Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,913 Year: 4,170/9,624 Month: 1,041/974 Week: 368/286 Day: 11/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is Gay Marriage Immoral?
Jaderis
Member (Idle past 3455 days)
Posts: 622
From: NY,NY
Joined: 06-16-2006


Message 28 of 134 (332301)
07-16-2006 6:59 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by LudoRephaim
07-15-2006 1:17 PM


Re: Here we goooooo!!!!!!!
Good question. Ancient Greeks seemed to not have had a problem with homosexuality. It was a major part of their life (though "Bi-sexuality, or however you call or spell it, is better when in terms of the Greeks of olde)
Actually the Ancient Greeks were pederasts, for the most part, and the practice was not unique to them. Wiki article on homosexuality
But modern times, most would probably see it as sickening, but many would not care if homosexuals married. Just as long as they dont have to see them kiss or have sex on our television.
So straight people get to have a monopoly over the TV airwaves? Personally, I find soap operas and shows like Blind Date and Survivor sickening, but you don't see me calling for the heads of all those who participate in such drivel. I just don't watch the damn shows!
Others (like mua) would see it as immoral, but as you said, based on religious grounds. But some might see natural grounds on it as well. After all, the only animals That (as far as I and many know) that do this kind of sex are Bonobos (or Pygmy Chimps).
Others have covered this, so I'll leave it alone, for now
Plus, unless someone provides evidence to the opposite, it can leads to the , um, dreaded "Gay Bowel Syndrome" (source will be posted shortly)So based on the potential for harm in this kind of sex, one shouldn't do it, let alone marry to make it "okay" and "legit".
So, the guys who want to get married and no longer take other partners should be denied the right to do so because the more promiscuous ones might get some bacterial infections (there are many included in the original definition of GBS). So, likewise, straight people who want to enter into a monogamous union should be barred from doing so because the more promiscuous ones might get an STD or cervical cancer (women only)? Hey, its your logic, not mine.
In that sense (unless someone disproves that Gay Bowel syndrome is the result of , um, anal sex.
So, Gay Bowel Syndrome isn't exclusively gay at all if it is caused by anal sex because I know a whole lot of straight people who enjoy (and some even prefer) anal sex including many teens who do it because they took some silly virginity pledge and think that anal sex isn't really sex.
Of course, there are certain heterosexual sex acts that can cause injury or sickness (I dont want to be explicit, but it involves a choking response...), but then again, like anal (and therefore gay) sex our bodies where not "evolved/designed" for sex LIKE that.
If our bodies were not designed for "sex like that" then why the hell is the "male G-spot" stuck way up in the rectum? Seems like a silly place to put a pleasure zone if an intelligent designer didn't want it to be utilized. I'm assuming you have never met a straight man who likes his wife/girlfriend/lover to titillate that area.
Fortunately, we have evolved creativity and a desire to have sex around the clock regardless of whether it will produce children. And in that sense having a pleasure zone in an unlikely spot makes perfect sense.
Now, if Lesbian "sex" (Which is not as sickening, But it is still wrong, in my beliefs and opinion)is considered, much of above also is presented against it, except for GBS. I've heared that syphilis is more common than normal with Lesbian than heterosexual acts, but I have to check a particular source to really present it.
Well, besides GBS, you didn't present anything else besides your own disgust which doesn't amount to much especially when laws are being considered (or shouldn't, rather). As for the syphillis, hmmm...did you happen to "heared" that from a fundie website? I'm willing to bet that you cannot find a single medical or public health website that supports that claim.
According to every lesbian health website or pamphlet I have ever read, syphillis is extremely rare in lesbians. The most common STD's are Herpes, HPV and bacterial vaginosis. All the rest (HIV, chlamydia, trichomoniasis, syphillis, etc) can be transmitted through lesbian sex, but it is much harder to do so and, thus, is not very common.
A federal gov. women's health site
A Seattle area gov health website
The source on "GBS" will be here shortly. Gotta go
Was that link really all you could find? It didn't say anything. Apparently you couldn't use any of the others that are listed above that one on google which actually state that GBS is an outdated term and is not exclusive to gays. Just like GRID is now called AIDS and has been for the past 20 years. Better luck next time.
Edited by AdminNWR, : fix broken links (remove '"' around url in dBcode)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by LudoRephaim, posted 07-15-2006 1:17 PM LudoRephaim has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by arachnophilia, posted 07-16-2006 7:26 PM Jaderis has replied

