fit into any of those categories... but believe that love is love, and that it is separate from law and legislation.

Some people don't really fit any of those categories... and get icky feelings when they think about 'gay people together', and strike out against their fears.

People on EVERY side of the 'gay marriage' debate feel that they have much to lose by the 'other side' winning.

So true, that sums up most of issues.

I don't really understand it. People on both sides of the argument get more passionate in their debating about gay marriage than they do about things which affect them, such as trade policy.

PS Please don't turn this into thread about whether gay marriage is right or wrong. There are ~45,363,466,000 threads for that.

Okay, without stating if I think gay marriage is right or wrong:

(1) If it doesn't effect us, what do we care?

(2) If it would make fellow human beings happy, don't we have a moral obligation, regardless of religion, to deliver this happiness?

(3) If you think gays are going to hell, what do you care what they do in the meantime?

I could debate the issue all day, because I believe in the rights of fellow Americans, regardless of sexuality, ethnicity, religion, etc.

I don't know, but I wish they would either legalize it or outlaw it. Anything to make people stop talking about it.

Because Karl Rove is an evil genius.

It really isn't about gays getting married. It is more about reestablishing Christian ideology in the government.

Traditional values have been getting shoved out, and Christians are trying to make a stand.

I don't know, but I wish they would either legalize it or outlaw it. Anything to make people stop talking about it.
well, we've tried having it outlawed for several centuries here in America, and people aren't shutting up about it. what say we try legalizing it for a while, to see if that doesn't work a bit better?

I belive its a misconception about rights and privliages... gays wanting to get married claim inequity based on an inablity to get a hold of the privliages the goernment distributes to promot marriage.... things like inheritence, and tax reductions are just that.. priviliages... and i would rather see those privliages revoked, then marriage redefined.. as you would have to redefine it as it is has been defined throughout history (atleast in western culture) as a union between man and woman.

Another question.. just how long has marraige been an issue of love ? throughout history its been primarly about politics, economics, soical acceptance, morality, procreation, faimly.... but only recently about love.

as i understand it, the gay rights leaders in this country had come to the conclusion that gay marriage was a losing issue to push. the ratio of for to against just wasnt right. so they were not going to make a move to try to get gay marriage legalized in this country

individual gay people however, were sick of waiting. how many years does a couple have to wait before they get the same ceremony that everyone else got? so they sued for constitutional rights in various states. they won in massachusetts.

this freaked out the rest of the country. if it could happen in mass. it could happen ANYWHERE. then suddenly it WAS happening everywhere! ohmygod gay people got married in san francisco. oh mygod a county clerk in new mexico was issuiing marriage licenses to gay couples!!

religious and political conservatives took this opportunity to make names for themselves and get votes by vocally opposing gay marriage


so what didnt you understand?

Wait. I am in a heterosexual marriage, but I can't conceive. So whose side am I on?

And while sex is great and everything, I specifically chose a marriage that wasn't based on how much time we spent loving each other, but how much we love each other. And how well we get along both inside and outside the bedroom and how well our ideals match up.

I believe that idealogically, I am in favor of love and committment (unless being in love means you are going to be committed, I guess) regardless of the gender of the people involved. But then, for the record, I find guy on guy sex to be a much hotter idea than girl on girl. But that's just me. :p

The point is that the 'anti-gay-marriage' camp has drawn up it's battle lines... and they have pitched one major line right in the middle of 'no children' territory.

Believe me, the point HAS been made before that NOT ALL heterosexual marriages have the capacity for... or even WANT children... but somehow, it's 'okay' for 'straight' people to CHOOSE not to have children...

I agree with you - love and commitment are the best measures of what SHOULD define marriage.

Unfortunately - those 'old fashioned values' seem to have been forgotten by the "Keep-Marriage-Vanilla" faction.

It really isn't about gays getting married. It is more about reestablishing Christian ideology in the government.

Traditional values have been getting shoved out, and Christians are trying to make a stand.

The United States doesn't have a 'christian' government.

That was ALMOST EXACTLY the point.

Freedom of religion... remember?

