Gay Marriage - are you for or against it and why?

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

@Dotard,

I don't need walker quite yet,but I DO have walking stick; the right knee sometimes buckles or seizes due to the arthritis.


I'm afraid a fight between us would be more "Grumpy Old Men" (Jack Lemon and Walter Mathau) than "Rocky".

[Violet]

I am against marriage. I give alliances cautiously... and single-mating agreements even more discreetly. I cannot see any reason but one for why i would want to deliberately chain my freedom to love, and that one being monumental gains to make it a worthwhile agreement. Such an agreement is often life-binding, and so it really has to be worthwhile of a whole life unless one made it with every intention of breaking it.

Those who marry out of love are fools, for they have now restricted their ability to love. I am therefore against gay marriage: let them be happy

---

Silly fags, dicks are for chicks!

Actually, dicks are there for the sensitive skin a girl might want when she has it surgically replaced with a vagina. Thank goodness for dicks.

Wait... that's exactly what you said 0.o My bad, misinterpreted that

I can't say I'm too comfortable with the whole marriage thing as a whole but if two people want do get married they should be allowed to.

Agreed. A fool and his happiness are soon parted...

What about the dogs out in your street? Baboons. Chimpanzees. I did see a documentary once where they took a male rat, increased the leves of female rat hormones in it and placed it with other male rats. That rat began hiking it's ass up in the air as a female would looking for a mate. None of the other male rats even attempted to fuck it. They then decreased the female rat hormone, increasing the male hormone and that rat displayed male sexual behaviors again.

Guess what... men also establish this dominance when having sex with women. Isn't that interesting?

I mean, go figure... a natural desire to dominate and a natural desire to be dominated obviously couldn't have established via a system of sexual reproduction where one sex has to penetrate the other. It is not as if the pleasure one obtains by having sex is in any way related to the fact that if pleasure wasn't in store for at least the penetrator: the penetrator wouldn't seek out the other to be penetrated.

Yay for reasons to have sex! Go me! ^_^

I agree that it's not 'normal', I just don't care about what they want to do. If two dudes want to fuck let them, if they want to spend their lives together let them do that too, I don't really care and I don't think it should be any motherfucker's business but theirs - I'm not going to treat them any differently for it.

Good attitude. Hooray for victimless entertainment! ^_^

Abnormal? Yes. Disgusting? Depends whether or not they have buzz-cuts

I will not deny the attraction i hold for women that have absolutely no hair on their head. I believe we should evolve to be more naked. Few things are as annoying during sex as getting hair down one's throat or in one's face :S That said, i like having my scalp hair... makes me feel better about myself

This conversation should really turn into one about "what is normal?".

Seriously, we're a bunch of atheists who (for the most part) don't believe in objective morality, so what is "normal" must be what people do naturally, or what we can do. I mean, we all think flying through the air in a huge metalic tube is normal behaviour, yet it certainly isn't natural for our species to do. However, because we can do it, we view it differently.

My point is, even if Dotard were correct and homosexuality was just a hormonal inbalance (which studies repeatedly show not to be the case), why would it still be abnormal? Are you telling me a hormonal inbalance (i.e. something that occurs regularly in nature) is abnormal, whilst melting and shaping metal into airplanes and then flying through the sky at insanely fast speeds isn't...

Hey! We agree one something ^_^ There is hope for this relationship yet...

I support Gay Marriage because I'm not a bigot.

Then you must be an alot? Ima squirrel! ^_^

A threat eh? If we ever meet I shouldn't be honest in my discussions for fear you may punch me in the face? I need to tippy-toe around the subject of homos if it is brought up in discussions?

Ah... No. 'Tis a shame you sling those threats from 1/2 way around the world.
Please, if you are ever in the vicinity of South Texas, look me up. I'd be more than happy to "test that belief" not just to piss you off but to test that threat of yours.

Bring it old man.

Well... as entertaining as it would be to watch Dotard and Padriac punching each other in the face (the false teeth would be gone in seconds, and they might have to take breaks for painful cramps in their backs, and lets not forget the naps!)... i remain a wimp, and would rather they didn't kill each other, or even mortally wound each other :S

I don't think the airplane analogy quite works. One is utilizing inventions of man, one is behaviors. They just don't compare.

I argue that it is the behavior of man to invent and make use of his inventions. It's a beaver's behavior to build houses... are you going to call them abnormal for doing so now as well, even though they all do it?

I maintain it is normal for a human male to look down, grab a handful of penis and say; "Wow! Look at that. I can really thrash it around there. I need to find me a hole to put this in! Hey Sally! Can you come here for a minute? I want to show you something."

I don't think it is normal to be that direct... in my experience i am the one that has to direct a conversation along lines that lead to sex. But i guess i must just be unlucky in having men around me with no initiative >_< It's just sex!!! No need to beat around the bush about it >_<

It is not normal for a human male to look down, grab a handful of penis and say "Boy oh boy! I sure would like to have one of these shoved up my bung-hole!"

