Plan B Forum

Ballot initiatives instituting marriage equality were approved in Maine, Maryland and Washington.

A proposed constitutional amendment to limit marriage to opposite-sex couples was defeated in Minnesota.

A recall effort against an Iowa Supreme Court justice who ruled in favour of marriage equality was rebuffed.

The results everywhere were a victory for progressives, and against rolling back human rights to the 1950s and the 1850s.

History marches forward. Against the tide of Republican evil.

yrs,
rubato

So
republicans = evil
Glad to know that.
Last time I checked "grouping people" into a category was a very republican thing to do, or so people say.

So, all republicans are bad in your mind?
If not so, then please clarify.
oldr_n_wsr = no party affiliation

It drives my Christian Conservative (nutcase) family members crazy (crazier) that I am ok with Gays getting married. I wonder if I will live to see it "OK" in this state.

Interestingly there is a lawmaker here who wants to see MJ legalized. I would bet that would happen before gay marriage.

The very expression, "marriage equality," is an absurdity. While a gay "marriage" can have many of the same characteristics as NORMAL marriage (esp. for lesbians in long-term relationships), it is a fundamentally different institution.

The only reason anyone would vote in favor of this perversion of marriage is to stop the endless whining.

Suck it up as another defeat for evolutionary throwback losers like yourself.

Fundamentally different in what way? The only difference I can see is that gay coupless cannot reproduce, but neither can many "normal" couples; e.g. postmenopausal women cannot reproduce, is the marriage of a postmenopausal woman to a man fundamentally different than normal marriage? Should such people be prevented by law from marrying?

Big RR wrote:Fundamentally different in what way?

Fundamentally different in a way that he will go on about while never actually mentioning anything specific.

Anyone pretending not to "notice" the fundamental difference between a normal marriage and a gay "marriage" is either intentionally obtuse or so unconcerned with reality as to render his opinions irrelevant.

Normal marriage has, at its core, the prospect of bringing children into the world, nurturing them, developing "good citizens" and remaining together through more than a single lifetime. The fact that it so often comes up short is not particularly relevant. Virtually everyone aspires to this ideal when they stand in front of the official and swear love and fidelity in marriage.

Gay marriage is, at its core and assuming the best, two people wanting to formalize what they hope will be a permanent, monogamous relationship between them. Period. They do not constitute a "family" in any meaningful sense, and absent artificial intervention, they cannot reproduce. Their "sexual" relationship, to the extent there is one, has nothing to do with normal human biology or reproduction, and is ultimately nothing more than enhanced co-masturbation.

The concept of "adultery" when applied to a gay "marriage" is rather silly. It is a relationship of convenience affecting only two people. Who besides them gives a shit?

Is this specific enough for you, Reaper?

When two homosexual people get "married," it probably is not a bad thing, from a public policy standpoint. It confers some nice benefits on the couple that they might not otherwise get, and there is probably little tangible harm to the society at large. In fact, if it results in less male-homosexual promiscuity, it might slow the spread of diseases for which I would have to pay under Obamacare. If such a measure were presented to me as a ballot initiative in PA (we don't have that right now), I would probably vote in favor of it.

Mainly, to stop the whining.

It is with no great pleasure that I disagree with my Church Elders on this particular point.

dgs49 wrote:The fact that it so often comes up short is not particularly relevant.

Of course. How could the fact that so many opposite-sex married couples do not have children, and that so many same-sex marrieds do, have any bearing on your "marriage-is-only-for-raising-children" argument?

Except that it completely demolishes it.

So then I guess you'd require fertility testing for all couples wantiing to marry and similarly prohibit post menopausal women from marrying, as well as any couple who cannot or will not reproduce? Somehow I doubt it.

dgs49 wrote:Normal marriage has, at its core, the prospect of bringing children into the world, nurturing them, developing "good citizens" and remaining together through more than a single lifetime. The fact that it so often comes up short is not particularly relevant. Virtually everyone aspires to this ideal when they stand in front of the official and swear love and fidelity in marriage.

Then explain why infertile people can get married. I eagerly await your scathing response which will in no way actually answer my question.

dgs49 wrote:The concept of "adultery" when applied to a gay "marriage" is rather silly. It is a relationship of convenience affecting only two people. Who besides them gives a shit?

So all you have is strawman garbage to try and say that a same-sex relationship can only be a relationship of convenience. Try again with a real argument.

dgs49 wrote:Their "sexual" relationship, to the extent there is one, has nothing to do with normal human biology or reproduction, and is ultimately nothing more than enhanced co-masturbation.

That certainly must limit your sex life.

You can only have sexual intercourse when you're trying to reproduce and a blow job would be too much like having a gay experience.

No wonder you often write as though your penis is in retrograde.

I rely for guidance on the "great" former president who correctly advised America that being the recipient of a blowjob (or giving one, for that matter) is not "having sex." Same goes for standing still while your comrade buggers you. So much for homosexual "sex" practices.

But of course if you are a contemporary Liberal, words mean whatever you want them to mean, in the context of which any discussion of word meanings is pointless.

Again: If the ability to make babies is so important to getting married, then why are infertile people allowed to marry?

Because "enhanced co-masturbation" isn't as much of an abomination if it's engaged in by a male and a female.

There's something in common to all of those who obsess as much as Dave does about how gay men have sex.

I'm sure Marcus Bachmann would have a place for him in his "social circle".

dgs49 wrote:Anyone pretending not to "notice" the fundamental difference between a normal marriage and a gay "marriage" is either intentionally obtuse or so unconcerned with reality as to render his opinions irrelevant.

Wow! Straight from the rubato school of 'debating'...

dgs49 wrote:I rely for guidance on the "great" former president who correctly advised America that being the recipient of a blowjob (or giving one, for that matter) is not "having sex."

Then what is it if it isn't "sex"?

Is it pretending to be gay by performing nonsexual acts with your heterosexual partner, which of course is allowed in dgs-world as long as the partners aren't gay.

I get it now.

It's okay to have an orgasm without having intercourse as long as you're with someone of the opposite sex, because those masculine sperm will be following the rules by looking for a nearby egg.

If there's no egg in the room, the act can only be described as gay unallowable non-sex.