p2

11/6/2005 3:14:05 PM

Quote :

"getting ur partner there might make you happy and all but physically it has no gratification associated with it."

i know one lady who would disagree with that!!

11/6/2005 4:18:48 PM

There's no satisfaction from a job well done?

11/6/2005 4:19:42 PM

ignore my entire response much?

[Edited on November 6, 2005 at 4:32 PM. Reason : i hate you all ]

11/6/2005 4:31:33 PM

Quote :

"hello prostate /thread"

The most overlooked comment in this thread. Excoriator brings up an interesting point. If homosexual acts are meant to be uncomfortable, why are prostate orgasms supposed to be much more intense?

11/6/2005 8:49:06 PM

i called a guy to clean my carpet and eneded up in the shower with him

is that gay?

11/6/2005 8:51:59 PM

Quote :

"10 reasons why gay marriage should be illegal 01) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning. 02) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall. 03) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract. 04) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal. 05) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britany Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed. 06) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children. 07) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children. 08) Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America. 09) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children. 10) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans."

from http://raleigh.craigslist.org/about/best/por/102351114.html

11/6/2005 10:17:02 PM

as anti-homophobia as i am, that list is pretty dumb. i would go into it more if most of it wasnt glaringly obvious.

11/6/2005 10:59:55 PM

umm hello that's a satirical list

11/6/2005 11:05:21 PM

haha that list is awesome

11/6/2005 11:10:46 PM

^^ oh really, you think. im saying the points that its making fun of arent necessarily the ones that need to be.

ex)

Quote :

"Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britany Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed."

obvious inferring marriage isn't always meaningful for straight couples...but that's why things like annulments exist (which is the case here). homophobia is dumb, but at least make fun of them without making stupid points. the real reasons they hate gay marriage are so much easier to target, so why strawman um with shit like this.

11/6/2005 11:39:20 PM

if gay marriage were allowed, they could anull those also so what's ur point

11/6/2005 11:49:33 PM

it would seem to me that they are saying "hey look, they dont take marriage seriously, but gays will, so wtf mate." im saying that it is ignoring the issue there. the issue was whether marriage kept its meaning for 2 men, not between 2 people in general.

you are right anullment would be good for gays too, if they are stupid/drunk movie stars or the like. just as anullment is the answer to retards not being serious people see anti-gay marriage laws (or scripture or whatever) as the answer to prevent that lack of meaning in marriage.

added:
i'd liek to note that i realize that anullment is optional (cuz hey maybe they like each other ), but if you truly believe homosexuality is wrong then you wouldnt even consider them on the level of being able to get married.

[Edited on November 7, 2005 at 12:36 AM. Reason : clarifying...you see what i mean though? a few were funny, but some were dumb]

11/7/2005 12:32:02 AM

^ you're missing the point.

there really is a large contingent of anti-gay marriage people who claim that heterosexual marriage is a holy institution and that the mere act of extending marriage to same-sex couples would defile and cheapen it.

and item #5 points out that marriage is already cheapened and defiled.

11/7/2005 12:55:52 AM

One of my favorite anti-gay marriage arguments is this:

"If we allow gay marriage, then two men of the same sex who aren't really gay will just get married for tax benefits. Now that'll REALLY fuck up marriage!"

Quite a compelling point.

Except, if you've ever listened to a debate about the war on drugs, it usually goes like this:

Anti-war commentator: "The War on Drugs has led to a sweeping black market that we can't control. It obviously isn't working, so we should legalize drugs!"
Pro-war response: "Just because people do something illegal, doesn't mean we should change the laws! Spend more $texas on the war on drugs!"

And, inevitably, people spend more money on the war on drugs because they believe in the rule of law.

Why the "black market" for same-gender marriage would be any different, is beyond me. But listen to any conservative pundit, and they're making that point -- one in the same who says "spend more $texas on the war on drugs!"

Shameless hypocrisy is definitely the way of the world, but it's never a pretty sight.

[Edited on November 7, 2005 at 4:45 AM. Reason : foo]

11/7/2005 4:44:20 AM

^^ cheapened and defiled in a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT way that can be nullified in 10 seconds was my point. thats my point, they are just sickened by the act of homosexuality...so why not attack that instead of saying that marriage is meaningless as is.

this is why i also think #8 pretty much should cover that entire list, along with a few others.

i'll go through my problems just so we have something to talk about in here:

01) STUPID

wearing comfortable clothes and things to aid us in everyday life is not the same as having a different lifestyle (going against natural order of things sexually).

obviously the real argument against homophobes is that being straight isnt necessarily the only natural was as we've described in this thread (prostate=sexy, gay animals perhaps, etc)

02) STUPID

being tall is not a choice, homophobes beleive being gay is (some of um). if it is genetic im sure they think its equivalent to nasty freakishness.

this obviously hasnt been fully discovered yet so you cant bash um as easily, but it still seems stupid that people would choose to be gay (though less so every year).

03) VALID

I've heard retards make this claim and it is well...retarded.

04) Iffy on this one. Lot of underlying interest in this joke.

05) STUPID, and covered.

06) STUPID on the same level as #2 (especially since people don't go in often knowing they can't have children), but I still like the point. If that was one of their sole arguments then I'd be all for this one.

07) VALID

I've never heard that blatant assertion, but I'm sure it is implied now and then.