Also - 'traditional values' means what, exactly? It is a propoganda statement... there is no period of history that actually matches the 'traditional values' fantasy.

Go back a hundred years, and pornography was readily available and traded (in the form of lithographs), and the average well-to-do gent had a wife AND a mistress (it didn't 'do' to take a wife to public engagements)...

One doesn't have to look TOO much further to find the ownership of humans BY humans, and pregnant 13 year olds...

The United States doesn't have a 'christian' government.

That was ALMOST EXACTLY the point.

Freedom of religion... remember?

Also - 'traditional values' means what, exactly? It is a propoganda statement... there is no period of history that actually matches the 'traditional values' fantasy.

Go back a hundred years, and pornography was readily available and traded (in the form of lithographs), and the average well-to-do gent had a wife AND a mistress (it didn't 'do' to take a wife to public engagements)...

One doesn't have to look TOO much further to find the ownership of humans BY humans, and pregnant 13 year olds...

Read this post and you will see what I mean by traditional values and what I think of the influx of Christian ideology into the government.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=401424

It is a dying thread and I would at least like to know that a few people have read it.

It's only a hot issue because some people have been brought up with an irrational fear and hatred of gays. That and because lesbians have hot girl on girl sex. Now that's a hot issue.

so Rosie O'donnel and her lesbain wife have hot sex?

so Rosie O'donnel and her lesbain wife have hot sex?
:D
I almost fell over laughing at that! Nice one!

so Rosie O'donnel and her lesbain wife have hot sex?
there are exceptions to every rule

I don't really understand it. People on both sides of the argument get more passionate in their debating about gay marriage than they do about things which affect them, such as trade policy.

PS Please don't turn this into thread about whether gay marriage is right or wrong. There are ~45,363,466,000 threads for that.

People are screwed up. They are so fixated on sex, it isn't even funny. Okay, it's a little funny. Especially since the ones that are the most offended by sex are the ones that take it the most seriously.

But in general, I don't know who annoys me more; heterosexuals that are offended by homosexuality, or homosexuals that think of homosexuality as a political issue. Both of these groups take sex WAAAAY too seriously.

Why can't people just boink who they want and mind their own business? Does this opinion put me ahead of my time, or way behind it?

P.S. Heterosexuals that are offended by homosexuality piss me off more. Because they are the ones that made it necessary for homosexuals to make their preference a political issue. If they could just keep their noses out of other people's business, there never would have been a 'gay issue'.

*sigh*

People are screwed up. They are so fixated on sex, it isn't even funny. Okay, it's a little funny. Especially since the ones that are the most offended by sex are the ones that take it the most seriously.

But in general, I don't know who annoys me more; heterosexuals that are offended by homosexuality, or homosexuals that think of homosexuality as a political issue. Both of these groups take sex WAAAAY too seriously.

Why can't people just boink who they want and mind their own business? Does this opinion put me ahead of my time, or way behind it?

P.S. Heterosexuals that are offended by homosexuality piss me off more. Because they are the ones that made it necessary for homosexuals to make their preference a political issue. If they could just keep their noses out of other people's business, there never would have been a 'gay issue'.

*sigh*

Couldn't have said it better myself!

well, we've tried having it outlawed for several centuries here in America, and people aren't shutting up about it. what say we try legalizing it for a while, to see if that doesn't work a bit better?

Anything, if it'll get people to stop talking about it!

there are exceptions to every rule


Most lesbians are not "hot" like they are on porn sites. Those girls are just doing what they do because they're either: drunk, under pressure to do that, or being paid. I'm a male, and I'm never going to "Try anything once".

Most lesbians are not "hot" like they are on porn sites. Those girls are just doing what they do because they're either: drunk, under pressure to do that, or being paid. I'm a male, and I'm never going to "Try anything once".
Yes, I'm aware that in real life most lesbians aren't hot. But who neals RL when you have fantasy?

Okay, without stating if I think gay marriage is right or wrong:

(1) If it doesn't effect us, what do we care?

(2) If it would make fellow human beings happy, don't we have a moral obligation, regardless of religion, to deliver this happiness?

(3) If you think gays are going to hell, what do you care what they do in the meantime?

