Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Your thoughts on Gay Marriage / Homosexuality?

Page 4 of 14 [ 212 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 14  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Are you for, or against Gay Marriage?
I am for Gay Marriage 88%  88%  [ 80 ]
I am against Gay Marriage 12%  12%  [ 11 ]
Total votes : 91

waltur
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 May 2009
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 924
Location: california

22 Oct 2010, 1:23 pm

Raptor wrote:
It's Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!


Image
pictured: adam and steve.



KazigluBey
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 3 Jan 2009
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 405

22 Oct 2010, 3:47 pm

Quote:
Your thoughts on Gay Marriage / Homosexuality?


Gay Marriage

No such thing as Gay Marriage; a marriage, simply, cannot be gay. The proper term ought be, same-sex marriage since that is precisely what the issue is. Of course, then it would force all the vehement proponents to actually debate the issue on legitimate legal grounds instead of the nonsense that is presented as debate today. For the record, I find same-sex unions (linguistically, I'm a bit hesitant to use "marriage"), as it pertains to the law, as something that ought be perfectly legal.

Homosexuality

Male homosexuality is gross; female, not so much--provided they are attractive. I'm sure someone would like to lambaste me and before you do, keep in mind that this is merely my personal opinion based on my own sexual nuances and should be just as respected as those from someone who might be attracted to members of the same sex.



Asp-Z
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Dec 2009
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,018

22 Oct 2010, 3:50 pm

Quick, Christians, out of love for your fellow man, you must attack your fellow man for loving their fellow man! :roll:



MissConstrue
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Feb 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 17,057
Location: MO

22 Oct 2010, 3:59 pm

KazigluBey wrote:
Quote:
Your thoughts on Gay Marriage / Homosexuality?


Gay Marriage

No such thing as Gay Marriage; a marriage, simply, cannot be gay. The proper term ought be, same-sex marriage since that is precisely what the issue is. Of course, then it would force all the vehement proponents to actually debate the issue on legitimate legal grounds instead of the nonsense that is presented as debate today. For the record, I find same-sex unions (linguistically, I'm a bit hesitant to use "marriage"), as it pertains to the law, as something that ought be perfectly legal.

Homosexuality

Male homosexuality is gross; female, not so much--provided they are attractive. I'm sure someone would like to lambaste me and before you do, keep in mind that this is merely my personal opinion based on my own sexual nuances and should be just as respected as those from someone who might be attracted to members of the same sex.


Only in a heterosexual male's mind. I personally don't find it gross at all, in fact I find a lot of them cute.


_________________
I live as I choose or I will not live at all.
~Delores O’Riordan


adifferentname
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2008
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,885

22 Oct 2010, 6:31 pm

KazigluBey wrote:

No such thing as Gay Marriage; a marriage, simply, cannot be gay. The proper term ought be, same-sex marriage since that is precisely what the issue is. Of course, then it would force all the vehement proponents to actually debate the issue on legitimate legal grounds instead of the nonsense that is presented as debate today. For the record, I find same-sex unions (linguistically, I'm a bit hesitant to use "marriage"), as it pertains to the law, as something that ought be perfectly legal.


Please excuse the pun, but I find your definition just a little 'anal'. 'Gay marriage' rolls off the fingers more easily than 'same-sex marriage', and I don't think there is any confusion as to the meaning. But griping aside, I'm completely with you.

Quote:
Homosexuality

Male homosexuality is gross; female, not so much--provided they are attractive. I'm sure someone would like to lambaste me and before you do, keep in mind that this is merely my personal opinion based on my own sexual nuances and should be just as respected as those from someone who might be attracted to members of the same sex.


