Madman Posted February 7, 2006 Report Share Posted February 7, 2006 You're so full of it man... leave the building already. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clopin Posted February 7, 2006 Report Share Posted February 7, 2006 Those two straight guys got a civil union. They are currently 'married'. Last I heard, they never went through with it... One of them joked that it would never work because the other guy hangs his wet socks in the shower. Yes, I'm sure there are gay people out there that are perfectly sane and rational, but then I have to ask, why do you not enjoy the company of the opposite sex? It seems even the most basic concepts are eluding you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Insom Elvis Posted February 7, 2006 Report Share Posted February 7, 2006 Those two straight guys got a civil union. They are currently 'married'. Last I heard, they never went through with it... One of them joked that it would never work because the other guy hangs his wet socks in the shower. Yes, I'm sure there are gay people out there that are perfectly sane and rational, but then I have to ask, why do you not enjoy the company of the opposite sex? It seems even the most basic concepts are eluding you. Apparently the most basic concepts are eluding the people who choose to ignore them, think of the sheer physics. Does the square peg fit into the round hole? I mean without discomfort, bleeding, advanced spread of disease, colon damage, etc. And if you care to forget the argument against gay sex then I'm fine defending straight marriage. Marriage is straight by definition, gays will never have marriage unless they re-define it and that is rewriting history. Civil union is a different matter which I am fully open to discuss, in any case please show me my shortcomings, I am as accepting of your opinion as you are of mine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clopin Posted February 7, 2006 Report Share Posted February 7, 2006 Apparently the most basic concepts are eluding the people who choose to ignore them, think of the sheer physics. Does the square peg fit into the round hole? I mean without discomfort, bleeding, advanced spread of disease, colon damage, etc. And if you care to forget the argument against gay sex then I'm fine defending straight marriage. Marriage is straight by definition, gays will never have marriage unless they re-define it and that is rewriting history. Civil union is a different matter which I am fully open to discuss, in any case please show me my shortcomings, I am as accepting of your opinion as you are of mine. Ever had sex with a virgin and saw what happened? Have you not heard of women completely uncomfortable with sex? Do you think gay people have 'all that sex' because of the discomfort? Did black people reach equality by re-writing history? Any idea how long slavery has been around? and still is. Physics? square peg? round hole? you really are full of it. I fear it would only be a waste of time discussing this matter further with you. So good luck spreading your word. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Insom Elvis Posted February 7, 2006 Report Share Posted February 7, 2006 Ever had sex with a virgin and saw what happened? Have you not heard of women completely uncomfortable with sex? Do you think gay people have 'all that sex' because of the discomfort?Did black people reach equality by re-writing history? Any idea how long slavery has been around? and still is. Physics? square peg? round hole? you really are full of it. I fear it would only be a waste of time discussing this matter further with you. So good luck spreading your word. I gave you my respectful attention, as much as I could muster, if you choose to end the discussion because you don't see me as someone fit enough to respond to then so be it, I don't have a specific agenda, or word to spread but I feel my opinion matters just as much as the next guys so I am responding to your comments. Actually, no, I have never had sex with a virgin, one of the many products of a society bent on sexual freedom without consequence. I have heard of women completely uncomfortable with sex, and would not ask one to have sex with me. A meaningful relationship can be formed without sexual intercourse, believe it or not, and I would have much more respect for two men wanting to share emotions rather than impregnate eachother's rears to relieve sexual frustration. No I don't think gay people have sex to acquire discomfort, I'm sure discomfort is just a minor obstacle, hell I've seen a guy on t.v. getting his reproductive tool stuck in the intake of a Jacuzzi just to get off, that's determination. No, black people didn't rewrite histort to reach equality, white leaders realized they had made a grave mistake in enslaving a race, or accepting the fact that their ancestors had enslaved another race for personal gain and tore their own country apart to give them their freedom. Then white activists took action and with black leaders lead protest on protest until the blacks right reached a level equal to that of the whites. Yes there is still racial discrimination, but if you tell me it the whites causeing it all, why can't I walk down "d-street" in my own town at night? There will always be discrimination, but we have brought the blacks to equality with whites without rewriting history. Gays are not slaves, they do something unnatural to the human body and want me to accept it. I'll accept it if they do it somewhere other than a country that was founded on higher principals. Speaking of slavery, do you know what kind of atrocities continue to dominate in Africa? Read up on it sometime, who do you think America bought the slaves from? Usually rival tribes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SamStranger Posted February 7, 2006 Author