Amendment # 28 to ban Gay marriage!

quote:

---

From what I could find, it's geese, swans, doves, and albatrosses.

---

I'm willing to accept more creatures into the "mate for life" category. Do you have any convenient evidence for the above (not doubting, just wondering since it will save me time).This added group does not exactly help the guy I was replying to though.And are you certain about swans? In the Netherlands there are a LOT of swans, many that come around from year to year, and I'm pretty sure the pairs I was looking at (and getting pecked by when I didn't give food fast enough) changed partners.

---

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

quote:

---

Like a cartoonish super-villain, I failed to take bisexuality into account. Curses!

---

quote:

---

I think this demonstrates a useful lesson: nobody knows crap about anybody's sexuality but their own, if even that.

---

I think that is so very true.

quote:

---

Tell me, when your hormones started to kick in as a teenager, did you choose which gender to find sexually attractive?

​

No?

​

Then being hetero wasn't a lifestyle choice for you?

---

On the same token, if he's a male human and he didn't chose hetero, then why would another male human not choose hetero if one does. Maybe one chooses another male and did not make that decision through their homones "kicking in" because that wouldn't be a choice, but by their own lusts? Maybe homosexuals feel attracted to females too at one point, like this other male human did. Maybe then they made the choice they would rather be with men, attracted not by natural processes but by the process of their own minds they lusted for one another, making a lifestyle choice.I know this wasn't directed toward me but I feel the need to respond to this statement of yours.

---

-chris

quote:

---

Somehow I think they'll roll with this punch, too.

---

Why? What are they responsible for, is Bush representing an ENTIRE party?And what were the opinions of the other party on those topics you mentioned.

---

-chris

Well, Bush represents a party that historically is always identified with conservatives. I'm not exactly sure what you're asking. Those were all liberal ideas. A bunch of other ideas that I'm sure you like are liberal ideas, too.

quote:

---

I'm willing to accept more creatures into the "mate for life" category. Do you have any convenient evidence for the above (not doubting, just wondering since it will save me time).

---

Here's the link to a press release by the World Wildlife Fund, which is, admittedly, the first credible source I found. It wasn't an exhaustive search, but I was pretty sure I had read at another time that several kinds of birds mated for life.Newsroom | WWF

quote:

---

And are you certain about swans?

---

I did some more googling and that swans mate for life seems to be the consensus. Remember, if a mate is killed, the living partner will usually take a new mate eventually, so this would explain why you were seeing different pairs.Page not found - BirdWatch Ireland downloads/19_Mute%20Swans.pdf

quote:

---

On the same token, if he's a male human and he didn't chose hetero, then why would another male human not choose hetero if one does. Maybe one chooses another male and did not make that decision through their homones "kicking in" because that wouldn't be a choice, but by their own lusts? Maybe homosexuals feel attracted to females too at one point, like this other male human did. Maybe then they made the choice they would rather be with men, attracted not by natural processes but by the process of their own minds they lusted for one another, making a lifestyle choice.

---

I think that the only people making "lifestyle choices" in any way are bisexual people.Even then, they wouldn't be able to make the choice unless they were able to respond sexually to both genders.The point of my original post is that which gender(s) a person is attracted to sexually is NOT EVER a choice. You either are turned on or you aren't, and no amount of "choosing" to be straight is going to make a gay person be turned on by a member of the opposite sex....and vice versa.If you can get it on with either gender and dig it, then you are bi.

quote:

---

The point of my original post is that which gender(s) a person is attracted to sexually is NOT EVER a choice. You either are turned on or you aren't, and no amount of "choosing" to be straight is going to make a gay person be turned on by a member of the opposite sex.

