Amendment # 28 to ban Gay marriage!

Just moving a post from an inappropriate thread to the appropriate one. This was originally message #16 in "Homosexuality, the natural choice? (Gay Animals are Common)"

quote:

---

Every one has the right to participate in marriage, a legal union between two members of the opposing sex. There is no discrimination in this.

---

Just as once, everyone had the right to marry a person of their own race, and no one had the right to marry outside their race. Are you saying there was no discrimination involved there?

quote:

---

What you want to do is change the fundamental definition of an institution so that people with no rights to the benefits of that institution can gain access to them.

---

First of all, I love that in one breath you say that there is no discrimination involved, and in the second, you talk about wanting to cut people off from the benefits of the institution.Classic.Secondly... just so you know, you're making up your own definition of marriage, and assuming it's the English-language definition.For instance, the following definition comes from dictionary.com: (the emphasis is mine) But given your personal, godsmacworld definition of marriage, I'm confused. Is the Lexus allowed to be advertised as "the marriage of luxury and affordibility?" Luxury and affordability aren't male and female attributes. And you've established that marriage does not mean "a coming together" but in fact means "a legal union between two members of the opposing sex."

---

"Perhaps you should take your furs and your literal interpretations to the other side of the river."
-Anya

I sure hope he hasn't gone out of bussiness. It is a really cool enviorment because you sit outside in a fenced in patio an and they usually have a band playing. The view was great because you could see the backside of the Continental divide from there. If you can get to Grand Lake around the 4th of July, you will fall in love with the place.

Snif, Snif, sniffle-sniffle.

quote:

---

My, how sexist of you. You seem to think that there are only men in the world.

---

I, I, I just feel so heterosexually-neanderthalistic about myself after you respond to my posts. I was wondering what happened to you after not seeing you in this thread for a few days. Worried I guess. See, I'm showing you some genuine male to male bonding through concern for your welfare without subconsiously thinking to myself "Gee, I hope nothing horrible happened to Rrhain's cute little toosh".

quote:

---

What an arrogant attitude you have.

---

Arrogant is too strong but yes my attitude is of the side of fixing something that is broken.

quote:

---

And what a low opinion you have of lust.

---

Pamala Anderson has done for lust what the Ford GT has done for American Cars. I can't have the car, but the tape - wellllllll,

quote:

---

Instead, gay people fall in love with people of the same sex and don't have those same feelings with people of the opposite sex. It has nothing to do with feeling threatened or "vulnerable." It's simple love.

---

I believe that as you say, they think it's love, but then why did the aids epidemic go through their ranks so quickly. If it is love and not lust that drives their sexual behavior, then why wasn't it more isolated to a small minority of gay couples. And if it's love and not lust, why didn't the gay men stop and decease with the sex once they found out they were HIV Positive instead of continuing on having sex?I don't have a computer model of this handy to back up my claims but it seems reasonable that once the gay community found out what was going on, if they had true "love" for each other they could have contained this quickly instead of letting it become a plague on their members.

It's not that important to the overall disscusion and I apologise for getting side tracked down a rabbit's trail. I'll sensor my responses a bit more and sorry if I offended you with the venture into that subject.The dudes in my section are extremely open in talking about their sexual exploits although most are grandious to the extreme, but they are very open about it anyway. I can understand that if you are not privy to that same type of enviorment, it could come across as dimented culture shock reguardless of your orientation.

We're getting way off topic here, holmes. I'm starting a new thread on internet porn because I'd like to explore this. Please take this up with me there.

quote:

---

I believe that as you say, they think it's love

---

Just as you think you love your wife, but come on, now, square with us... it's really just lust isn't it? You don't really care for her, do you? You thought it was love at one time, but you were wrong weren't you?You don't have to hide it here, she'll never find out.In fact you're not able to love. The way you define love is wrong. And as such, I don't think you should be allowed to marry anyone. Or have sex. I hope the president supports MY proposed amendment which states that those who do not demonstrate their love for one another via a televised courting process a la The Bachelor or The Littlest Groom will not be allowed to marry or have sex or raise children.This is, of course, tongue in cheek. I don't feel comfortable telling two consenting adults that they aren't really in love and shouldn't be allowed to express it the same way that I get to.Not to sound like a broken record here, but I am very, vey curious about your perspective because I don't get it. What exactly are you trying to protect "marriage" from? What do you personally have to lose if gays are allowed to marry? What does anyone lose?

quote:

---

What do you personally have to lose if gays are allowed to marry? What does anyone lose?

