NationStates Jolt Archive

There is nothing against gays in the bible.

What are you talking about?

For starters, see Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13.

Really?

So what's a "non-moral" basis for a position on this question?

It depends on how carefully you want to draw the line between ethics and morality. I'd argue that those in favor of gay marriage are arguing from an ethical position that any rights granted by the state should apply equally to all citizens (at least consenting adults, making allowances for things like the limiting of free speech rights for students, as much as I disagree with the extent this limitation has apparently reached). Given that marriage is a right of the people (Loving v. Virginia), it should apply equally, whether the couple intending to marry is same-sex or different-sex.

By her own words, this incidentally places an upper bound on Bottle's age of 40, though the number's probably considerably lower than that.

I'd argue that those in favor of gay marriage are arguing from an ethical position that any rights granted by the state should apply equally to all citizens

Fine.

Now coherently distinguish between an "ethical position" and a "moral position."

Fine.

Now coherently distinguish between an "ethical position" and a "moral position."

Again, as I said, it all depends on how you make that distinction. I'm fuzzy on it myself, and could easily be wrong.

What are you talking about?

For starters, see Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13.

To answer Leviticus 18:22 we have this link: http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibh.htm

V’et zachar lo tishkav mishk’vey eeshah toeyvah hee.

That is the original Hebrew line for that passage, though however, written phonetically for our purposes.

There are a number of interpretations for it, so to quote it as a written testament against homosexuality is wrong. There are several ways in which it could be interpreted.

After all, if we consider the second part, we don't know if it refers to a moral sin or if it refers to ceremonial uncleanliness. Hence, it is a weak argument that holds little water given that it holds multiple meanings and the original translation from Hebrew contains a phrase, "laying lyings", which cannot be properly translated.

In fact, one of the ways according to the website it could be read as, is that if two men wanted to have sex, they could not do it in a woman's bed for it is reserved for heterosexual relations, and they must go elsewhere to fuck each other.

To answer Leviticus 20:13, here is a link from the same website: http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibh3.htm

Sure it exists in the Bible but as an argument it's weak because there are too many interpretations available to us.

* Quote Edited for comparitive purposes *

Nor, God willing, will we ever get "there".

Negros already have "equal rights." They have the same right to marry one individual of the same race as white people do. The fact that they choose not to exercise that right, or that they are unhappy that there isn't a different right, or that the existing right doesn't sanction gratification of their aberrant desires, is completely unimportant.

Your Constitutional argument fails. As do those by black-robed wanna-be social engineers and imperious pseudo-legislators like the Massachusetts Supreme Court.

Marriage = one man, one woman of the same race. End of issue.

People's personal morality is irrelevant, it's about equal rights under the law for all people regardless of arbitrary characteristics.

Thats a personal morality call, we general call that facet of morality 'tolerance' or 'equality'. That's morality.

* Quote Edited for comparitive purposes *

QFT

Wrong.

Also wrong. I find the secular viewpoint infinitely more humanitarian and "warm" than the cold logic which sacrifices the rights of minorities in order to pander to the insecurities of...well, at this point it's just another minority, because the majority doesn't fucking care.


With no evidence supporting... wonderful, please give me any situation in which you believe the 'secular position' does not have some sort of morality attached to it. The plain and simple fact is that all people regardless of political position are generally influenced by their moral principles, to not be influenced by moral principle is to be un-human and would breed a race of sociopathic monsters.

Why ? The people will form such contracts anyway, unless you forbid it - costing society money. The standard marriage contract remedies that.
I genuinely do not see why you'd wish to promote inefficiency ?

How do you define society? I've already shown that the government would make more money without such contracts..... And people can't form contracts that the government doesn't recognize, otherwise its not legally binding and the government will still take their money....

Let me lay out my personal beliefs for everyone to see.... And comprehend...

1. I'm a Christian, and particular to my personal views, homosexuality is a sin...
2. I'm an American, and particular to my political views, homosexuals should have the same rights to marry as heterosexuals... And by this I mean to marry a consenting partner of their choice regardless of race, religion or sex.
3. I'm a Christian, and particular to my personal views, I would not want my congregation to endorse the marriage of people of the same sex...
4. I'm an American, and particular to my political views, I affirm the right of willing organizations to endorse the marriage of people of the same sex...
5. I'm a Christian, and do not endorse the right of others to force their particular religious beliefs upon me...
6. I'm an American, and do not endorse forcing my particular religious beliefs upon others...

What are you talking about?

For starters, see Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13.

I stand corrected. I've never seen those before.

I stand corrected. I've never seen those before.

Some people claim the passages are incorrectly translated (cue GaI ;))
Others point out that that book is... how shall we put it.. mostly ignored. Wearing polyester-cotton ? Eating shellfish ? Abomination ! Burn in hell for all eternity !

Let me lay out my personal beliefs for everyone to see.... And comprehend...

1. I'm a Christian, and particular to my personal views, homosexuality is a sin...
2. I'm an American, and particular to my political views, homosexuals should have the same rights to marry as heterosexuals... And by this I mean to marry a consenting partner of their choice regardless of race, religion or sex.
3. I'm a Christian, and particular to my personal views, I would not want my congregation to endorse the marriage of people of the same sex...
4. I'm an American, and particular to my political views, I affirm the right of willing organizations to endorse the marriage of people of the same sex...
5. I'm a Christian, and do not endorse the right of others to force their particular religious beliefs upon me...
6. I'm an American, and do not endorse forcing my particular religious beliefs upon others...

My views as well.

After all, if we consider the second part, we don't know if it refers to a moral sin or if it refers to ceremonial uncleanliness.

You mean "toevah"? I might buy into this interpretation if it weren't for the fact that the verse also prescribes the death penalty.

Hence, it is a weak argument that holds little water given that it holds multiple meanings

No, it really doesn't. The meaning is fairly clear. That's probably why the verse has been interpreted one way consistently by every religious tradition that pays attention to the Old Testament, until in the modern era people decided to look for a way to get out of conclusions that were inconvenient for them.

and the original translation from Hebrew contains a phrase, "laying lyings", which cannot be properly translated.

Which phrase is that?

In fact, one of the ways according to the website it could be read as, is that if two men wanted to have sex, they could not do it in a woman's bed for it is reserved for heterosexual relations, and they must go elsewhere to fuck each other.

Yeah, you might be able to read it that way, if you stretched it far enough and decided to ignore the fairly consistent use of the root "sh.kh.v" as a sexual euphemism in the Bible (indeed, a euphemism that is unambiguously used right there in the verse, and in a way that seems a deliberate parallel with the "lyings of woman" part), and instead decided that it still is meant non-literally, but in a different way that is as far as I know without parallel elsewhere, and is rather less intuitive than the alternative.

In other words, if instead of interpreting it in an honest and objective way, you decided to force your ideological agenda upon it instead.

In other words, if instead of interpreting it in an honest and objective way, you decided to force your ideological agenda upon it instead.

Isn't that the whole point of being Christian ?

Now coherently distinguish between an "ethical position" and a "moral position."

Morality is whatever your neighbors will let you get away with at a given point in time. Morality is based on 'common custom'. It was once moral to own slaves and later to try to impose "separate but equal" on black people. In most places in the USA in 2007 it is moral to waste electricity and water, buy overpackaged goods, and pretend that homelessness is not a problem. Morality is the creature of political convenience.