Considering that the 'bung-hole' is right up alongside your prostrate, i'm sure plenty find it perfectly enjoyable. The best sex of my life was administered through my ass, and I would love to have it happen again. Were it not for the logistics (like heat!!! And not being post OP yet!! TT__TT), having a group of people working on me in a variety of ways is a very fun concept for me ^_^

So why is the act of pushing up shit a reason not to support gay marriage? Would these people not getting married somehow prevent them from pushing up shit?

Plumbers do it all the time, and i really don't think some of them are getting much sex done 0.o

Also, it seems that all the disgust over homosexuality is being directed at gay males and gay sex. What about lesbians? Are they equally disgusting and abnormal? I never hear anyone complain about female-on-female sex. Why the double standard?

Depends... have they done what is proper and either fully shaved (or groomed, as Summer and Ryft insisted on), or am i having sex with a forrest? Forest is disgusting. I don't care so much about 'fat' and 'looks' as I do personality, lack of STI, and *shaved*.

Well, because. It's two Lesbians! Abnormal, yes. Disgusting? Why certainly not!

Seriously, I really think lesbian sex is acceptable only if video taped and shared over the internet. For free.
Or with the cutains open. Any other circumstance should be verboten.

----

Just fer the record:

I never said I was 'against' homosexuality. I just maintain it is a abnormal behavior. A perversion or a chemical imbalance.

Not "against" anything. And yes, it repulses me. Morality is subjective.

I'm with you here... of course i should also very much like to see men fucking one another. Attractive is indeed subjective ^_^

Sorry. You can't wish away existing labels. There are homosexuals, bi-sexuals and heterosexuals. I'm sure there exists chickensexuals, mudsexuals and electricaloutletsexuals to name a few. The first three are identified in the scientific communities and excepted by the majority of people. They exist. You are the first person who I ever heard deny their existance.

They exist as terms... much as alchemical formulae that turns lead into gold exists.

Lack of soundness? Sure. Exist? Well doesn't everything?! ^_^

And I'm sure I just may have been a homosexual if not for the existance of pussy. Or knotholes, or chickens. Nah, maybe not. Now that I think about it, I'd be a knotholesexual or chickensexual before homosexuality. But that's just me.

Oh.... what was the point of posting that?

Well, apparently you are more interested in having sex with chickens (personally... ew... i can get behind other sentient beings... but... chickens? I am racist against chickens, and I openly admit this) than with anything of your sex. The mouth is a hole, you know... I employ it (i'm told well, but alas: by inexperienced people) often enough.

Nope. I'd say it was the quality of the experiments. Maybe the first was held in San Fransico. Or maybe their selection of participants was all of 20 dudes in the "male bath-houses" of that day. It says 46% of the male population". Population where? And really, he asked every single male from the entire populace?
Most likely a much better quality report.

More likely still is that it was a valid and well cited work. I honestly don't play into the whole 'oh it's how the media view changed' idea, though it is amusing indeed. People have been persecuted and killed over homosexuality since... wow... it certainly has been a while, hasn't it? I doubt the test, but not because of sample data. And even though i doubt the test, I know i'm making my skepticism without any scientific basis, so I am not interested in proving the test wrong (it may even be right >_>).

I don't refute your point. Sure, if you are "against" homos getting married it could be considered bigotry.
Same if you are "against"..oh I dunno.... Christmas or polygamy then you could also rightly be labeled a bigot for prejudice againt polygamists or christians.

Oh look, I'm a bigot for being against Christmas and all of it's idiotic money-wasting extravaganza.

I'm also a hypocrite for buying an epic gaming computer ^_^

I am also a "polygamist"... and honestly you can hate on me all you want for it. I still get more choice in sex than monogamists, and that isn't changing just because they complain about it

Sure. Yes. Subjectively to me. There is something "wrong" with homosexuals. Objectively biologically speaking there is something went 'wrong' with them also.

As if life will continue recreating itself forever :eyeroll:

---

[Edwardo Piet]

Sure. Yes. Subjectively to me. There is something "wrong" with homosexuals. Objectively biologically speaking there is something went 'wrong' with them also.

There is no "wrong" objectively biologically speaking.

[ib.me.ub]

One say subjective, the other says objective.

There is no "wrong" objectively biologically speaking.

How can you be so sure.

In terms of reproduction, same sex couples are wrong, because it just dosen't work like that.

[KichigaiNeko]

One say subjective, the other says objective.

There is no "wrong" objectively biologically speaking.

How can you be so sure.

In terms of reproduction, same sex couples are wrong, because it just dosen't work like that.

And when a population gets too high for the local resources to support?? Then what ibby??

[Edwardo Piet]

In terms of reproduction, same sex couples are wrong

Do you have a point?

[ib.me.ub]

Can you read?

[Edwardo Piet]

No I can't read, whenever I seem to it's only a massive coincidence.

[ib.me.ub]

No I can't read, whenever I seem to it's only a massive coincidence.

lol. They are amusing though.

---

And when a population gets too high for the local resources to support?? Then what ibby??

ohh, yes. I like it. A bit of reverse psychology nekro.

[Edwardo Piet]

If all is meant by "wrong" objectively biologically speaking is the fact that same sex couple's can't reproduce, so what?