I'm actually surprised that you would think of it as 'gross', unless you mean with respect to yourself. In my view, two men having sex is not inherently 'gross' nor is any physical expression of love between two people. However, I draw a very clear line between 'love-making' and 'rutting'. Sex solely for self-gratification isn't something I can get behind, no matter the sexuality of the participants.



waltur
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 May 2009
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 924
Location: california

22 Oct 2010, 11:26 pm

adifferentname wrote:
KazigluBey wrote:

No such thing as Gay Marriage; a marriage, simply, cannot be gay. The proper term ought be, same-sex marriage since that is precisely what the issue is. Of course, then it would force all the vehement proponents to actually debate the issue on legitimate legal grounds instead of the nonsense that is presented as debate today. For the record, I find same-sex unions (linguistically, I'm a bit hesitant to use "marriage"), as it pertains to the law, as something that ought be perfectly legal.


Please excuse the pun, but I find your definition just a little 'anal'. 'Gay marriage' rolls off the fingers more easily than 'same-sex marriage', and I don't think there is any confusion as to the meaning. But griping aside, I'm completely with you.

Quote:
Homosexuality

Male homosexuality is gross; female, not so much--provided they are attractive. I'm sure someone would like to lambaste me and before you do, keep in mind that this is merely my personal opinion based on my own sexual nuances and should be just as respected as those from someone who might be attracted to members of the same sex.


I'm actually surprised that you would think of it as 'gross', unless you mean with respect to yourself. In my view, two men having sex is not inherently 'gross' nor is any physical expression of love between two people. However, I draw a very clear line between 'love-making' and 'rutting'. Sex solely for self-gratification isn't something I can get behind, no matter the sexuality of the participants.



sometimes i have the overwhelming urge to ask people who are anti-homosexual if they find the idea of a man penetrating a man while he penetrates a woman to be sexually arousing.



adifferentname
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2008
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,885

22 Oct 2010, 11:34 pm

waltur wrote:
sometimes i have the overwhelming urge to ask people who are anti-homosexual if they find the idea of a man penetrating a man while he penetrates a woman to be sexually arousing.


Perhaps I'm alone in this, but I don't find the idea of other people having sex especially arousing, whatever the genders of the participants. I do, however, understand where you're coming from with that question.

I'm convinced that sexuality is partially formed through nurture, but also that nurture does not imply 'choice'. In much the same way, those raised to believe they have a right to infringe the rights of others seem unable to change who they are.



Squirrelrat
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 23 Sep 2010
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 448

22 Oct 2010, 11:43 pm

This may sound a little radical, but I think that we should replace legal marriage with a kind of nuclear family contract that allows up to a certain number of consenting adults to be recognized as a nuclear family so that they can have all of the rights that come with being a nuclear family. I think that governmental institutions should be all about legal rights, rather than traditions.

Also, to you people who think that homosexuality is gross, remember that being married would help to keep many homosexuals from being promiscuous.



adifferentname
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2008
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,885

22 Oct 2010, 11:51 pm

Squirrelrat wrote:
This may sound a little radical, but I think that we should replace legal marriage with a kind of nuclear family contract that allows up to a certain number of consenting adults to be recognized as a nuclear family so that they can have all of the rights that come with being a nuclear family. I think that governmental institutions should be all about legal rights, rather than traditions.


Isn't that the point of a civil ceremony already? Christians do not own the rights to the word 'marriage'. Nor do they have the right to demand it only have one meaning. Nor, for that matter, does anybody else.

The word 'marriage' has romantic connotations that would be lost if we followed your suggestion:

"Would you do me the honour of entering into a contractual nuclear family with me?"

You get down on one knee and say that, you had better have an expensive rock to slip on his/her finger.



hyperlexian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2010
Age: 54
Gender: Female
Posts: 22,023
Location: with bucephalus

22 Oct 2010, 11:51 pm

adifferentname wrote:
Please excuse the pun, but I find your definition just a little 'anal'.

Sex solely for self-gratification isn't something I can get behind, no matter the sexuality of the participants.

i saw what you did there. heh.




or maybe it's just my dirty mind?