Ethical positions begin by systematic logical deduction and inference from first principles concerning our mutual duties and obligations to one another. Like Truth (science) and Beauty (aesthetics), Goodness (ethics) is not solely about whether a particular act in a particular circumstance is "right" or "wrong" but about comprehensively considering what is appropriate to the 'good life'. Ethics is not a respecter of persons, nor of political parties or systems.

The evolution of morality over time .. from actively commercially capturing slaves .. to simply abusing slaves .. to treating slaves 'fairly' .. to freeing slaves .. Think of that progression as a curve where "ethics" is the limit or ideal to which morality approaches.

Morality is whatever your neighbors will let you get away with at a given point in time. Morality is based on 'common custom'. It was once moral to own slaves and later to try to impose "separate but equal" on black people. In most places in the USA in 2007 it is moral to waste electricity and water, buy overpackaged goods, and pretend that homelessness is not a problem. Morality is the creature of political convenience.

Ethical positions begin by systematic logical deduction and inference from first principles concerning our mutual duties and obligations to one another. Like Truth (science) and Beauty (aesthetics), Goodness (ethics) is not solely about whether a particular act in a particular circumstance is "right" or "wrong" but about comprehensively considering what is appropriate to the 'good life'. Ethics is not a respecter of persons, nor of political parties or systems.

The evolution of morality over time .. from actively commercially capturing slaves .. to simply abusing slaves .. to treating slaves 'fairly' .. to freeing slaves .. Think of that progression as a curve where "ethics" is the limit or ideal to which morality approaches.


I'ld say you have that backwards, ethics is the application of morality. Morality is universal, for instance no society has taught Dishonor over Honor, Vice over Virtue, Injustice over Justice, etc. However they have debated on the application, this in turn makes world peace some day attainable since the same morals are at the heart of every discussion. If morals were not universal, world peace would be unattainable as then you could not merely discuss the applications of those morals but rather you would disagree at the very core (you would be for Vice instead of Virtue, Dishonor instead of Honor, and Injustice over Justice), and then the two sides can only fight and not come to an agreement.

Morality is universal, for instance no society has taught Dishonor over Honor, Vice over Virtue, Injustice over Justice, etc.
That's because they defined Honor, Virtue, and Justice as whatever they happened to do. One person's honor is another's dishonor. And, of course, there have been groups that actively rejected the concept of "honor". Most assassins come to mind.

You mean "toevah"? I might buy into this interpretation if it weren't for the fact that the verse also prescribes the death penalty.

The second verse you cited is the one that does prescribe the death penalty. The first is the one I questioned heavily. I also give a source that shows that number of ways it could be read. Going by your post, you ignored the content of my links.

No, it really doesn't. The meaning is fairly clear. That's probably why the verse has been interpreted one way consistently by every religious tradition that pays attention to the Old Testament, until in the modern era people decided to look for a way to get out of conclusions that were inconvenient for them.

Paul threw out most of the OT because he wanted to attract followers. He got rid of the dietary laws. He elected to ignore those parts. If you're going to use religion to pay attention to the OT, you can't be selective, as Christians have been since the time of Paul.

Which phrase is that?

Thank you for proving you didn't want to look at the links I gave you. I figured a paraphrase would give you a reason to look beyond my inane bullshit and read the link. I guess I expected more of you than you're willing to put out.

Yeah, you might be able to read it that way, if you stretched it far enough and decided to ignore the fairly consistent use of the root "sh.kh.v" as a sexual euphemism in the Bible (indeed, a euphemism that is unambiguously used right there in the verse, and in a way that seems a deliberate parallel with the "lyings of woman" part), and instead decided that it still is meant non-literally, but in a different way that is as far as I know without parallel elsewhere, and is rather less intuitive than the alternative.

The problem arises in the interpretation and the numerous meanings of the word put into the translation. I'd hand you your ass on a silver platter right now over the Hebrew meaning but my husband isn't here to read over my shoulder so I'm just going to rely on the website I used.

In other words, if instead of interpreting it in an honest and objective way, you decided to force your ideological agenda upon it instead.

Once again, you demonstrate your failure to read the links I gave you or at least give it a cursory glance. I'm not forcing any agenda. I'm of the contention that there are many ways that something can be interpreted at this point because God will not manifest out of nothingness to clarify the bullshit that in the OT.

Because people read them meanings differently, the verses condemning the actions aren't grounds enough to justify oppression and the revocation of rights. There are broad inconsistencies across all religions. As most of us live in multi-cultural nations, where no one religion holds the key, we have to respect all.

If I was going to force my ideological agenda, you'd know it because I would take off the kiddie gloves.

To be honest, the world could always do with a little more love, so should we ever deny the world that teency bit more?

I rest my case. ;)

To be honest, the world could always do with a little more love, so should we ever deny the world that teency bit more?

I rest my case. ;)

Because some backwater twats think that only they deserve it.

That's because they defined Honor, Virtue, and Justice as whatever they happened to do. One person's honor is another's dishonor. And, of course, there have been groups that actively rejected the concept of "honor". Most assassins come to mind.

Again, that is the application of said morals. Not the morals themselves.

Thats a personal morality call, we general call that facet of morality 'tolerance' or 'equality'. That's morality.

I wasn't defining what morality is, I was saying that people's morality is not relevant as the law for equal treatment under the law already exists, it just needs to be applied universally.

I'd say you have that backwards, ethics is the application of morality.

You can say whatever you like. Soheran asked for a coherent way to discriminate between morality and ethics. I gave a clear distinction between the two.

You can reverse the labels on the Pepsi and Coke, but that doesn't change the contents, neh?

So feel free to call either by either name, it doesn't matter much.

The second verse you cited is the one that does prescribe the death penalty.

Right, I confused the two. But it's the same crime, and crucially the same word--"toevah"--is used in both verses.

I also give a source that shows that number of ways it could be read. Going by your post, you ignored the content of my links.

I've read those specific links already. Furthermore, I've heard most of the arguments about this verse already. Forgive me if I don't feel obligated to review them yet again every time someone posts a link.

Paul threw out most of the OT because he wanted to attract followers. He got rid of the dietary laws. He elected to ignore those parts.

Right. That's not a matter of interpretation. What's your point?

If you're going to use religion to pay attention to the OT, you can't be selective, as Christians have been since the time of Paul.

I agree, but again, what's your point?

Thank you for proving you didn't want to look at the links I gave you.

Actually, if you read the link, the difficulty is with "lay lyings", not "laying lyings." If you had said "lay lyings," I would have gotten you immediately.

Don't blame your misrepresentation of your own source on me.

The problem arises in the interpretation and the numerous meanings of the word put into the translation.

Do you have an actual argument for that reading? I've already explained why it seems a stretch to me.

Your link certainly has no such argument. It merely states that that is one way it has been read.

I'm not forcing any agenda. I'm of the contention that there are many ways that something can be interpreted at this point because God will not manifest out of nothingness to clarify the bullshit that in the OT.

Where did I say anything about you, specifically, forcing an agenda? I have no idea whether or not you are. All I'm saying is that the alternative interpretations you cite are based on such ideological presuppositions.

Because people read them meanings differently, the verses condemning the actions aren't grounds enough to justify oppression and the revocation of rights.

I'm not justifying oppression and the revocation of rights. But just because I believe in equality doesn't mean that I should blind myself to the reality of Biblical homophobia... quite the contrary, support for equality means precisely that one should recognize bigotry where it exists, so as to best contest it.