I could debate the issue all day, because I believe in the rights of fellow Americans, regardless of sexuality, ethnicity, religion, etc.


So obviously from your first point, you want to hand out heroin needles to little kids because it's not DIRECTLY hurting us correct? On your second point, if we were to do anything to make our "fellow" human beings happy, then they should obviously be able to marry cats, dogs, computers, or perhaps a combination of the three? Why not right? I mean, it would make them happy! Why not let them marry their parents/siblings/grandparents? Obviously you feel this because you almost stated so in your own words.

It really isn't about gays getting married. It is more about reestablishing Christian ideology in the government.

Traditional values have been getting shoved out, and Christians are trying to make a stand.
Yeah, well, your freedom of religion ends when it restricts the personal freedoms of others.

Here, they're voting on a bill to legalize gay marriage, but not force churches that don't consider it moral to preform the unions. Look, religious freedom and equality.

On your second point, if we were to do anything to make our "fellow" human beings happy, then they should obviously be able to marry cats, dogs, computers, or perhaps a combination of the three? Why not right? I mean, it would make them happy! Why not let them marry their parents/siblings/grandparents? Obviously you feel this because you almost stated so in your own words.
cats, dogs and computers cannot give consent. marriage to parents/siblings/grandparents woudl cause an increased risk of birth defects. Really though, if people want to do that, then whatever.

Personally, I miss the "don't ask, don't tell" days. First of all, gay marriage is a sub-topic of the larger "gay-rights" battle. When AIDS hit the United States, it hit the gay male population hardest. This is why the argument started in the first place. That is my only issue with the gay community; they are not controlling their community. Most (not all) gays are gay for sexual reasons only. The STD rate in homosexuals is far higher than that of heterosexuals.

As for specifically gay marriage, the reason is probobly because many conservatives and nationalists view it as an assult on the traditional family and what it stands for. Most "christian republicans" I know couldn't care less about what gays and lesbians do with eachother, but hate it when their man-woman marriage is compared to a same-sex marriage.

if we were to do anything to make our "fellow" human beings happy, then they should obviously be able to marry cats, dogs, computers, or perhaps a combination of the three? Why not right? I mean, it would make them happy!

cats, dogs, computers, etc., are not capable of giving consent, and therefore cannot enter into any legally binding contract. the same applies to children.

Why not let them marry their parents/siblings/grandparents? Obviously you feel this because you almost stated so in your own words.
as long as all parties are consenting adults, they should be allowed to enter into whatever contracts they wish.

Yes, I'm aware that in real life most lesbians aren't hot. But who neals RL when you have fantasy?

Living in a fantasy world is not good...

so Rosie O'donnel and her lesbain wife have hot sex?
hot sex is hot to the people involved. so ANYONE can have hot sex as long as they are attractive to each other.

if you only mean hot to WATCH, almost no one has hot sex. people in the middle of sex arent big on choreography.

Most (not all) gays are gay for sexual reasons only. The STD rate in homosexuals is far higher than that of heterosexuals.
People are straight for sexual reasons too... it's the point of sexual orientation.

It's argued pointlessly for no real reason, in my opinion. There are some things, like equal righs of two gay/bisexual people to get legally married and the same benefits as straight couples. If they are denied these benefits, that's discrimination. If they are given Civil Unions and straight couples keep Marriage, then that's seperate but equal. It's mainly argued because there are people who want to give them rights, liberals and moderate republicans, and there are oppressors like conservatives and conservative catholics who are oppressive to people by denying them equal rights.

On the STD issue, it's not BECAUSE they're gay that they got HIV. It's because it isn't as much common knowledge that you can get it from anal sex because Anal sex can cause some tearing ofthe rectum, exposing blood. The semen coming in contact with the blood is what spreads it because they are two of four bodily fluids that HIV can survive in.

At least we can all be content in knowing that in the future people wont be quite so bigotous and argument prone. The history of the past one hundred years has shown that humans are becoming more and more open minded.

I'll bet anything that in the future, not only will gay marriage be legal, it will also be quite acceptable. But of course, this could take another one to two hundred years.