_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
viewtopic.php?t=391105


auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 115,281
Location: the island of defective toy santas

22 Oct 2010, 11:52 pm

waltur wrote:
sometimes i have the overwhelming urge to ask people who are anti-homosexual if they find the idea of a man penetrating a man while he penetrates a woman to be sexually arousing.


i saw a vid of a guy with 2 peters do this. lucky bastard. though i suppose if the guy were bereft of adult companionship then that would only be twice as much frustration. :roll:



hyperlexian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2010
Age: 54
Gender: Female
Posts: 22,023
Location: with bucephalus

22 Oct 2010, 11:53 pm

Squirrelrat wrote:
This may sound a little radical, but I think that we should replace legal marriage with a kind of nuclear family contract that allows up to a certain number of consenting adults to be recognized as a nuclear family so that they can have all of the rights that come with being a nuclear family. I think that governmental institutions should be all about legal rights, rather than traditions.

Also, to you people who think that homosexuality is gross, remember that being married would help to keep many homosexuals from being promiscuous.

i like that idea. it sort of happens anyways, when people divorce and remarry, and kids end up with multiple parents and step-parents. why not share quarters and resources too?


_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
viewtopic.php?t=391105


adifferentname
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2008
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,885

22 Oct 2010, 11:57 pm

hyperlexian wrote:
adifferentname wrote:
Please excuse the pun, but I find your definition just a little 'anal'.

Sex solely for self-gratification isn't something I can get behind, no matter the sexuality of the participants.

i saw what you did there. heh.




or maybe it's just my dirty mind?


:shrug:



Asp-Z
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Dec 2009
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,018

23 Oct 2010, 3:32 am

adifferentname wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
adifferentname wrote:
Please excuse the pun, but I find your definition just a little 'anal'.

Sex solely for self-gratification isn't something I can get behind, no matter the sexuality of the participants.

i saw what you did there. heh.




or maybe it's just my dirty mind?


:shrug:


I LOL'd at this exchange :lol:



KazigluBey
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 3 Jan 2009
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 405

23 Oct 2010, 7:45 am

waltur wrote:
adifferentname wrote:
KazigluBey wrote:

No such thing as Gay Marriage; a marriage, simply, cannot be gay. The proper term ought be, same-sex marriage since that is precisely what the issue is. Of course, then it would force all the vehement proponents to actually debate the issue on legitimate legal grounds instead of the nonsense that is presented as debate today. For the record, I find same-sex unions (linguistically, I'm a bit hesitant to use "marriage"), as it pertains to the law, as something that ought be perfectly legal.


Please excuse the pun, but I find your definition just a little 'anal'. 'Gay marriage' rolls off the fingers more easily than 'same-sex marriage', and I don't think there is any confusion as to the meaning. But griping aside, I'm completely with you.

Quote:
Homosexuality

Male homosexuality is gross; female, not so much--provided they are attractive. I'm sure someone would like to lambaste me and before you do, keep in mind that this is merely my personal opinion based on my own sexual nuances and should be just as respected as those from someone who might be attracted to members of the same sex.


I'm actually surprised that you would think of it as 'gross', unless you mean with respect to yourself. In my view, two men having sex is not inherently 'gross' nor is any physical expression of love between two people. However, I draw a very clear line between 'love-making' and 'rutting'. Sex solely for self-gratification isn't something I can get behind, no matter the sexuality of the participants.



sometimes i have the overwhelming urge to ask people who are anti-homosexual if they find the idea of a man penetrating a man while he penetrates a woman to be sexually arousing.


While I wouldn't call myself anti-homosexual, the idea of a man penetrating a man is not arousing for me under any context.



adifferentname
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2008
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,885

23 Oct 2010, 8:13 am

KazigluBey wrote:
While I wouldn't call myself anti-homosexual, the idea of a man penetrating a man is not arousing for me under any context.


I think that just makes you neutral, which is how I prefer to be on the subject of how other people choose to be in private.