Soheran asked for a coherent way to discriminate between morality and ethics.

Yes, and that was stupid of me.

I should have asked for a coherent way to differentiate between them that is actually connected to the meanings or conventional usage of the words.

Yes, and that was stupid of me.

I should have asked for a coherent way to differentiate between them that is actually connected to the meanings or conventional usage of the words.


(default) Morality: "Everyone does it" -- the acceptance of an action, behavior, value, or attitude because it is prevalent (the superiority of group think)
subordinate Morality: "I was ordered to do it" -- acceptance based on hierarchical authority (the superiority of boss-think)
revealed Morality: "It says so in the holy book" -- acceptance base on claimed divine authority

and so on...

The list of Moralising justifications comes down to one unifying theme: the lack of individual thought on what is ethical, and the substitution of some other source of responsibility to decide how to behave in some situation. We tell people to take responsibility for their actions .. but there is often a simultaneous conflicting message that individuals aren't competent to ACTUALLY choose for themselves. The combination of messages is likely to be found when we want someone to obey .. us .. justified by whatever means is at hand.

One view of morality is that it is the record of ethical cowardice ... the degree to which an individual or group or society denies and abdicates ethical obligations in favor of convenient reliance on some external "authority". "Just tell me what to do!"

Pehaps cowardice goes too far as a generalization; I allow that some people are just naturally more deferential, submissive, conforming, followers ... and by natural inclination prefer to be obedient to the will of others.


PS: The Latin root of morality is mos, mores, N. "customs"

So feel free to call either by either name, it doesn't matter much.
"A rose by any other name would smell just as good"

And homphobia stinks to high heaven however you call it.

oh come on, you know thats not true. do you really want EVERYONE TO marry? does that mean we should let someone marry a pineapple, or their kid, or more than one person? I got lets let 5 women marry two guys and an apple :rolleyes: not much of a marriage

Pineapples and children can't legaly give consent. Don't you get tired of having this ridiculous argument shot down? As for more than one spouse, as long as all spouses involved know and consent to the union, then why the hell not?

I just say who ever wants to marry who should be able to without doing it illegally.

its not just the numbers why traditional marriage makes more sense. two rods cant fit into each other, nor can two rings

You have no idea how gays and lesbians have sex with each other do you? You probably don't realise that many straight couples even engages in the same sexual activities as gay couples.

Pineapples and children can't legaly give consent. Don't you get tired of having this ridiculous argument shot down? As for more than one spouse, as long as all spouses involved know and consent to the union, then why the hell not?

Marriage should be a private enterprise ... let for-profit and non-profit organizations compete on the best rituals, celebrations, pre-nuptual agreements, contracts, divorces, etc.

Let government allocate tax and other benefits without regard to whether one is in a partnership of two people.

I will offer to be the guardian and conservator of all of the marital assets that wind up in the ... stems? ... of pineapples.

I beg to differ a person chooses what it wants to be straight,Bi, gay, or tri.

You can beg to be incorrect all you want, it won't make you less wrong.

granted anal or oral sex can be deemed intercourse but thats because to be frank, you're sticking something in something. Women have nothing to stick in anything.

Women don't have tongues and fingers? I think I'd better go check my wifes gender again . . .

Marriage = one man, one woman. End of issue.

You base this on what?

You can beg to be incorrect all you want, it won't make you less wrong.

Red, I agree that in the vast majority of cases people don't choose their orientation. But maybe whether it's chosen or not chosen is a bit of a red herring. What if you could take a pill and switch from homosexual to heterosexual to bisexual and vice versa? There's some science that shows that could be feasible.

I will allow the possibility now that in some (statistically rare) cases people do choose: a bisexual might at some point feel a sense of indifference in attraction and consciously decide to "specialize" in the one sex. A prison inmate might make a knowing choice to become homosexual "for the duration." Etc.

Transgendered folks ~do~ choose ... and like the "ham and eggs question" where the chicken is involved but the pig is committed, transmen and transwomen, if they do surgery, commit to their choices.


But Hey! From the perspective of "laws on marriage" how would "choice" of sexual orientation even be remotely relevant?

What are you talking about?

For starters, see Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13.

And all that other stuff about not eating shellfish and pigs or wearing certain kinds of clothing? You can ignore that. It only counts when they're talking about gays.








Seriously, what the hell is with that?

PS: The Latin root of morality is mos, mores, N. "customs"

This is the only actual argument you seem to have.

Unfortunately, the Greek root of "ethics" means the same thing, so....

And all that other stuff about not eating shellfish and pigs or wearing certain kinds of clothing?

If someone had said that "The Bible contains nothing against eating shellfish and pigs or wearing certain kinds of clothing", he or she would have been equally wrong.

You have no idea how gays and lesbians have sex with each other do you? You probably don't realise that many straight couples even engages in the same sexual activities as gay couples.

And (s)he would probably, like many others who oppose same-sex marriage, want the government back in the business of regulating what consenting adults do with one another in the privacy of their bedrooms, once again...

I, personally, would proudly announce that my wife and I engage in activities which are illegal (and unenforceable) under my state's laws while in our bedroom...

This is the only actual argument you seem to have.

Unfortunately, the Greek root of "ethics" means the same thing, so....


I agree that the Greek root of ethics also is translated as 'customs'. I also agree that terminology does change over time, so any taxonomy is fragile.

But "ethics" has been considered a main branch of philosophy since the time of Aristotle, so the use of the term has been consistent. At one point ethics, metaphysics, epistemology, and aesthetics were considered to be the four "roots" of philosophy, with logic as a ... tool. Now some list the four main branches of philosophy as logic, metaphysics, epistemology, and axiology (systems of values, ethic and aesthetic.) The labels are not crucial, again.

So I offer this explanation for the progressive confusion of the terms "morality" and "ethics". but it's not pretty. I hypothesize that those who have some policy or economic interest in advancing a particular morality ... for example, an institutional Church ... would like to dress their approved morality in the emperor's "ideal" clothing of philosophical "ethics".

Whereas philosophers have consistently rejected conventional morality ... or institutional morality ... as the last word in ethics.

If you're going to try to market something ... for fun or profit ... then why not claim it to be ideal? Confusing ethics and morality just cheapens the language by trying to make the word "morality" redundant ... and by claiming it is synonymous to "ethics", which it is not, gives a marketer some leverage.

And while such miscegenation of the language may be moral, I don't consider it ethical :grin:

Whereas philosophers have consistently rejected conventional morality ... or institutional morality ... as the last word in ethics.

This is the perfect test case, isn't it?

If it is true that "morality" is always connected to "custom" or "decree", then we would expect that philosophers would refer not to morality but to ethics.

In fact, though, we find that philosophers have been speaking of "morality" for centuries in exactly the sense you use "ethics."

You have no idea how gays and lesbians have sex with each other do you? You probably don't realise that many straight couples even engages in the same sexual activities as gay couples.

:confused:

Doesn't that make them bisexual couples?

:confused:

Doesn't that make them bisexual couples?

I believe (s)he is referring to anal-sex, oral-sex and the like....

:confused:

Doesn't that make them bisexual couples?
Someone needs to experiment more...



If you're of legal age anyhoo.

Someone needs to experiment more...



If you're of legal age anyhoo.Or get a life? Maybe?

Why is this thread still going on?

I thought we'd made it clear long ago that the only argument going against same-sex marriage is homophobia.

Nor, God willing, will we ever get "there".