Report Share Posted February 7, 2006 Howcome some guys will bang a chick one day... suck off a guy another day, give head to a chick the next day, then bum rush a guy the day after??? What are they, Straight or gay.. or so called "bi".... You cant tell me they were born to screw both sexes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YankAbroad Posted February 7, 2006 Report Share Posted February 7, 2006 sexual freedom without consequence You've got to love the fascism endemic in such platitudes. "Oh, you're SEXUAL, eh?!? Well there are going to be CONSEQUENCES which I am going to impose upon you!" two men wanting to share emotions rather than impregnate eachother's rears to relieve sexual frustration This sort of thing also amuses me. On one hand, homophobes claim they "don't want to know about what gays do," on the other hand, they advance constant bizarre theories. My last long term relationship, several years ago, lasted for several years. It was based on emotional intimacy, and lest Mr. "Sex without consequences" forgets, sexual intimacy is part of emotional intimacy. It brings two people closer together and is a healthy part of any romantic relationship. Incidentally, what we "did" with each other -- emotionally, sexually, etc. -- wasn't much different from what most married heterosexual couples "do" too. This weird homophobic notion that it's all about sex strikes me as very revealing. . . often, the individuals in question who make such pronouncements tend to view women as sexual objects and cannot understand real emotional intimacy with any gender. Further, they tend not to have close platonic relationships with other men. For them, everything orbits around sex, sex, sex -- constantly. How sad for them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YankAbroad Posted February 7, 2006 Report Share Posted February 7, 2006 they do something unnatural to the human body and want me to accept it You're mistaken here, too. Gays don't really care what you think of our sex lives (or lack thereof as the case may be), and frankly don't give a bit whit about yours, either. In fact, most gay men and lesbians alike find the constant hand-wringing by supposed "concerned citizens" to be surreal -- the average homophobe, in my experience, spends more time thinking about anal sex than the average gay man. If anything, political homophobia grows out of an excessive interest in the sex lives of other people. If you'd mind your own business, you'd not have quite so much to worry about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted February 7, 2006 Report Share Posted February 7, 2006 sexual freedom without consequence You've got to love the fascism endemic in such platitudes. "Oh, you're SEXUAL, eh?!? Well there are going to be CONSEQUENCES which I am going to impose upon you!" two men wanting to share emotions rather than impregnate eachother's rears to relieve sexual frustration This sort of thing also amuses me. On one hand, homophobes claim they "don't want to know about what gays do," on the other hand, they advance constant bizarre theories. My last long term relationship, several years ago, lasted for several years. It was based on emotional intimacy, and lest Mr. "Sex without consequences" forgets, sexual intimacy is part of emotional intimacy. It brings two people closer together and is a healthy part of any romantic relationship. Incidentally, what we "did" with each other -- emotionally, sexually, etc. -- wasn't much different from what most married heterosexual couples "do" too. This weird homophobic notion that it's all about sex strikes me as very revealing. . . often, the individuals in question who make such pronouncements tend to view women as sexual objects and cannot understand real emotional intimacy with any gender. Further, they tend not to have close platonic relationships with other men. For them, everything orbits around sex, sex, sex -- constantly. How sad for them. It's funny you should broadbrush people with that opinion. I happen to have a number of friends who are gay or lesbian and almost all the lesbians have the same opinion of gay men. Homosexual male relationships almost always revolve around sex. I suppose there is exceptions, but apparently it's different than a lesbian relationship, in the sense that theirs is more emotionally driven. So I guess your statement also includes lesbians who feel gay men are primarily focused on using another person for sexual relief? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YankAbroad Posted February 7, 2006 Report Share Posted February 7, 2006 I happen to have a number of friends who are gay or lesbian and almost all the lesbians have the same opinion of gay men. Homosexual male relationships almost always revolve around sex. I suppose there is exceptions, but apparently it's different than a lesbian relationship, in the sense that theirs is more emotionally driven. All your "lesbian friends" are proving is that stupidity and generalising isn't exclusively a heterosexual trait. There are plenty of gay men who would retort with the old canard about "two weeks into the relationship, they hop in the U-Haul and move in together." The interesting thing is that all these so-called "experts" on gay male relationships aren't gay men, and ditto for lesbian relationships. Nothing amuses me more than having someone who is, more or less broadly clueless about gay life "explain" it to me and then complain about "painting with a broad brush." EDIT: Incidentally, I suspect that in queer company, your lesbian friends would have a good laugh about you and your relationship as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted February 7, 2006 Report Share Posted February 7, 2006 I happen to have a number of friends who are gay or lesbian and almost all the lesbians have the same opinion of gay