Why is gay marriage such a "hot issue"?

Because some snooty people don't like it up the butt, and therefore don't think anyone else should be allowed to.

Either that or they are afraid their wives will leave them for women.

Most lesbians are not "hot" like they are on porn sites. Those girls are just doing what they do because they're either: drunk, under pressure to do that, or being paid. I'm a male, and I'm never going to "Try anything once".

True, but a surprising number of girls are becoming "lesbian" or "bi" (and I make no judgement as to how real these claims are in this case) merely to seem hot. I know quite a few. Their existence allowed one of my friends to have three girlfriends last year.

Here's a 'separation of church and state' friendly thought - remove the term marriage from the law. People get so pissed off because marriage, which is undeniably a sacred institution of religion, is something that they are worried the government will recognize homosexuals, 'an abomination against god' to participate in. I think the real solution is just to have the government apply the term civil union to all cohabitating partners who seek a license, and leave the term marriage to the churches, some of which would undoubtedly perform gay marriages. Can someone explain to me why this would be a problem? :headbang:

And no, I'm not a libertarian, but I have to stand more on their side in this issue.

What's the deal with everyone talking about hot girl on girl sex. Some girls find boys being intimate with one another arousing.

Lets not be sexist here. What's with the crazy double standards?
It's ok for: girls to have meaningless sex with girls, boys to have meaningless sex with girls, boys and girls to have meaningful(married) sex together.
It's not ok for: boys to have meaningless sex with boys, girls to have meaningless sex with boys, boys to have meaningful sex with boys, girls to have meaningful sex with girls.

Recoculous I say!

Here's a 'separation of church and state' friendly thought - remove the term marriage from the law. People get so pissed off because marriage, which is undeniably a sacred institution of religion, is something that they are worried the government will recognize homosexuals, 'an abomination against god' to participate in. I think the real solution is just to have the government apply the term civil union to all cohabitating partners who seek a license, and leave the term marriage to the churches, some of which would undoubtedly perform gay marriages. Can someone explain to me why this would be a problem? :headbang:

And no, I'm not a libertarian, but I have to stand more on their side in this issue.

That would be my solution. Let the religious have their marriage in a church or synagogue or what have you, and let them register with the state in order to get the rights. Everyone else who doesn't want a religious marriage gets a marriage in front of a judge and is given the same rights as the people married in a church. The church can pick and choose who it will marry (some do already to an extent) while the state bars no one.

The only problem I can see is a homosexual couple who want a religious marriage. Even then though, I do know pastors and priests who will perform the service before God for whoever.

Certain religions support gay marriage. Someone correct me if I am wrong, but I think Unitarianism does. Catholicism specifically will never support gay marriage. Ever. People should seriously stop trying to change that, cause it's basically this: :headbang:

The point of what I was saying though is that people should not be able to get 'married' in front of a judge. They should be able to get 'joined' or some other term like that. If they want to get 'married' they need to find a church.

Honestly though, that will probably never happen because it is too useful a political tool. Damn I'm becoming cynical.

Another double-standard is that the big "male fantasy" is to be with two girls at once. You never see a girl obsessing (at least publicly) about fantasies to be with two guys at once. I just had my first threesome with two guys about 2 weeks ago, and it was a pretty awesome time. Its just weird that that kind of threesome doesn't get the same publicity.

If that makes any sense.

Another double-standard is that the big "male fantasy" is to be with two girls at once. You never see a girl obsessing (at least publicly) about fantasies to be with two guys at once. I just had my first threesome with two guys about 2 weeks ago, and it was a pretty awesome time. Its just weird that that kind of threesome doesn't get the same publicity.

If that makes any sense.
Simple, Males are the majority, and to some men it feels... demeaning, or wrong to share the pleasure with another man.

My girlfriend likes the idea of being with two guys at once. I am not opposed to the idea. I would just be happy to give her more pleasure at once. I mean, girls have a lot of nice places and guys only have so many mouths.

Honestly, think about how many things two guys and a girl could do, and think about how many things a guy and two girls could do. There's a lot more on the 2guy 1girl side.