Homosexuals already have "equal rights." They have the same right to marry one individual of the opposite sex as normal, heterosexual people do. The fact that they choose not to exercise that right, or that they are unhappy that there isn't a different right, or that the existing right doesn't sanction gratification of their aberrant desires, is completely unimportant.


Good idea! Let's force them back into the closet so they can marry our sisters and daughters.


Marriage = one man, one woman. End of issue.

Actually not always. In parts of Nepal, a woman can have 3 husbands. How many countries still have multiple wives....

I believe (s)he is referring to anal-sex, oral-sex and the like....

Ah. I wondered if Red meant that. Thanks for the clarify.

Someone needs to experiment more...

If you're of legal age anyhoo.

You mean like sheep? :p

You mean like sheep? :pNo, Cloning is better. :D

You mean like sheep? :p
Or a midge.

For a midge's chuff is literally as tight as a midge's chuff.

(with apologies to Stewart Lee and Richard Herring)

I believe (s)he is referring to anal-sex, oral-sex and the like....

As a matter of fact, plenty of straight men appear to like the "recipient" role in anal sex... thus the increasing popularity of practices like pegging.

So much for that simply being a product of gay male perversion.... :)

:confused:

Doesn't that make them bisexual couples?

Only if they engage in them with people of the same gender.

Gay men engage in anal sex.

A straight man and a straight woman may engage in anal sex as well.

So on and so forth.

As a matter of fact, plenty of straight men appear to like the "recipient" role in anal sex... thus the increasing popularity of practices like pegging.

So much for that simply being a product of gay male perversion.... :)

I like being the receiver and giver... Both of which are technically illegal my state... But unenforceable... So to hell with the moral police...

So much for that simply being a product of gay male perversion.... :)
Pfft. Straight men invented perversion. Gay men simply perfected it. :D

Oh don't pull that BS. It has nothing to do with 'protection'.

Yes, it does. The laws surrounding marriage are legal protections, both for those who choose to live as a single legal entity (the married couple) and for those they interact with (debtors and such).

Meanwhile, the term itself demands that all people are treated equally under the law - not that some are treated as second-class citizens.

Marriage should be a private enterprise ... let for-profit and non-profit organizations compete on the best rituals, celebrations, pre-nuptual agreements, contracts, divorces, etc.

Hooray for making it all much less convenient and vastly more expensive!

Let government allocate tax and other benefits without regard to whether one is in a partnership of two people.

Hooray for ignoring the very real legal issues involved in such a partnership!

I have more important things to worry about than this, like toenail fungus.

Gay marriage = Fine
"Conventional" marriage = Also fine

Some people don't agree. Who cares?

This took 21 pages?

well no, but thats because what men have is much cleaner than what women have, generally speaking.

Then you need to stop sleeping with skanks

I don't see how. to be honest though, if I had to put my mouth on one or the other, I'd pick what guys have. Though this of course doesn't mean I would or that I want to.
What exactly are you basing that choice off though?

The fact that he's actually a homosexual

For starters vaginas are basically hairy, mutant venus fly traps
OMG that's the funniest thing I've ever seen on NSG.

Luckily, all my co-workers have already gone home for the day. I'd hate to have to explain my burt of laughter to them.

Thanks, I needed that! :D

The sad part is he's probably not joking

I'm not grossed out by it, its just something I have no desire to my mouth on. And I don't date anyone, I'm Muslim

Muslims don't date?

most Muslims don't date though

Where'd you come up with that piece of bs?

<SNIP> Marriage = one man, one woman. End of issue.

The issue is that many people believe (myself included) that marriage should be two people who love each other

Marriage = one man, one woman. End of issue [cuz that's all I have in the way of an argument].

Fixed.

Let me lay out my personal beliefs for everyone to see.... And comprehend...

1. I'm a Christian, and particular to my personal views, homosexuality is a sin...
2. I'm an American, and particular to my political views, homosexuals should have the same rights to marry as heterosexuals... And by this I mean to marry a consenting partner of their choice regardless of race, religion or sex.
So your undecided
3. I'm a Christian, and particular to my personal views, I would not want my congregation to endorse the marriage of people of the same sex...
4. I'm an American, and particular to my political views, I affirm the right of willing organizations to endorse the marriage of people of the same sex...
And again you can't make up your mind
5. I'm a Christian, and do not endorse the right of others to force their particular religious beliefs upon me...
6. I'm an American, and do not endorse forcing my particular religious beliefs upon others...

:confused:

So your undecided

And again you can't make up your mind


:confused:

I fail to see what is confusing about that post. He holds a fairly clear and somewhat common position supporting the equal rights of homosexuals.

I fail to see what is confusing about that post. He holds a fairly clear and somewhat common position supporting the equal rights of homosexuals.

he's for it and against it in every instance, how is that clear? Also how is that even a position?
You're either for it, against it, or don't care at all.

he's for it and against it in every instance, how is that clear? Also how is that even a position?
You're either for it, against it, or don't care at all.

Um, no, that's not what he said at all.

He doesn't agree with homosexuality but doesn't believe the state can legislate based on his religious beliefs. In other words, it's a sin but not a crime.

He says that it's perfectly acceptable for a church to refuse to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex, but not for the government to do so.

Unless you think one's personal beliefs must be reinforced by laws and the church can only do what the state may do, there is nothing confusing about that post.

I have gay friends. I have two REALLY smokin' hot lesbian friends, and if they want to get married by a Justice of the Peace, I see no trouble.

Why not a Priest? Because aren't they against it? I mean if you could find a Priest to do it, go for it, but you're better off going to the courthouse for such a thing.

I find it ironic how politicians first support the violation of church and state act, yet take the religious beliefs to influence their political decisions. Such example as George Bush, Christian, against same sex marraige. His reason, the Bible. Obvious infaction of the act???

he's for it and against it in every instance, how is that clear? Also how is that even a position?
You're either for it, against it, or don't care at all.

The way I read it, he personally doesn't agree with it for his life, but doesn't see much of a problem with it if others want it for their lives.

I believe it's called "tolerance".

Gay marriage?! BAH! It should be completly illegal. Let's say there's a gay neighbourhood-there will be so many hate crimes, the city will fall apart. Its' un-natural, and they can't even give birth! You want our children being raised by gays? They will be made fun of at school and have a horrible reputation. You marry the opposite sex, or you're not getting married at all, now are you? Now, this may sound discustingly cruel, and for that my deepest apology. I'm not a bad person. I don't hate gay people, they're defently not bad people! I just don't beleive they should be allowed to get married. I would NEVER raise taxes on them. I would NEVER have the governement take away their belongings when they die. That's pretty much stealing-I'm Orthodox, it's against my religion, anyways! I just say gay marriage is bloody rubbish.

Um, no, that's not what he said at all.

He doesn't agree with homosexuality but doesn't believe the state can legislate based on his religious beliefs. In other words, it's a sin but not a crime.

He says that it's perfectly acceptable for a church to refuse to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex, but not for the government to do so.

Unless you think one's personal beliefs must be reinforced by laws and the church can only do what the state may do, there is nothing confusing about that post.
If you say so
The way I read it, he personally doesn't agree with it for his life, but doesn't see much of a problem with it if others want it for their lives.

I believe it's called "tolerance".

Then why didn't he just say that?

If his personal beliefs do not match his religions tenets, why did he mention them?