  
Jaderis
Member (Idle past 3455 days)
Posts: 622
From: NY,NY
Joined: 06-16-2006


Message 32 of 134 (332423)
07-17-2006 12:58 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by arachnophilia
07-16-2006 7:26 PM


Re: teh sex
ludo must never have watched bravo, mtv, or hbo. bravo is practically the gay-sploitation network now. it's gayer than the channel we get on digital cable that actually IS a gay and lesbian network.
Quite true...I had LOGO (when I had cable *sniff*) and it seemed quite tame in comparison to other cable stations. Mostly it showed documentaries, queer wedding shows and Priscilla: Queen of the Desert 10 times a day LOL
the curious point, however, is that primary function is not a good argument for either gender. the female g-spot is where it is, apparently, because it decreases pain in childbirth. much like breasts, it has been co-opted into sexual use.
Well, there goes the argument that the punishment for Eve's transgression with the tree included a painful childbirth. Yes, it's still painful, but the sin couldn't have been so bad that God left her and all women with the G-spot to ease it (and to make orgasms oh-so-good. Pretty sweet trade-off, if you ask me).
i guess it's called the "missionary" position for a reason.
I've thought of that before but it's still damn funny
well, sounds to me like lesbian sex is safer than straight sex. let's make lesbianism the only legal form of sexuality.
I'll second that!!
i like how even the fundies are quite as disapproving of lesbian sex as they are gay (male) sex. turns out, everyone likes lesbians. or, at least, the highly inaccurate image in their heads (and on cinemax) of lesbians.
Ahhh, the joys of Skinemax
Seriously tho, seeing hetero-male fantasies of lesbians makes me just as sick as gay men seem to make fundies. First of all, it's horseshit. Second of all, they're usually not my type (IOW stupid and WAYYYY too glossy). Third of all, it's really big horseshit.
Irrational? Probably so, but you don't see me writing my congressman to promote accurate depictions of lesbian sex on cable and in porn, nor do you see me picketing outside the studios or calling for boycotts or even mentioning it at all (I do believe this is my first time discussing it). And I would have to say that those fantasy depictions actually do affect my life because it puts into men's heads crazy notions about lesbians and I am occasionally harassed by men who think that they can get into my pants or "just watch" because that is what they see in porn. Not to say that I look like those women (*ugh* who wants to anyway), but I feel that I am sufficiently attractive and am often hit on by men who find me even more attractive once they find out I like women. Kinda silly, eh? You'd think that would be enough to make them get the point and go away. *shrug*
Whatever, I'm not saying that it affects my life in any major way, but in comparison to the non-existent bo-GAY-man and their "agenda" that fundies are so afraid of, it definitely trumps.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by arachnophilia, posted 07-16-2006 7:26 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by arachnophilia, posted 07-17-2006 2:21 AM Jaderis has not replied

  
Jaderis
Member (Idle past 3455 days)
Posts: 622
From: NY,NY
Joined: 06-16-2006


Message 44 of 134 (332613)
07-17-2006 4:38 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by LudoRephaim
07-17-2006 10:19 AM


tree love
Person 1; People having sex with trees and marrying them is just not right! If they want to have sex, then let 'em. But dont make it to that "they: can get married.
Ahhh, so that time when I was 10 and was pretending that a fallen tree was a horse and I noticed that something felt strangely pleasurable, I was on my way to Arborphilia? Damn I'm glad my mom called me in for dinner and the lust for trees did not overtake me
Really, since when did the tree argument come in? I've heard the polygamy, bestiality and pedophilia "slippery slope" arguments before, but trees is a new one. Maybe someone watched "Evil Dead" one too many times and got some crazy ideas, no?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by LudoRephaim, posted 07-17-2006 10:19 AM LudoRephaim has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024