I hope I didn't stray too far from the edge of explicit with that one. :fluffle:

Anyways... here is my theory on why many people are more offended by male homosexuality: Intercourse (penetration) is supposed to be something sacred. Females don't do that. (Except with toys). Therefore, everything lesbians do is just foreplay, and can't compare to what a man can give them. The guys are abusing their penis power. :eek:

What would freud say, hmm?

Simple, Males are the majority, and to some men it feels... demeaning, or wrong to share the pleasure with another man.
Statisticaly males are a minority ... look up your facts there are more women then men

Saying that gay marriage "doesn't affect anyone else" is like saying that drink driving or pedophilia doesn't effect anyone else. OF COURSE it effects others, ALL legal and moral issues do.

Another double-standard is that the big "male fantasy" is to be with two girls at once. You never see a girl obsessing (at least publicly) about fantasies to be with two guys at once. I just had my first threesome with two guys about 2 weeks ago, and it was a pretty awesome time. Its just weird that that kind of threesome doesn't get the same publicity.

If that makes any sense.
You must watch porn, you see a lot more "1 girl/multiple guys" action than you do vice-versa.

Saying that gay marriage "doesn't affect anyone else" is like saying that drink driving or pedophilia doesn't effect anyone else. OF COURSE it effects others, ALL legal and moral issues do.

Paedophilia PHYSICALLY harms someone, and emotionally scars them.
Drink driving can physically harm someone.

Gay marriage neither physically nor emotionally harms anyone.

I love arguing with you. :)

Edit:
You must watch porn, you see a lot more "1 girl/multiple guys" action than you do vice-versa.
Yeah, but they guys aren't... how can I put this... sexing each other...

To paraphrase Garrison Keillor:
"The big deal here is that conservatives don't want to imagine two men in bed together. So, by that rationale, shouldn't we be putting out laws against our parents being married?"

That's a really good point. Why ARE we piddling around on ridiculous and mundane issues like the definition of marriage?

People are dying left and right of cancer, yet we fund AIDS research more even though AIDS kills a hundredth of the people cancer kills, and AIDS is a preventable disease.

The USA Patriot Act allows the government to break privacy, and we're doing little to stop it.

Terrorists still threaten the United States by their very existence. Our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan were effective and noble, but not nearly effective and noble enough.

A tidal wave killed hundreds of thousands, and millions more will die if we do not act. As Americans we are the richest in the world and we should be trying to save lives, not padding our garages with Yukop Denali XLs. Just a hundred a year people. A hundred dollars a year. And the world would be so much better. I make friggin' minimum wage and I still give what I can.

The race gap in schools still exists- but instead of trying to close it by forcing students to learn, we simply lower the bar. Disgusting. Racist. Pigs. As if Blacks weren't as smart as Whites. In some ways- they're smarter!

On the other hand, feminists bitch for days about abortion and don't even bother to address the misogynistic rap culture which spreads sickening stereotypes about women and promotes objectifying them. They're such hypocrites it defies belief.

We bitch about a war for oil, yet gas prices are still $2.05/gallon around here. And instead of going hydrogen like we should have in the early '90s when we first had the technology, we stayed the course with oil. Stupid Clinton. Stupid Bush.

Social Security needs reform. I want my goddamned money so I can pay my car insurance or buy a damn bag of chips, not some reject loony tune in the government "distributing" it as he sees it. I earned it. I want it. I don't mind taxes but S.S. sucks.

The point is, we are piddling around on something so STUPID as gay marriage when we should be doing more important things. Save the piddly shit for when we don't need to focus our attention on something bigger than ourselves.

Yeah, well, your freedom of religion ends when it restricts the personal freedoms of others.

Here, they're voting on a bill to legalize gay marriage, but not force churches that don't consider it moral to preform the unions. Look, religious freedom and equality.

I seem to have been misunderstood. I only meant to post what I think are the Christian Right's objectives, but I do not agree with them at all.

To paraphrase Garrison Keillor:
"The big deal here is that conservatives don't want to imagine two men in bed together. So, by that rationale, shouldn't we be putting out laws against our parents being married?"

Respect.

Garrison Keillor IS god.