So your undecided

And again you can't make up your mind


:confused:

What's so confusing... I'm against homosexuality within my personal life, and oppose it personally by religious conviction; but support the right of others to engage in or partake of that lifestyle based on political conviction... It's not all that confusing... It's no different than saying that I oppose Wiccan beliefs, but affirming their right to practice said religion...

If one accepts gay marriage as a legal, not religious contract, one must also accept it's only legal ramifications are surviving spousal benefits-Social Security and such. Thusly, it should be legalized, as gay partnerships rely on such things as much as heterosexual, traditional partnerships, as to prevent corrupt officials from raking the accounts over the coals for their own benefits. However, as a firm believer in the rights of religious institutions, I also believe it is perfectly acceptable for the religions as oppose homosexuality to refuse marriage rights-just grab a justice of the peace over a minister or priest.
However, if marriage is a religious contract over a legal one, I have to side with the religion denying said rights.
So long as no one accepts a government forcing such a contract on a religion that vehemently opposes homosexuality, I have no problem-separation of Church and State works both ways, you know...

If one accepts gay marriage as a legal, not religious contract, one must also accept it's only legal ramifications are surviving spousal benefits-Social Security and such. Thusly, it should be legalized, as gay partnerships rely on such things as much as heterosexual, traditional partnerships, as to prevent corrupt officials from raking the accounts over the coals for their own benefits. However, as a firm believer in the rights of religious institutions, I also believe it is perfectly acceptable for the religions as oppose homosexuality to refuse marriage rights-just grab a justice of the peace over a minister or priest.
However, if marriage is a religious contract over a legal one, I have to side with the religion denying said rights.
So long as no one accepts a government forcing such a contract on a religion that vehemently opposes homosexuality, I have no problem-separation of Church and State works both ways, you know...which religion? if you should choose to view marriage as a religious thing, then why would the ban on gay marriage apply to members of non-abrahamic religions?

If you say so


Then why didn't he just say that?

If his personal beliefs do not match his religions tenets, why did he mention them?

My religious beliefs are personal, my political beliefs are personal... I mentioned both, because both are personal beliefs... I was highlighting, that merely holding a religious belief, does not mean you need to oppose activities of others outside of your religion on political grounds...

However, if marriage is a religious contract over a legal one, I have to side with the religion denying said rights.

No, you don't. Because if you did, you would be trampling over religious freedoms, and denying denominations who would willingly and happily perform gay marriages the right to do so. And many of them exist. You would be favoring one religion over another, and that is against every principle of freedom of religion in your constitution.

If you outlaw gay marriage on religious grounds, then you might as well remove the freedom to practice whatever religion you want from your bill of rights, and replace it with the right to practice the majority's religion and shutting up your trap about it.

which religion? if you should choose to view marriage as a religious thing, then why would the ban on gay marriage apply to members of non-abrahamic religions?

Agreed, there certainly are religious institutions which would gladly perform same-sex marriages; why should one particular class of religions be given exclusivity over the religious validity of marital unions in the eyes of the law... Using "marriage is a religious institution" is not a valid argument when used to deny the religious conviction of one class over that of another.

My religious beliefs are personal, my political beliefs are personal... I mentioned both, because both are personal beliefs... I was highlighting, that merely holding a religious belief, does not mean you need to oppose activities of others outside of your religion on political grounds...

Kudos to you

If you say so


Then why didn't he just say that?

If his personal beliefs do not match his religions tenets, why did he mention them?

Because he didn't say his personal beliefs don't match his religion's tenets. In fact, he said the opposite. He simply said that he isn't willing to impose on the freedom of others just because he doesn't agree with their choices. It's really rather simiple.

The fact that he's actually a homosexual

just because I would rather go down on an entire football club than go down on one woman does not make me gay.

just because I would rather go down on an entire football club than go down on one woman does not make me gay.

No, I'm pretty sure that it does.

just because I would rather go down on an entire football club than go down on one woman does not make me gay....:confused:

just because I would rather go down on an entire football club than go down on one woman does not make me gay.

Yeah that...that mean you're a homosexual dude.

Might have to come to terms with that.

Hahahahahahaha, oh wow, I don't think I've ever laughed so much before. That's priceless.

Yeah that...that mean you're a homosexual dude.

Might have to come to terms with that.

Would it not require attraction rather than lesser revulsion to be considered homosexual?

There already exist quite a few religions in which gay marriage is acceptable. Of course, that's not relevant in the least, as what religions do and do not allow should definitionally have nothing whatsoever to do with what the government does and does not allow. The 14th Amendment is the only argument that ought to be needed to render gay marriage a federally guaranteed right; sadly, because our country is full of a lot of people willing to ignore the Constitution when it suits their ends, we still aren't there yet.

Really? Which one's?

just because I would rather go down on an entire football club than go down on one woman does not make me gay.

True--you might be bisexual and have a preference for multiple partners.

Really? Which one's?

Unitarian Universalism. The UCC. The Episcopalians. There's more, but I'm too lazy to list them.

Awww, a thread about teh gheys and I missed it. That was a once in a blue moon opportunity :(

If not two men or two women, why not three men? Ot two women and one man? Or a man and a dog?Hahaha, jokester you are.

If not two men or two women, why not three men? Ot two women and one man? Or a man and a dog?

Really? Which one's?

The Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches, Ecumenical Catholic Church, Church of God Anonymous, ALEPH (Alliance for Jewish Renewal), Reconstructionist Judaism, Reform Judaism, and the Unitarian Universalist Association would all perform same-sex marriages... The Presbyterian Church (USA) allows same-sex union blessings... and some United Church of Christ and Quaker churches would also perform such unions, as the decision to allow such is left to individual congregations.... And this is just the larger institutional religions...

If not two men or two women, why not three men? Ot two women and one man? Or a man and a dog?

Multi-party creates some different scenarios... as for the "dog"; the simple answer is, a dog is not capable of providing legal consent.

And why is it, when people are advocating for the right of someone to marry another person who isn't of the opposite-sex as the original person in question; the assumption is automatically that it's equally valid to assume that under the same idea that one should advocate the capacity of a person to enter into a legal union with some person or creature which is not capable of providing consent....

It's simple people... really... I mean come on.... We advocate for the right of one person to enter consensually into a marital union with the partner of their choosing, regardless of race, creed, or sex of the partners in question... There is a massive difference between the two concepts....

just because I would rather go down on an entire football club than go down on one woman does not make me gay.

It's a strong indicator though

If not two men or two women, why not three men?
I agree, why not?
Or two women and one man?
Or two men and one woman, again why not?
Or a man and a dog?
because a dog cannot give consent

just because I would rather go down on an entire football club than go down on one woman does not make me gay.

This just makes me laugh. :D

just because I would rather go down on an entire football club than go down on one woman does not make me gay.

Dude, that's nearly the DEFINITION of gay.

Really? Which one's?

Many sects of Christianity, most Pagan sects, Discordianisim, um what do the various sects of Judeisim say (answerd upthread actualy . . .)? Anyone got others?

Dude, that's nearly the DEFINITION of gay.

Come on, give the guy a break. Maybe he prefers quantity over quality.

Soviestan, how about you just go down on me eleven times?
I promise to shower....

For starters vaginas are basically hairy, mutant venus fly traps

You're describing the vulva (the external genetalia). The vagina is on the inside. Maybe if you learned a little bit about female anatomy, you wouldn't be so intimidated by it. Or, you know, you're so far in the closet you can see the lamp post.