---

Answer: Nothing.I actually think we have something to gain, i.e. an increase in happy, loving marraiges. Who cares what gender the participants are, as long as they're ok with it? There aren't enough good relationships out there, and I'd seriously think about it before I'd have enough arrogance to tell two people that they're not really in love, just lust, and therefore their relationship is meaningless and they don't deserve the right to marry!I can only hope that Ireland is as open-minded as San Franscico someday, but I suspect I'll be waiting a while.The Rock Hound

Everything (almost everything) for example: it is not natural to shave; I do is natural to human behavior according to what is accepted as NATURAL human behaivior. Animals do what is common to their nature. I do not do what is natural to the animals nor do the animals do what's natural to them. I am not nature and the animals are not nature; we are A PART of NATURE. Now, I think the confussion with what I said is that I was merely pointing out that unnatural is the opposite of natural. It is natural for a man and a woman to have a SEXUAL relationship it is unnatural for members of the same sex to have a sexual relationship. I am speaking biologically check out your anatomy people, this isn't rocket science. I am not speaking of what is natural according to a select group or social norm but rather to nature.

I think what you are trying to say is that the basic biological function of reproductive organs are procreation, and thus penises and vaginas when fulfilling their basic biological function are interacting with each other, rather than with other body parts.The problem is that this does not make procreation the more natural function than the tertiary biological function of pleasure. It may even be arguable that the basic primary biological function of the nerves within our sex organs is pleasure and so trying to produce pleasure in them any way we can is still a basic biological function.Either way, the point is you cannot divide natural into physical versus cultural and then say the natural physical use of sex organs is hetero. The best you can say is their primary natural use is hetero, as there are plenty of other natural physical combos and functions.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I won't even deal with the first part of your message where you put words in my mouth. QUOTE "You seem to think that Animals don't choose the mates they have..." (Never said this or thought it)Quote: "Did you say animals don't choose when and who they want to have sex with?" (Nope)You seem to be under the impression that animals are like humans. Maybe they are maybe they are not. Unless you are a real-life Dr. Dolittle, you are making a lot of assumptions. For instance, what you say is a choice of mates by an animal may be a result of timing, agreeable scent, a currently unknown animal sense with informs them of ideal mates, or any number of possibilities. What I don't believe is going on is Harry the hampster is hooking up with Harriet the hampster because she is one sexy rodent. By the way, did you try coupling up hampsters of the same sex and did they fall in love? Wait, you wouldn't have done that because any fool could see that "...alittle extra cash selling them to pet shops." would not be forth coming.Quote:"Are you saying that God made them to have Sexual arousal toward the same sex?" (Nope) Just as I explain above, there are many possible reasons besides the one you use to strengthen your weak argument. One reason, the animal just got laid so the female in heat smell is stll on him, his buddy joey smells it, thinks female and goes at it. Much more plausible than an emotionally based relationship which leads to intamacy.Quote:"Why did you say this? I didn't tell you I am an animal(although I think Humans are but that beside the point)" One, I said "Comparing" yourself to an animal. Two, this is the point. You see humans as Animals and you make the mistake of seeing animals as human in motivations, desires, and other aspects unique to humans. Why do we have the divisions between the types of life on this planet? Because we notice the differences in the different life forms and have to have a way to classify these differences. Question. Do your hampsters crap in the toilet or the bottom of their cage? I think I know the answer., so here is the last question. When are you going to start crapping in your living room? The animals do it, it's so natural.Last thing, because we are getting way off topic here. I am against gay marriages 1. Because God would not approve. 2. Proposition 22 was passed by THE MAJORITY of Californians and last time I checked, Mayors do not have the authority to go against the WILL OF THE PEOPLE. What do you want? your voting powers taken away because apperantly it is a waste of time or do you want to see a bunch of people getting married more for political reasons (I suspect) than emotional ones. At this time we can't have both. Make your choice: Votes that count or Joey being able to sue Billy for alimony because they have a legally binding marriage that went down hill. (not that all would)[This message has been edited by ex libres, 02-25-2004]