men. Homosexual male relationships almost always revolve around sex. I suppose there is exceptions, but apparently it's different than a lesbian relationship, in the sense that theirs is more emotionally driven. All your "lesbian friends" are proving is that stupidity and generalising isn't exclusively a heterosexual trait. There are plenty of gay men who would retort with the old canard about "two weeks into the relationship, they hop in the U-Haul and move in together." The interesting thing is that all these so-called "experts" on gay male relationships aren't gay men, and ditto for lesbian relationships. Nothing amuses me more than having someone who is, more or less broadly clueless about gay life "explain" it to me and then complain about "painting with a broad brush." EDIT: Incidentally, I suspect that in queer company, your lesbian friends would have a good laugh about you and your relationship as well. Yeah, I'm sure the women whose wedding I was a part of are disrespectful enough to laugh about me and my relationships. The point is that it's even known in the gay community that gay men especially the younger ones are mostly motivated by sex. Of course there's people who get together and stay together for life, there' exceptions to every rule. But is there not a single grain of truth to this idea? Most of the gay men I know proudly admit that they're promiscuous and care nothing for a "relationship" other than for sex. Maybe the community where I live is different, but I highly doubt it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tml12 Posted February 7, 2006 Report Share Posted February 7, 2006 I happen to have a number of friends who are gay or lesbian and almost all the lesbians have the same opinion of gay men. Homosexual male relationships almost always revolve around sex. I suppose there is exceptions, but apparently it's different than a lesbian relationship, in the sense that theirs is more emotionally driven. All your "lesbian friends" are proving is that stupidity and generalising isn't exclusively a heterosexual trait. There are plenty of gay men who would retort with the old canard about "two weeks into the relationship, they hop in the U-Haul and move in together." The interesting thing is that all these so-called "experts" on gay male relationships aren't gay men, and ditto for lesbian relationships. Nothing amuses me more than having someone who is, more or less broadly clueless about gay life "explain" it to me and then complain about "painting with a broad brush." EDIT: Incidentally, I suspect that in queer company, your lesbian friends would have a good laugh about you and your relationship as well. Yeah, I'm sure the women whose wedding I was a part of are disrespectful enough to laugh about me and my relationships. The point is that it's even known in the gay community that gay men especially the younger ones are mostly motivated by sex. Of course there's people who get together and stay together for life, there' exceptions to every rule. But is there not a single grain of truth to this idea? Most of the gay men I know proudly admit that they're promiscuous and care nothing for a "relationship" other than for sex. Maybe the community where I live is different, but I highly doubt it. Does any of this really matter? I don't care if homosexual guys have sex more than heterosexual guys. Look, what you do in your spare time is good for you. I know homosexuals who are promiscuous. I know heterosexuals who are promiscuous. I never thought that one group was more than another group and I never cared to investigate. If young gay guys like sex then that is great. Surely in this "age of terrorism" with so many political issues going on we need not be having such ridiculous discussions about whether gay people have more sex than other people in the population. It all just seems silly to be having this discussion... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Posted February 7, 2006 Report Share Posted February 7, 2006 ...The point is that it's even known in the gay community that gay men especially the younger ones are mostly motivated by sex. Of course there's people who get together and stay together for life, there' exceptions to every rule. But is there not a single grain of truth to this idea? Most of the gay men I know proudly admit that they're promiscuous and care nothing for a "relationship" other than for sex. Maybe the community where I live is different, but I highly doubt it. And I'm sure you've never known a young, straight man whose aim was to go out to the bars and get laid every weekend. I just spent this past weekend at a friend's ski house. There were 26 guys there in total, all of us gay. Of the 26, 20 were in long term relationships and I saw just as much commitment in those ten couples as I see in the marriages of my straight friends. But back to your point, even if only gays were promiscuous, does that justify treating them differently under the law? Should that mean that promiscuous straights should also be denied a state-issued marriage license? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YankAbroad Posted February 7, 2006 Report Share Posted February 7, 2006 I want my daughter to know that if she wishes to fall in love and be happy, she may find love in a man who is worthy of her attention, get married and raise a family. What if she decides she doesn't find marriage to be what she wants? What if she doesn't want kids or a husband? What if she's asexual or a lesbian? The reality is, the strait-jacket (pardon the pun) which you view marriage as isn't to make HER happy, per se, but to make YOU happy that she's living the adult life which you've engineered for her. it's even known in the gay community that gay men especially the younger ones are mostly motivated by sex You keep talking about what's "known or not known" in the "male gay community." How would you know? You're not a gay man. Neither are your lesbian pals. Your pronouncements on how gay men live, or what they want, are about as informed as my opinion on how to sexually satisfy a woman. proudly admit "Proudly admit?" Seems like you're using some interesting wordplay here to support a contention which is questionable, at best. even if only gays were promiscuous, does that justify treating them differently under the law My experience is that, generally, heterosexuals are more promiscuous AND have more of an opportunity to be promiscuous than the average gay man. Heterosexuality is everywhere, and most of my straight friends -- including many who are married -- regularly indulge in "extracurricular activities." That's why I find this notion of the "gay sex fiends" versus the "saintly married heterosexuals" to be so amusing. I, more often than not, get far less sex than most of my heterosexual colleagues -- certainly with anonymous partners picked up in bars or clubs. I suppose that, given the extraordinary rates of promiscuity in the heterosexual community, they should lose their marriage rights as well. After all, it's clear to me (and many straight friends) that heterosexuals are all about sex, not commitment. Just look at all the pickup joints out there, sex on TV, sex in movies, etc. This heterosexual culture is all about sex -- none of them are into commitment! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YankAbroad Posted February 7, 2006 Report Share Posted February 7, 2006 I'm sure there are gay people out there that are perfectly sane and rational, but then I have to ask, why do you not enjoy the company of the opposite sex? Why do you not enjoy the company of the same sex? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted February 7, 2006 Report Share Posted February 7, 2006 Honestly though... There's permiscuous gays, there's permiscuous straights, it doesn't really matter. What does it really matter who someone chooses to be with? As long as two people are in a loving, non-abusive consentual relationship, who are we to say who they can and cannot marry? Like I said, I have tons of gay friends, I've been to gay weddings, etc. They should be given the same benefits as far as pensions and taxes go. Their marriage should be recognized the same under the federal government as a straight marriage. One group shouldn't be given further benefit over the other. Call it marriage, civil-union, federally recognized relationships, I don't give a crap what they call it. What I don't agree with is calling marriage an fundamental RIGHT. You don't have a RIGHT to any benefits under the federal government because you're married. Straight or gay, I don't care who you are. The minute it gets forced on churches and religious institutions to recognize gay marriage is the minute you take a true freedom and right away from millions of people. Should gays be allowed to marry? absolutely. Should they be given the same benefits as straight couples under federal law? there's absolutely no doubt about it. Should all the religions in the world that refuse to recognize gay couples be forced to? Absolutely not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hicksey Posted February 7, 2006 Report Share Posted February 7, 2006 Honestly though...There's permiscuous gays, there's permiscuous straights, it doesn't really matter. What does it really matter who someone chooses to be with? As long as two people are in a loving, non-abusive consentual relationship, who are we to say who they can and cannot marry? Like I said, I have tons of gay friends, I've been to gay weddings, etc. They should be given the same benefits as far as pensions and taxes go. Their marriage should be recognized the same under the federal government as a straight marriage. One group shouldn't be given further benefit over the other. Call it marriage, civil-union, federally recognized relationships, I don't give a crap what they call it. What I don't agree with is calling marriage an fundamental RIGHT. You don't have a RIGHT to any benefits under the federal government because you're married. Straight or gay, I don't care who you are. The minute it gets forced on churches and religious institutions to recognize gay marriage is the minute you take a true freedom and right away from millions of people. Should gays be allowed to marry? absolutely. Should they be given the same benefits as straight couples under federal law? there's absolutely no doubt about it. Should all the religions in the world that refuse to recognize gay couples be forced to? Absolutely not. Just an addendum from someone not particpating in the conversation. Martin promised to use the NWC to protect religions from that during the election race. Right before he promised to scrap the NWC. I mostly agree with you except I don't like the wording. If you look above, I proposed to take government out of the business of marriage altogether so all they do is issue licenses for unions and moderate dispute resolution. I think we should leave marriage between a person and their church. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YankAbroad Posted February 8, 2006 Report Share Posted February 8, 2006 Should all the religions in the world that refuse to recognize gay couples be forced to? But this is a canard, not an active goal or even something very many gay couples want. It's like saying that Jews want to force Catholic churches to marry them under existing religious non-discrimination laws. I agree that the best way to disentangle the religious from the civil aspects is to get government out of the marriage business and open up the "benefits" of civil marriage to anybody who wants them. It is ironic that certain religious groups overreached, got their definition (and only their definition) of marriage put into law -- infringing the rights of religious groups which disagree with them -- and as society evolves, now find their own right to govern their religious ceremonies potentially under threat. Had they not involved government in enforcing their views on religions with which they disagree, they'd never have found themselves facing the wrong end of their own gun! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wellandboy Posted February 8, 2006 Report Share Posted February 8, 2006 Should all the religions in the world that refuse to recognize gay couples be forced to? I agree that the best way to disentangle the religious from the civil aspects is to get government out of the marriage business and open up the "benefits" of civil marriage to anybody who wants them. I concur, this whole messy business would and could have been avoided had the Liberals taken that approach. I could care less how the Government defines my man/ woman partnership. My concern is the tax, property implications. The relationship I have with my wife is by choice a sacrament, between us and God, nobody else. Far be it from me to make judgements on the relationship between consenting adults. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spike22 Posted February 8, 2006 Report Share Posted February 8, 2006 Judging by the pole there are approx 50+% of the voters who like the pole. Good god that many of ya like SSM? Yeck. When a man can impregate another man or a women can impregnate another women I'll change my vote. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Insom Elvis Posted February 8, 2006 Report Share Posted February 8, 2006 The relationship I have with my wife is by choice a sacrament, between us and God, nobody else. Very much agreed When a man can impregate another man or a women can impregnate another women I'll change my vote. I have to agree here as well, although I'm starting to figure that if gays want to be gay, it really doesnt involve me, but I will still vote against gay marriage as it's offensive to my traditional views of marriage and what it means to be married. I wouldn't vote for cilvil union for gays, but if they got it I wouldn't lose any sleep over it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Posted February 8, 2006 Report Share Posted February 8, 2006 The relationship I have with my wife is by choice a sacrament, between us and God, nobody else. Very much agreed When a man can impregate another man or a women can impregnate another women I'll change my vote. I have to agree here as well, although I'm starting to figure that if gays want to be gay, it really doesnt involve me, but I will still vote against gay marriage as it's offensive to my traditional views of marriage and what it means to be married. I wouldn't vote for cilvil union for gays, but if they got it I wouldn't lose any sleep over it. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I agree with wellandboy's statement. Neither I nor my boyfriend would seek marriage in a Church, nor would we ever have interest in trying to force them to marry us. Being Catholic, they'd chase me out the door anyhow. Spike 22: your basis of marriage seems to say that marriage is only of value when pregnancy results. Does that mean that older people who marry and younger people who either cannot or choose not to have children either aren't or shouldn't be allowed to marry? Elvis: "...gays want to be gay..." I hate to break it to you, but gay people don't choose to be gay any more than straight people choose to be straight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SamStranger Posted February 8, 2006 Author Report Share Posted February 8, 2006 Elvis: "...gays want to be gay..." I hate to break it to you, but gay people don't choose to be gay any more than straight people choose to be straight. Sorry but YES THEY DO... Were all born as God made us, Straight!!! Adam and Eve!!! get the point??? We all have Fathers and Mothers, not fathers and fathers, or mothers and mothers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted February 8, 2006 Report Share Posted February 8, 2006 Sorry but YES THEY DO... Were all born as God made us, Straight!!! Adam and Eve!!! get the point???We all have Fathers and Mothers, not fathers and fathers, or mothers and mothers. Funny, I don't remember getting the form that indicated which sexual orientaton I want. It just so happened that by the time I started to get interested in such matters, my attention turned to girls. SO no, it's not a "choice". If it is, I'll make you a bet: for $500, I want you to be gay for a week. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Insom Elvis Posted February 8, 2006 Report Share Posted February 8, 2006 Elvis: "...gays want to be gay..." I hate to break it to you, but gay people don't choose to be gay any more than straight people choose to be straight. Sorry but YES THEY DO... Were all born as God made us, Straight!!! Adam and Eve!!! get the point??? We all have Fathers and Mothers, not fathers and fathers, or mothers and mothers. Yeah, I could see someone being gay due to an unusual upbringing, influence of peers, whatever happens during childhood could have an impact on our sexuality, but if you want to tell me that people are born who genitically cannot use their reproductive organs for reproduction, onlt sexual pleasure, id say theres something wrong in the genetics pool. I can live with some people grow up to be attracted to the same sex, but then your body wasnt made to suit you. Notice how 20 years ago gays were a lot more rare than they are now, and in that time its become so socially acceptable to be gay that it's almost a crime if you don't fully support it? You would think this change in attitude may have helped the gay trend a bit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.