Women don't have tongues and fingers? I think I'd better go check my wifes gender again . . .

Well, since my doctor gave me birth control pills and I have debilitating cramps every month, I'd say it's still a safe bet that I, your wife, am female.

How do YOU define "decent human being?"

An ye harm none, do what thou wilt.

That's the only true definition there is, all others can go despair themselves in the Hades.

Come on, give the guy a break. Maybe he prefers quantity over quality.

No, at least not until he can admit that his statements do make it sound like he's gay (or at least bi).

Soviestan, how about you just go down on me eleven times?
I promise to shower....

Now who's the gay one? anyway, there are more than eleven guys on a club....

You're describing the vulva (the external genetalia). The vagina is on the inside. Maybe if you learned a little bit about female anatomy, you wouldn't be so intimidated by it. Or, you know, you're so far in the closet you can see the lamp post.

do you want some conditioner for those hairs you spilt?

do you want some conditioner for those hairs you spilt?

if you think pointing out the difference between a vagina and a vulva is "splitting hairs" you must be someone who, quite literally, doesn't know his ass from his elbow.

just because I would rather go down on an entire football club than go down on one woman does not make me gay.

Well? No that is rather gay.

To put my opinion on the matter, I don't care whether they can or can't its just not that important.

I heartily believe that any two consenting adults should be allowed to marry if there are not other legalities preventing them.

I do not believe that their respective genders should be considered as a legality preventing marriage.

I do not choose a same-gender marriage for myself, but I think two committed adults should have the same protections and responsibilities as any other couple.

I heartily believe that any two consenting adults should be allowed to marry if there are not other legalities preventing them.

I do not believe that their respective genders should be considered as a legality preventing marriage.

I do not choose a same-gender marriage for myself, but I think two committed adults should have the same protections and responsibilities as any other couple.

Yay Kat! Well stated :D

if you think pointing out the difference between a vagina and a vulva is "splitting hairs" you must be someone who, quite literally, doesn't know his ass from his elbow.

Well I'm not trying to be an obgyn here and for the sake of argument it doesn't matter what its called. My point was that it is not exactly appealing.

Well I'm not trying to be an obgyn here and for the sake of argument it doesn't matter what its called. My point was that it is not exactly appealing.

Your point was idiotic and made in an idiotic way. That's why it's being made fun of. Your description of the female anatomy is childish to say the least and demonstrative of need to visit a health class and quick. That's the reaction you're getting and it's well deserved.

Nor, God willing, will we ever get "there".

Homosexuals already have "equal rights." They have the same right to marry one individual of the opposite sex as normal, heterosexual people do. The fact that they choose not to exercise that right, or that they are unhappy that there isn't a different right, or that the existing right doesn't sanction gratification of their aberrant desires, is completely unimportant.

Your Constitutional argument fails. As do those by black-robed wanna-be social engineers and imperious pseudo-legislators like the Massachusetts Supreme Court.

Marriage = one man, one woman. End of issue.

Ah. Your god. And here we see the Right finally admitting its psychopathic need to have their church rape others...

What of it, then? I will move reality itself to show you...

***From destiny and reality, reveal the path this fool would have us tread. Give existence to that which he wishes, give life to his deranged dreams! Show him the results of his wants! Give him the end results, the hellish holistic finalization to the reality he so desires!***

***Hellistics!***

Very well, New Mitanni, you have your wish. Those dirty fags aren't allowed to marry, because what they do is WRONG! But, you see, much like a spider's web, the changes one makes in reality have their consequences. For their lack of a marriage is based on a desire to have State and Church connected, and, by connecting them in the USA, you automatically give Muslim-majority countries the legitimacy to do the same. A few years in, and homosexuality is outlawed in America, as it is in all of Africa and the Middle East. That's so great, is it not? However, they now are expanding their wishes. If you do not believe as they would have you believe, you are now, if unofficially, blacklisted. You still have rights, you only have harder a time making them count. Europe, conversely, is seeing the USA as a threat not unlike Iran, only on steroids. So, they strengthen South America, thereby releasing it and Canada from your influence. The Muslim states, legitimized due to the fact that you, too, are a theocracy, see your new, weakened position as a sign that tells them to attack you. So they do. Russia supports them because of their age-old deals and proximity, and because the US has turned into something right out of The Handmaid's Tale. The Middle-East is turned into glass, so are Russia and the United States. Fallout hits most of Eastern Europe, all of Central America and all of North America. Global warming gets worse, and the only truly inhabitable places suffer with a colder climate (Europe) or with a warmer climate (South America, Africa). You are now long-dead, for that matter, either due to the legitimized "will of the populace" that gets you, one that does not agree with EVERYTHING they say, killed, or, in case you ARE part of this "majority", you get killed in the war with the newly-legitimized - by YOUR actions - Muslim states (ones that aren't acting like true Muslims would act, but so what, it's not like you follow the teachings of Jesus anyways). The next generation suffers with famine, lack of technology and several other problems, all made worse by the change the bombs brought upon the climate. In a few years, the last human being ceases to breath.

And that is the world you so wish, New Mitanni. I have granted it. You may now live the rest of your days knowing what the reality you so wish would bring.

For want of a nail, the horse was lost. For want of a horse, the knight was lost. For want of a knight, the battle was lost. For want of a battle, the war was lost. And thus, the kingdom was lost. All for want of a nail.

Your point was idiotic and made in an idiotic way. That's why it's being made fun of. Your description of the female anatomy is childish to say the least and demonstrative of need to visit a health class and quick. That's the reaction you're getting and it's well deserved.

great sense of humour you have.....

great sense of humour you have.....

Thanks. I get that a lot.

Oh, you're being sarcastic. Right, how could I not have ignored the obvious mysogyny in your posts in order to giggle like a child? Why don't you make a black joke so we can all slap our knees? Tell the one about how the boyscout gave the "******" his knapsack. That one kills at parties.

Thanks. I get that a lot.

Oh, you're being sarcastic. Right, how could I not have ignored the obvious mysogyny in your posts in order to giggle like a child? Why don't you make a black joke so we can all slap our knees? Tell the one about how the boyscout gave the "******" his knapsack. That one kills at parties.

you seem like an angry, lonely person. anyway, I fail to see how my lack of desire to go down on a woman makes me a racist....

you seem like an angry, lonely person. anyway, I fail to see how my lack of desire to go down on a woman makes me a racist....

Heh, I'm sure reading my posts and yours, I appear to be the lonelier person. Cuz, you know, guys who talk about women the way you do often have tons of women and men who can't wait for them to say more. But then again I'm not blowing an entire football team, so maybe I am a bit lonelier.

And I find it amusing that you believe a LACK of tolerance of mysogyny means I'm an angry person. Let's see. You express your rather ignorant understanding of the female anatomy in order to show your disdain for it, and I'm the one with issues. I tend to dislike hate-speech in all it's forms. I guess that must mean I'm angry and bitter. Cuz, it's not the hate-speech that's angry and bitter. It's clearly a problem in the reaction of people to it.

Meanwhile, I didn't call you a racist. I made a comparison between racist jokes and mysogynist jokes. They are both hate-speech. You made a mysogynist joke. Follow along, sparky.

*snip*.

You should lighten up a little bit sport. You're the only one that takes offense to what I said. If anyone else was offended, feel free to speak up.

You should lighten up a little bit sport. You're the only one that takes offense to what I said. If anyone else was offended, feel free to speak up.