08) VALID

This is my favorite point as it actually covers more than just gay marriage. Get off my ass nutjobs.

09) VALID

Another favorite.

10) STUPID, see #1.



I personally feel homophobes main arguments are:
1. isnt natural
2. against religion
3. personal choice against #1 and 2
4. think of the children

Since #3 and 4 are unproven and may in fact be disproven, they go out the window. #2 shouldnt necessarily matter unless it is a general will of the people that doesnt infringe on anyone else (like "though shall not murder my ass plz"). #1 is questionable. so what legs do they have to stand on.
thats why 10 points is dumb, many cover the same issue and stretch to make marginally funny, but terrible comparisons. This is why I said what I said.

[Edited on November 7, 2005 at 10:04 AM. Reason : .]

11/7/2005 9:42:55 AM

Quote :

"cheapened and defiled in a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT way that can be nullified in 10 seconds was my point. thats my point, they are just sickened by the act of homosexuality...so why not attack that instead of saying that marriage is meaningless as is."

because there really are two issues. I think the problem is that you haven't heard anyone actually come out and claim this point so you don't realize how prevalent it is.

Yes, homophobes are sickened by the act of homosexuality, but ALSO they feel that marriage is a sanctified covenant that would wholly be defiled by allowing gay people to marry. They believe that marriage IS full of meaning right now and that if gay people could marry, that would, by itself, cause marriage to lose all of its meaning.

11/7/2005 10:10:24 AM

i mean we're really on the same page here for the most part.

i'm just saying they think that marriage IS meaningful and sanctified. they frown upon those BS-KFed type weddings, but at least said people can get it annulled, so it was like it never happened (they werent of sound mind and body). they probably also beleive those are less than 1% of marriages (im not sure on actual stats) and thus can be seen as reprehensible, but forgivable. homosexuality, however, is against God and thus shouldnt be allowed under any circumstances, not even if anullable.

thus sharing an institution with stupid kids is alright (and fixable), but sharing an institution with the "enemy" is unthinkable. we all know how crazy some of these ppl can get (trading spouses anyone?).

11/7/2005 11:23:42 AM

Quote :

"thus sharing an institution with stupid kids is alright (and fixable), but sharing an institution with the "enemy" is unthinkable."

yes, and item #5 argues that once you share your institution with stupid kids, you've lost any right to claim sanctity of that institution

11/7/2005 11:26:10 AM

i see your point, but disagree. this topic is pretty much dead if we quit though .

11/7/2005 12:23:26 PM

spend more time with conservatives and #5 will make much more sense

11/7/2005 1:51:47 PM

Re.: 10 reasons why gay marriage should be illegal

01) You'd think wanting to see 20/20, wear comfortable clothes, and not sweat/freeze to death would be more natural - at least more natural compared to wanting to not see when glasses are available, wanting to wear leaves when better alternatives are available, and not wanting going inside to warm up when you have frostbite.

02) Certainly not encourage. I think the biggest fear the homophobe has is that legalizing homosexual marriage represents a government "seal of approval". I guess they are worried that this influence would be greater than whatever they taught at home. In which case they would be wrong.

03) Ha. Well they do have to be careful on how the word whatever new law they put up for legislation. Such as the union of one citizen to one citizen. Otherwize you would have to legalize polygamy. I'm sure the same argument that was used to legalize homosexual unions could be argued by the polygamists.

04) [sarcasm]Well homosexuality has been around a long time to, so I guess it is the right thing to do[/sarcasm]. Longevity =/= basis for a moral code. Murder has been around since Cain & Able (for the 'fundies'), that is certainly no reason to promote it. Not a good argument for either side of the fence.

05) If someone truly believes that homosexual marriage destroys the sanctity of marriage bringing up divorce isn't going to change their minds. I can see where these people are coming from. Here you are pretty much saying that it is ok to further destroy the sanctity of mariage because people are already destroying it with divorce, celeb show weddings, etc. That is like saying pouring sugar in a gas tank is perfectly fine because the car's battery is already dead.

06) Not a good defense for anti-homosexuality beliefs.

07) Well let's look at this one. Let's say that straight parents raise their children to be straight 99% of the time. The other 1% is a fluke. Then you could just as easily (and rather stupidly) argue that 99% of children in gay homes will be raised gay and the remaining 1% is a fluke. A child has its own agency. You would be a fool to think that the parents have no influence on a child. While I don't think that they have as great an influence as some give them credit I do feel like there is enough influence justify some concern from the far right.

08) A better question would be: why is the government in the business of marriage in the first place if it is completely centered around religion?

09) I am sure many a study has been done that shows that it is much more difficult to be raised in a single parent household. The part I do not agree with is saying that "hildren can never succeed...". That is a bit absolute. A child can always succeed. I'm sure people can understand that, while it is not a guarantee, a child receives benefits from having a mother and father support them.

10) I guess the point of that one isn't that gay marriage will or will not change society. Society would change. I think the other things mentioned on the list that society has adapted to in the past is largely stupid. You should mention social things that America has adapted to; like civil rights, womens rights, segregation, etc., etc. We as a society could adapt but it is pretty clear that the process would not be smooth. There are just too many people divided along a large gluf for there to be a smooth transition.

[Edited on November 7, 2005 at 3:44 PM. Reason : -]

11/7/2005 3:42:06 PM