The homophobic thread :>

[O Really]

However, given that sex and procreation are such common results of marriage and that incest greatly increases the odds of birth defects I'm okay with the state choosing not to endorse incest by legalizing such marriages. .

Oofda! Sounds a lot like a limited endorsement of eugenics to me. Couples who are siblings have, depending on whose statistics you read, about a 7-12% or up to 35% risk above the population risk, which is estimated to be about 3-4% of newborns. If they have something serious, the risk may be higher, but in any case not nearly as high as the 50% odds that a mother with Down Syndrome will have a Down Syndrome baby. Are you ready to take your argument to a logical conclusion, that would be to disallow marriage between any couple that has more than 20% risk of having a baby with birth defects? How about if one of the siblings was sterile anyway?

[O Really]

You provided way too much thought for a not very serious comment of mine, but it was interesting. But apparently the anti-incest drive is somewhat genetic and not entirely societal, and present in all known human and some non-human species. Referred to by one "Psychology Today" writer as "the yuk factor." I find it interesting that Mr.B brought up the prohibition of familial marriages related to gay and canine marriages. Apparently for him the "yuk factor" is equal for all those.

Do you want to rent my seester?

[O Really]

Illegal pimping? You surely misunderstood. My seester is a personal trainer whose services you can rent by the hour.

[O Really]

Illegal pimping? You surely misunderstood. My seester is a personal trainer whose services you can rent by the hour.

How much for 10 minutes worth of "personal training"?

I doubt you've got the pain tolerance.

[bannination]

Is there a discount if you don't make it the full 10?

[O Really]

Naa, just your garden variety pain merchant CIA contractor.

[Mr.B]

"Damn.. that's still an unbelievably stupid comment no matter who says it.. First you assume that homosexuality is some sort of sexual perversion.. it isn't.. it's sexual orientation.. Second.. Humans can make such self-determining decisions as who to marry.. humans can give their consent.. Dog, blenders, your church pew cannot.."

"The next thing we need to examine is your (and homofobe's) belief that marriage MUST include a physical sex component and is in fact centered on the sex act.. And though it clearly often does.. it is not a requisite for a loving relationship.. You both are saying that the sex act alone defines one's spousal relationship.."

"Tell me.. Would you still love your wife if the possibility of sex never existed..?"

Of course I would still love my wife.....would you not love yours under the same scenario?

To the rest of your reply:

[Crock Hunter]

under the same scenario?

Yet each and every comment you make about gay marriage centers on the mechanics of sex.. Why do you insist that a same sex couple can't love one another as you love your wife.. ??

[Mr.B]

"Why do you insist that a same sex couple can't love one another as you love your wife.. ??"

I never "insisted" no such a'dunnit.....I did say I love my dog.....but it's not the same love as I have for my wife.

Also, I did say that 'gay' sex is an unnatural act, and I'll say it again...'gay' sex is an unnatural act.
A male was not designed to copulate with another male; nor was a female.....etc. If that were the case, all humans would be hermaphrodites.

[Ombudsman]

....I did say I love my dog.....but it's not the same love as I have for my wife.

Damn...not sure who to pity more. The wife or the dog.

[Mr.B]

"Damn...not sure who to pity more. The wife or the dog."

You'll get over it.

[O Really]

Also, I did say that 'gay' sex is an unnatural act, and I'll say it again...'gay' sex is an unnatural act.
A male was not designed to copulate with another male; nor was a female.....etc. If that were the case, all humans would be hermaphrodites.

OK, fine. Let's accept that as accurate and true for the sake of discussion. So what? How does that relate to the right to enter into a legal civil contract with another consenting adult?

[Crock Hunter]

I never "insisted" no such a'dunnit.....

Sure you do.. practically every one of your comments about equal rights in marriage ends with you focusing on the sex act..

A male was not designed to copulate with another male; nor was a female....

See..


Is physical sex the impetus for your marriage? Probably not.. Is it possible for you to conceive of a same sex couple in a relationship where the same is true or does your religious prejudice simply preclude such ..

[Mr.B]

"I never "insisted" no such a'dunnit....."

"Sure you do.. practically every one of your comments about equal rights in marriage ends with you focusing on the sex act.."

"A male was not designed to copulate with another male; nor was a female...."

See..

You need to get yourself out of that swamp....swamp water is seriously affecting your faculties; either that or you've been reading Vrede too long.......
or both.

You didn't quote this: "Also, I did say that 'gay' sex is an unnatural act, and I'll say it again...'gay' sex is an unnatural act".

My argument is against the sex act between two of the same gender.....if two of the same gender want to "marry" ( ), that's between themselves and
the laws of the state they live in.

[Crock Hunter]

You need to get yourself out of that swamp....swamp water is seriously affecting your faculties; either that or you've been reading Vrede too long.......

Dealt with here..

My argument is against the sex act between two of the same gender....

You seem to know all about the sex life of gays and are always ready to discuss such... so please describe in detail a typical Mr&Mrs "B" tryst.. there may be something you're doing that I need to be offended about.. or would you have us believe that it's always only missionary position, socks on..lights off... with never even the slightest head nod towards Sodom.. if that IS the case... you have my sympathies..

if two of the same gender want to "marry" that's between themselves and the laws of the state they live in.

And what about Federally? .. Why would you exclude certain citizens from such equal protections?

[Mr.B]

"My argument is against the sex act between two of the same gender...."

"You seem to know all about the sex life of gays and are always ready to discuss such... so please describe in detail a typical Mr. & Mrs. "B" tryst.."

I know nothing of the such. I know what I see in the media, and what is constantly being pushed by the liberals.

I can't figure out why those of you that are posting back and forth on this subject can't understand it when I say what two people do is their business;
but what they are doing is unnatural and perverted. Is that too hard to understand?

As far as my wife is concerned, that is none of your business, nor anybody else's. I have too much respect for her to discuss our intimacy.
You should do the same.

[Crock Hunter]

As far as my wife is concerned, that is none of your business, nor anybody else's. I have too much respect for her to discuss our intimacy.

I agree..and you shouldn't .. now if you could just afford everyone else the same courtesy..

[Mr.B]

"As far as my wife is concerned, that is none of your business, nor anybody else's. I have too much respect for her to discuss our intimacy."

"I agree..and you shouldn't .. now if you could just afford everyone else the same courtesy.."

Who's intimacy, re: "everyone else" am I discussing?

[neoplacebo]

I'm not homosexual, but looking back on my life overall, I think if I could give myself oral sex, I'd probably never left the house.

[JTA]

I'm not homosexual, but looking back on my life overall, I think if I could give myself oral sex, I'd probably never left the house.

If you did that you would soon discover you'd inadvertently inserted yourself into a bit of a sticky situation... would you now be considered homosexual for both giving and receiving to/from a man?