Jocabia and Neo have nailed you pretty good so the rest don't really need to speak up.

You should lighten up a little bit sport. You're the only one that takes offense to what I said. If anyone else was offended, feel free to speak up.

Hmmm... you sure about that? I seem to see regular attacks on your mysogyny by a lot of posters. However, I'll lighten up your mysogyny when you stop being a mysogynist, deal?

You used your own ignorance of the female anatomy as an argument against the act of cunnilingus. Having done so, are you surprised that we're laughing at the ignorance you entered into evidence?

Now who's the gay one?
Maybe he is? Maybe he's bi? Maybe he just doesn't consider the possibility of being gay an insult?
anyway, there are more than eleven guys on a club....
He was probably thinking American Football

You should lighten up a little bit sport. You're the only one that takes offense to what I said. If anyone else was offended, feel free to speak up.
Jocabia and Neo have nailed you pretty good so the rest don't really need to speak up.

Exactly

Maybe he is? Maybe he's bi? Maybe he just doesn't consider the possibility of being gay an insult?

He was probably thinking American Football

Yes, but a football team has more people on it than are on the field at one time. I believe that was young Sovie's point.

Yes, but a football team has more people on it than are on the field at one time. I believe that was young Sovie's point.

A silly point, but I'll concede it :)

A silly point, but I'll concede it :)

It's Sovietstan. What do expect besides silly points? This is the same person who in this very thread made the argument that vagina's are hairy and that men's penises are inherently cleaner, both of which are factually untrue. All this was right before saying he would rather pleasure an entire football team (notice how he happens to choose a group and a sport that would necessarily make their penises covered in grime and sweat) than pleasure a woman. Suddenly, he's held to non-silly points. Really?

It's Sovietstan. What do expect besides silly points?
Other unrelated idiocy ;)
This is the same person who in this very thread made the argument that vagina's are hairy and that men's penises are inherently cleaner, both of which are factually untrue.
Very true (your statement, not his bizarre one)
All this was right before saying he would rather pleasure an entire football team (notice how he happens to choose a group and a sport that would necessarily make their penises covered in grime and sweat) than pleasure a woman.
definitely odd, but whatever floats his boat :rolleyes:
Suddenly, he's held to non-silly points. Really?
Well, no, I just felt like pointing out the obvious. :D

He was probably thinking American Football

well then it would be even more players. Sure 11 start, but there are many, many more bench players.

Hmmm... you sure about that? I seem to see regular attacks on your mysogyny by a lot of posters. However, I'll lighten up your mysogyny when you stop being a mysogynist, deal?

You used your own ignorance of the female anatomy as an argument against the act of cunnilingus. Having done so, are you surprised that we're laughing at the ignorance you entered into evidence?

Its not evidence, its my own opinion

It's Sovietstan. What do expect besides silly points? This is the same person who in this very thread made the argument that vagina's are hairy and that men's penises are inherently cleaner, both of which are factually untrue. All this was right before saying he would rather pleasure an entire football team (notice how he happens to choose a group and a sport that would necessarily make their penises covered in grime and sweat) than pleasure a woman. Suddenly, he's held to non-silly points. Really?

well vaginas/vulvas ARE hairy. and none of my points are silly if you just think about them.

well vaginas/vulvas ARE hairy. and none of my points are silly if you just think about them.

Vaginas are not hairy. Vulvas are. They are not the same thing. It's like saying your nutsack is a penis. Equally ignorant and wildly absurd.

Meanwhile, every one of your points are silly and most of them are ignorant. It's a fact that a woman's parts are naturally cleaner than a man's parts. A woman's part can actually have problems from overcleaning, as it removes the natural way it cleans itself. Meanwhile, one of the biggest causes of problems is the introduction of our dirty, non-self-cleaning member. But hey, if you want to put the sweaty penises of 88 men in your mouth rather than the FACTUALLY much cleaner women's parts, go ahead, but you're much more likely to get physically ill.

Its not evidence, its my own opinion

You were making a point about why you won't go down on women and you made claims while making a point, factually ignorant claims.

I think people of the same gender, different genders, same visual gender, and different visual gender should have the right to vote. Hell, over here, any 2 people that are at least the legal age of marriage can marry, irrelevant of gender, and it's really made a lot of more people happy here, so I think the US Government should take Canada's path to legalization of homosexual marriage (with help from the 14th Amendment, of course;)) and ignore the homophobes, Christian zealots, and everyone else trying to get everyone worked up about this whole issue.

Oy. I write up an entire text destroying Mit, and all I get is a discussion on the vulva. :p

Vaginas are not hairy. Vulvas are. They are not the same thing. It's like saying your nutsack is a penis. Equally ignorant and wildly absurd.

Meanwhile, every one of your points are silly and most of them are ignorant. It's a fact that a woman's parts are naturally cleaner than a man's parts. A woman's part can actually have problems from overcleaning, as it removes the natural way it cleans itself. Meanwhile, one of the biggest causes of problems is the introduction of our dirty, non-self-cleaning member. But hey, if you want to put the sweaty penises of 88 men in your mouth rather than the FACTUALLY much cleaner women's parts, go ahead, but you're much more likely to get physically ill.

You seem to really hate penises yet you're really into vaginas. Are you sure you secretly don't want to be a woman?

well vaginas/vulvas ARE hairy. and none of my points are silly if you just think about them.Not if shaven.

You seem to really hate penises yet you're really into vaginas. Are you sure you secretly don't want to be a woman?

No, I've just had an anatomy class. You should take one so you don't say such provably ignorant things.

Despite your ignorance, and your proven track record of ignoring information, it's worthwhile for you to note, that I only explained the functions and requirements of cleansing the penis and vagina. I gave nothing in terms of my personal opinion on those subjects.

One of your many flaws when it comes to what you post is that you cannot seem to divine which is opinion and which is fact. Let me help you out in this case. Everything I said about the anatomy is fact.

One of your many flaws when it comes to what you post is that you cannot seem to divine which is opinion and which is fact. Let me help you out in this case. Everything I said about the anatomy is fact.
Soooo....

What can you tell us about your anatomy then? ;)

Soooo....

What can you tell us about your anatomy then? ;)

"Making a mountain out of a molehill" :D

"Making a mountain out of a molehill" :D

Nah, my molehills aren't that impressive at all.

Nah, my molehills aren't that impressive at all.

I stand disappointed :(

Well I'm not trying to be an obgyn here and for the sake of argument it doesn't matter what its called. My point was that it is not exactly appealing.

Well, not to gay men anyway. To straight men it's quite appealing.

It's Sovietstan. What do expect besides silly points? This is the same person who in this very thread made the argument that vagina's are hairy and that men's penises are inherently cleaner, both of which are factually untrue. All this was right before saying he would rather pleasure an entire football team (notice how he happens to choose a group and a sport that would necessarily make their penises covered in grime and sweat) than pleasure a woman. Suddenly, he's held to non-silly points. Really?

...This is the mental image I get on the eve of the New Year... ugh.

thanks a lot Jocabia. ;)

Well, not to gay men anyway. To straight men it's quite appealing.

Actually, I know some straight men who aren't appealed by the idea of it.

Cunnilingus is a sexual practice, and just like every other sexual practice, it has adherents and people who don't want to engage in it. Just like fellatio, or anal sex. Sexual orientation does not define the sexual practices one might be involved in.

I stand disappointed :(

His nipples can cut glass, though.

well vaginas/vulvas ARE hairy. and none of my points are silly if you just think about them.