This is starting to get circular. Why is homosexuality bad? "Because it's not natural." Why isn't it natural? "Because it's bad." I'm going to need some evidence that is isn't natural beyond your say-so if you're going to expect me to obey a law about it. Check out your anatomy. Penises are stimulated by vaginas, yes, but also by hands and anuses. Tongues and fingers can stimulate clitorises. You're right, this isn't rocket science - genitals obviously were constructed for a wide variety of sexual stimuli; otherwise you couldn't have an orgasm from masturbation, for example. Then we're back to where we started. In nature, organisms sometimes have homosex. In nature, humans don't wear clothes. You're not using any definition of "nature" that I'm familiar with - you're using a definition of "natural" that means "not homosexual." That's circular reasoning.Face it - you don't like gay sex because you think it's icky. And that's fine for you to think that. I think it's icky too. But you don't have a right to force your personal preferences on other people via the law.

Who cares? God doesn't exist. Oh, I realize you may think differently, but what gives your belief the right to trump mine? They have a responsibility to uphold the constitution of their state. And you know what? His actions may very well be illegal. But it was illegal for Rosa Parks to sit at the front of the bus, too. That didn't make it wrong.

What do you care? As long as you don't do it right? If its a sin let them go to hell or Somthing.... or whatever you beleive is going to happen... Let your God handle it.. what do you care?? How do you know what Harry thinks about Harriet? As a breeder of any animal there is ALWAYS the chance the 2 Animals won't like each other.... Many times I couldn't breed pairs I wanted Because they didn't like each other and/or fought.... Explain that to me... Are you saying the Emotion we call love only exists in Humans? Are you aware many animals choose a mate and Mate For life? Name a Human Emotion I bet you money I can find an example of animals with the same emotion! My Cat Craps in the litter box and not where it is..... Explain that one... I don't recall training the Cat to do it... However I do recall being potty trained..... Who is the better species when it comes to crap?As for Homosexaul animals... You need to do some research you might
find it interesting how many ignore the females altogether....Also By the way its Hamster Last time I checked we were free to worship as we wish... DARN!!! I guess not...[This message has been edited by DC85, 02-25-2004]

Although I tend to agree most of what you said...

quote:

---

Are you aware many animals choose a mate and Mate For life?

---

As far as I know only pigeons and seahorses are confirmed to mate for life, and even then pigeons can move on if conditions arise.I would also be one to argue that love and sex are not necessarily bound together. While sex is used in bonding (love), it can also be just for pleasure. The latter is no less natural and no more harmful.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Phatboy responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Since gay people obviously do have sex, and do so quite successfully without any difficulty, then it must necessarily be the case that male "fit" other males and females "fit" other females just as easily as males "fit" females.

---

​

By your same logic, our apparatus could "fit" inside of a dog. Or a goat. Or a cow. Does that make it ok?

---

Nope.But that wasn't the argument you originally made. Ergo, it's irrelevant.Your original argument was that people are supposed to be heterosexual because the penis "fits" into the vagina.Well, the penis also "fits" into the anus. Therefore, by your own logic, there is nothing inherently wrong with anal sex between men.The reason why bestiality is problematic has nothing to do with whether or not the parts fit. It has to do with consent and exploitation.The problem is not the what. It's the why.

quote:

---

In a sexual relationship, one person seeks to serve another person.

---

Says who? You? Why do you insist that everybody is in a Master/slave relationship?Is it absolutely impossible for you to consider a relationship between equals?

quote:

---

If God is taken out of the equation, however, humans look only to serve themselves with whatever fits.

---

And this is problematic because of what, precisely?You're saying that atheists have no morals and would just as soon kill you as take you out to dinner.

quote:

---

And thus, sex without a purpose becomes its own greatest good and glory.

---

Where does this "without a purpose" come from? Pleasure is just as much of a purpose as procreation.How telling that you would deny people the pleasure of their own bodies. When you eat, why do you choose to eat things that taste good? Shouldn't you instead focus on the things that will provide you the most health and eschew anything that might simply be purely for pleasure?Are you seriously saying that we should do away with chocolate?Just because you think sex is icky and a disgusting burden that we must suffer through in order to create the next generation doesn't mean everybody else agrees with you.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!