QD, "thanks" for pointing out my typo. I was in a rush.
While I doubt that there are many coherent people still reading this thread, I am satisfied that the postings responding to my last one are sufficiently illuminating.
I honestly don't know whether GR is this stupid or he is just playing games. Does he actually fail to see the difference between tolerating homosexuality and recognizing gay "marriage"? Incredible.
Oh hey, more ad hominem attacks from the guy who says he doesn't like them.
And yes, there is a difference as you're not tolerating homosexuals if you're not allowing them to have equal rights. Especially when that denial is based on faulty scientific understanding.
Please explain how buggery is a normal sexual practice (and not just another form of masturbation). Include examples (other than anomalous, one-time activities) of other large mammals engaging in the practice, which one would expect if it were "normal."
And you might want to consult with Scooter, who believes that having a phallus stuck up your ass is better than having sex.
The Bonobo, which has a matriarchal society, unusual amongst apes, is a fully bisexual species—both males and females engage in heterosexual and homosexual behavior, being noted for female-female homosexuality in particular. About 60% of all sexual activity in this species is between two or more females. While the homosexual bonding system in Bonobos represents the highest frequency of homosexuality known in any species, homosexuality has been reported for all great apes (a group which includes humans), as well as a number of other primate species.[56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64]
dgs49 wrote:And you might want to consult with Scooter, who believes that having a phallus stuck up your ass is better than having sex.
This coming from someone whose idea of sex is having a woman lie beneath him motionless and unresponsive as if she were nothing but a blowup doll.
And there are all sorts of ways you can find out what anal sex is like since you are more obsessed about it than any gay man I know. I'm sure one of these days we'll be hearing all about the ER visit you had to make when you "fell" on that cucumber.
"Hang on while I log in to the James Webb telescope to search the known universe for who the fuck asked you." -- James Fell
Therefore, not allowing marriage means not allowing equal rights, which means not really tolerating them. They can be happy with whatever rights you let them have, they just won't ever be treated completely equally to everybody else.
Good response, Scoots. Really responsive. I notice you don't deny that you have posted here that anal stimulation was the most intensely pleasurable sort.
G.R., every unmarried man in the United States is free to marry any legally competent adult woman who is not a blood relative.
This is what equality means. Every man has equal rights.
No man in the Unites States is free to marry his sister, or a child, or a moron, or a sheep, or another man. No married man is free to marry another person.
Where is the discrimination? Every man in the U.S. has exactly the same rights and restrictions. Is a thief discriminated against because he not allowed to take what belongs to someone else?
Tolerance can only be understood by comparison with intolerance. It is not so long ago when homosexuals could not be hired as schoolteachers or scoutmasters. When sodomy was a felony (not enforced against heterosexuals). When police regularly raided gay bars and abused or arrested patrons. When fraternity brothers used to beat up queers for sport. When a man would be instantly discharged from the military when being caught in an act of sodomy.
All of these are history. The extinction of these situations and practices is what is called, "tolerance."
Changing the definition of "Marriage" to include theoretically monogamous relationships between men goes way beyond tolerance.
dgs49 wrote: notice you don't deny that you have posted here that anal stimulation was the most intensely pleasurable sort.
What I said was that the most intense male orgasms are achieved through direct stimulation of the prostate, something achievable only via the adjacent anal wall. That is simply a biological fact. Whether that makes sex the "most pleasurable" is, of course, completely a matter of individual taste. Unlike you, I don't attempt to define other people's sex lives for them.
G.R., every unmarried man in the United States is free to marry any legally competent adult woman who is not a blood relative.
The speciousness of such arguments were demolished in Loving v. Virginia, when it was attempted to be argued that everyone was being treated equally if they were equally able to marry someone of their own race. Your claim of 'equality" is no less ridiculous.
"Hang on while I log in to the James Webb telescope to search the known universe for who the fuck asked you." -- James Fell
quaddriver wrote:hetero men cannot marry another man either no?
Because they wouldn't be interested in doing so, hence being heterosexual.
Meanwhile, homosexuals, who would be interested in doing so, are denied in most places.
If you were trying to make a point there, you should probably try again.
and here I thought the argument was about getting the same financial bennies, which has nothing to do with sex.
so is this a religious issue - which after all, what marriage is (and most homosexuals are a little bit sketchy on since some of the majors - like christians, LDS, moslems etc - insist gays are to suffer a wee bit before they die.....)
or a financial issue.
such are the risks you take with your argument when you post only to insult.
It has nothing to do with "financial bennies", since that could be achieved with domestic partnerships/civil unions, and has been, in those jurisdictions where they are recognized (obviously not yet by the U.S. federal gov't). I was recognized in law as the common law spouse of my partner (he died before same-sex marriage was legal here) which would have entitled me to any of the "financial bennies" of marriage. What it did not give me, was legal status as his next of kin, which could only have been achieved thru marriage. When he was ill and in hospital, I could have been barred from visiting him if his parents, as legal next of kn, had objected (as it was, they never showed their faces). In order to make medical decisions he was not able to make, we had to plan in advance with a medical power of attorney which would have been unnecessary had we been allowed to be legally married. When he died, I would not have had the issues I had in settling his estate, even though he made his intentions perfectly clear, because as his legal spouse I would have been his next of kin. Instead, his parents were viewed as his next of kin and therefore were presumed to have an interest in his estate, despite his express wish to the contrary, and they created no end of problems and expense. If we had had children, as a married couple we could have both legally adopted them; instead, only one of us would have been able to be the legal parent and when one of us died, those children would have faced the prospect of being ripped out of their home and out of the care of the only remaining parent they had ever known.
And frankly, anyone who believes that business should be conducted ethically should insist that same-sex spouses be allowed to legally married. Some of the Enron scam involved the same-sex partner of one of the principals; because he was not legally married they were not viewed as related party transactions and so they were able to keep their ill-gotten profits. There are also innumerable provisions that would SAVE the government money if same-sex couples were legally married (for example, any government program based on family income would have to take the income of BOTH people into account, which is currently not the case).
The religious aspect is also important. Currently, the ministers of a religion that recognizes same-sex marriage are legally prohibited from performing them where SSM is illegal, because it is illegal for anyone licensed by the state to perform marriage to perform what is purported to be a marriage between people who are not legally permitted to be married. So in addition to all of the civil, secular disabilities imposed on same-sex couples by preventing them from legally marrying, the prohibition of SSM is also a breach of religious freedom.
"Hang on while I log in to the James Webb telescope to search the known universe for who the fuck asked you." -- James Fell
Poor dgs. In his whole life I bet no woman has ever stimulated his prostate during sex. He'll die without knowing the intense pleasure of anal stimulation during the act of sexual intercourse. And so, doubtless, will his wife.
I wonder what God was thinking, building us that way in the first place?
God, the great abortionist and sexual pervert.
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
~ Carl Sagan