If you've seen a hairy vagina, it was probably in a freak show. Your continued ignorance of female anatomy is killing whatever point you're trying to make about it.

You seem to really hate penises yet you're really into vaginas. Are you sure you secretly don't want to be a woman?

Who doesn't?

The cooking, the cleaning, and the (on average) lower salary almost makes a sex change worth it.

Who doesn't?

The cooking, the cleaning, and the (on average) lower salary almost makes a sex change worth it.

How very 20th century.

Women in the third millennium actually have better graduation rates than men. Soon, they'll be the ones running the place. Already they're becoming the bulk of doctors, lawyers, and other assorted professions that are usually regarded as the "elite" of a society.

No, if I were you, I'd drop the chauvinistic comments and start to try being on their good side. :p

Luckily, us gay men already hold a privileged relationship with this "woman" creature, so we're not really the ones who stand to lose the most from this shift in power. :D

How very 20th century.
Of course. What century are you in?
Women in the third millennium actually have better graduation rates than men.
:eek:
Soon, they'll be the ones running the place.
:eek::eek:
Already they're becoming the bulk of doctors, lawyers, and other assorted professions that are usually regarded as the "elite" of a society.
:eek::eek::eek:
No, if I were you, I'd drop the chauvinistic comments and start to try being on their good side. :p
*sets some bras on fire and makes some sandwiches*
Luckily, us gay men already hold a privileged relationship with this "woman" creature, so we're not really the ones who stand to lose the most from this shift in power. :D
Curse you.

Actually, I know some straight men who aren't appealed by the idea of it.

Cunnilingus is a sexual practice, and just like every other sexual practice, it has adherents and people who don't want to engage in it. Just like fellatio, or anal sex. Sexual orientation does not define the sexual practices one might be involved in.

I was under the impression that he was calling that portion of anatomy unappealing . . .

His nipples can cut glass, though.

Totally true.

Of course. What century are you in?

The 21rst Century like the rest of us. You should probably look up how that works before you reply.

The 21rst Century like the rest of us. You should probably look up how that works before you reply.

Alas, I seem to have misled you with my feigned ignorance.

I thought the seriousness of that statement would be under suspicion, especially concerning the contents of the post.

Alas, I seem to have misled you with my feigned ignorance.

I thought the seriousness of that statement would be under suspicion, especially concerning the contents of the post.

i think it was obvious to everyone else.

i think it was obvious to everyone else.

Eh, it's New Year's Eve and I've imbibed a tad. By the way, my nipples could cut glass.

To be honest, I don't care. I won't be affected either way if some guy marries some guy, or some girl marries some girl. Maybe I'd have a problem with a person marrying an animal or something, but seriously, this doesn't even matter.

What I do have a problem with is crazed religious fanatics who think this will corrupt their children somehow. Uh, pardon me, but I go to church every weekend, and seeing two guys/two girls holding hands isn't suddenly going to shake my faith to the core and make me go on a murderous sinful spree. If people are that worried about their kids being corrupted, I think they need to worry about being better parents before trying to enact social change.

To be honest, I don't care. I won't be affected either way if some guy marries some guy, or some girl marries some girl. Maybe I'd have a problem with a person marrying an animal or something, but seriously, this doesn't even matter.

What I do have a problem with is crazed religious fanatics who think this will corrupt their children somehow. Uh, pardon me, but I go to church every weekend, and seeing two guys/two girls holding hands isn't suddenly going to shake my faith to the core and make me go on a murderous sinful spree. If people are that worried about their kids being corrupted, I think they need to worry about being better parents before trying to enact social change.

Obviously you don't really believe, 'cause if you did you'd realize that homosexuality is an affront to god :rolleyes:

Obviously you don't really believe, 'cause if you did you'd realize that homosexuality is an affront to god :rolleyes:

Yeah. Burn the evil heathen along with the filthy sodomites he loves so much!

Eh, it's New Year's Eve and I've imbibed a tad. By the way, my nipples could cut glass.

lol

i was going to suggest that you might have been celebrating but i decided that it was presumptuous of me.

I was under the impression that he was calling that portion of anatomy unappealing . . .

I find both the anatomy and the act rather unappealing.

I find both the anatomy and the act rather unappealing.

Penises > Vaginas

At least In-My-Not-So-Humble-Opinion.

Penises > Vaginas

At least In-My-Not-So-Humble-Opinion.

I would have to agree with this assesment

So you're attracted to male genetalia. Okay, We accept that.

It's actually a good point in his favor, if you ask me. *nods*

You straight men have yet to see the light.

I would have to agree with this assesment

So you're attracted to male genetalia. Okay, We accept that.

It's actually a good point in his favor, if you ask me. *nods*

You straight men have yet to see the light.

You're attracted to male genetalia as well. We can accept that as well. It's probably pretty common among gay men, that being the primary difference between men and women.

You're attracted to male genetalia as well. We can accept that as well. It's probably pretty common among gay men, that being the primary difference between men and women.
Only one amongst many, actually.

But it tends to be a favorite of ours, though, yes. :D

Only one amongst many, actually.

But it tends to be a favorite of ours, though, yes. :D

Well, actually other than the physical difference in genetalia, I challenge to find one universal difference between men and women. In fact, it's not uncommon for people who are homosexual to behave in ways that are considered common elements of the gender roles of the opposite gender. As such, I'd put genetalia at the only difference that would require you to prefer one sex over the other.

As such, I'd put genetalia at the only difference that would require you to prefer one sex over the other.

Very true. I am reasonably sure that if it weren't for that, there would be no reason for men to be attracted to women.
*prepares to flee*

Well, actually other than the physical difference in genetalia, I challenge to find one universal difference between men and women.

A y chromosome ? :p

Well, actually other than the physical difference in genetalia, I challenge to find one universal difference between men and women.

Get rid of the qualifier. "The physical difference in genitalia" isn't universal either.

Very true. I am reasonably sure that if it weren't for that, there would be no reason for men to be attracted to women.
*prepares to flee*

Specifically to women and not men? Yep. Again, I can't say it's because they're softer, because I've seen men that can be equally soft and women that aren't. It's not because of their curves, because I've seen men with them and women without. Long hair? Nope. "Feminine" features? Nope. Their smell? Nope. Personality? Nope. None of those things are unique to women.

If you want to know why I'm not attracted to a crossdressing (I actually despise the fact that such a term even exists) male in the same way as a non-crossdressing female, it's because she's got the right parts. That's it.

Heh. It's a good point, though I'm pretty certain that their chromosomes have little to do with your attraction.

I know just being silly when I saw that ... had no real point to it :)

A y chromosome ? :p

Heh. It's a good point, though I'm pretty certain that their chromosomes have little to do with your attraction.

Heh. It's a good point, though I'm pretty certain that their chromosomes have little to do with your attraction.

Not to mention the existence of XY females...

=)

I would have to agree with this assesment

So then why aren't you dating men?

Are you aware that the assessment you're agreeing with is being made by a homosexual male? Not that there's anything wrong with that, homosexual males would (obviously) tend to prefer male genitalia over female genitalia. Just letting you know.

If you find female anatomy (a subject which you apparently know little to nothing about, if we are to go by your posts) so disgusting, why be interested in females as mates at all?

If you'd rather perform fellatio on an entire male football team than perform cunnilingus for one female, doesn't it seem you're barking up the wrong tree (or, bush, rather)?