---

Isn't the obvious compatibility between man and woman evidence that hetero is the only natural process. Evolutionary or not I think it is obvious on either both sides of the debate that man was meant for woman. That means that anything else must not be natural, Homo doesnt produce offspring nor are physically meant for one another. The only evidence is that men and women are naturally attracted to eachother, and homo isn't natural or some may say meant to be. So by not doing what is natural or naturally right for a human then that is a choice.[This message has been edited by messenjaH of oNe, 03-12-2004]

---

-chris

Isn't the obvious compatibility between penises and anuses evidence that gay sex is natural? Moreover, isn't the fact that animals have gay sex evidence that gay sex is natural? Yet, the clear example of men who are obviously meant for men proves you wrong.

quote:

---

Isn't the obvious compatibility between penises and anuses evidence that gay sex is natural?

---

The anus is meant to excrete wastes, it's actually not really compatible with the penis at all, it obviously isn't meant for that at all.

quote:

---

Moreover, isn't the fact that animals have gay sex evidence that gay sex is natural?

---

Actually it only shows that the blight of sin spread to everything, not just us humans.

quote:

---

Yet, the clear example of men who are obviously meant for men proves you wrong.

---

Unfortunately that concept isn't plausible.[This message has been edited by messenjaH of oNe, 03-12-2004]

---

-chris

Pushing the big 300 ya'll. Closing statements?

---

AdminAsgara
Queen of the Universe

Hah! Tell that to the millions of Americans who, well, you know. If men weren't meant to have anal sex, then why is the prostate situated in such a way as to only be stimulated by anal sex? Clearly that's the natural way to stimulate the prostate. If it's found in nature, it's by definition natural. Don't try to shift the goalposts. ??? It's not a concept. It's a reality.

quote:

---

The prostate is a gland found only in men. It makes a fluid that goes into the man's semen.

---

-
ForbiddenOh wait, so now there is a use for the prostate and it isn't for gay sex. So why would you want to redefine its use, why it is there?

quote:

---

If it's found in nature, it's by definition natural. Don't try to shift the goalposts.

---

Is it natural for the animal? I wouldn't think so.

quote:

---

??? It's not a concept. It's a reality.

---

Maybe in your mind but the evidence shows otherwise

---

-chris

quote:

---

If men weren't meant to have anal sex, then why is the prostate situated in such a way as to only be stimulated by anal sex? Clearly that's the natural way to stimulate the prostate.

---

I kind of hope this was a joke on your part... kind of like if God didn't want people to eat pussy he wouldn't have made it look like a taco.MessenjaH appropriately spanked you regarding its function and location, but I need to spank you for suggesting anal sex is somehow easy and the parts compatible.As I've said I'm essentially bi, but anal sex is PAINFUL. A finger is one thing, a penis is something altogether different. It is possible to overcome the pain, or learn to enjoy the pain, but it is not an easy fit and does a lot of damage (one of the reason anal sex is much more dangerous than vaginal sex.If anal sex was "natural" (meaning that was a PRIMARY biological purpose) or the parts compatible, the tissue in that area would be much more compatible with penetration from large objects (well... large HARD objects).While there are certainly many gays who engage in anal sex, there are also many gays who do not and never will. That inability to have anal sex does not make them less gay.As it goes your theory disintegrates further when one then takes into account women who like to have anal sex... including lesbians. Obviously they do not have prostates.I think you have confused attraction and selection of sex partner, with selection of mechanical process to get one off. And in doing so have overstated the "compatibility" of those parts.Along with this, I also have to point out that most if not all homosexual unions between male animals are not really anal sex (being full penetration). It is more like frottage. Certainly I have had my leg raped enough (and one dog tried for the back of my head) to think they don't necessarily care about holes.Now analingus is a whole other story!But don't get me wrong, I do agree homosexuality is natural as it is found in nature.I think you and MessenjaH are using different definitions of natural... him being primary purpose of a behavior or body part, and yours being practical use of a behavior or body part.His definition is artificially limited, and I think even he would give it up when he realizes it makes chewing bubblegum, dancing, listening to music, and writing posts to EvC as unnatural as anal sex.

---

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

This is message 300 - Time to close down per standard procedure.I think there's another gay marriage topic lurking around, that's still a bit short of 300 messages.Adminnemooseus