manalone

Well said.

Brothers and Sisters of the rest of the world! Unite and get married

__________________
--
Man Alone
=======
Abstainer: a weak person who yields to the temptation of denying himself a pleasure.
Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary.

4thTimeLucky

Okay, well firstly I don't think we should accept that if we allow things to continue as they are in "today's society" that we will be doing a good job of government. There are lots of things that are "apparent in today's society" - teenage pregnancy, gun crime, asbentee parents etc. - that I think we should be trying to 'roll back'.

But that is an aside. The big question you asked was: what harm could come of homosexual marriages?
Now please remember two things before I continue this post: Firstly, this is not an 'attack' on homosexuals - in fact my normal position would be to defend homosexual marriage, but I thought I should try and see things from the other side in this thread. Secondly, I am trying to foresee a possible future. That means you can easily criticise what I say as just guesswork or mad fancy. Imagine trying to stand up during the Sixties and tell people what some of the less desirable results of the sexual revolution would be. You'd be shouted down. I hope that I will not be shouted down here. But thoughtful comments are of course welcome.

So, the future....

Marriage is an institution. An institution that plays a vital role in society. It is a bond that holds parents and families together, which as we have seen in other threads is the only place that children can really be educated with moral values and the skills of life.

However marriage is an institution in crisis. The divorce rate is rising and fewer people feel the need to formalise their relationships with it. The bond of marriage is increasingly seen as a straightjacket that prevents us from following our true desires and living free and uninhibited lives.

But there is still hope for marriage. It has the support of the church (and in other countries their respective religions) and it is still seen as something special, both by the state, by employers and by many (if not most) individuals.

Wat makes a thing special? Well two important factors are exclusivity and tradition. Univeristies are considered special because not everyone can go there (you have to meet a certain academic standard) and it has a tradition (e.g. Oxford or Harvard). Also there is a special expectation upon university students - they will generate the ideas and businesses of the future.

So why is marriage special? Well, because it is part of a tradition, supported by the church, that binds together the nuclear family and recgonises it as something special: it is the basic unit of society and raises the next generation. Furthermore, marriage is an exclusive club - you cannot join until you are 18 (without parents consent), you cannot join without making special commitments and sacrifices, you cannot join with someone of your own family or with more than one person and you cannot join unless it is with someone of the opposite sex. Marriage is entwined with the nuclear family and that is why it is respected - it gives you a new and imprtant role in the future of society. With that come benefits (from state and employer) and also responsibilities (towards each other and towards your children). The law also incorporates an emphasis upon the different roles taken by men and women (e.g. that women give birth and often take more responsibility for child rearing - this may seem sexist, but it is how the law operates and is intended to reflect the reality of most families).

So what could some possible impacts of allowing same-sex marriage be?
1) Marriage currently still has the public's support and the majority in the US do not want to legalise same-sex marriage. Ignoring this fact and legalising same-sex marriage will create even more dissillusionment with the institution and speed its decline.

2) Opening up marriage to same-sex couple will send a message that marriage is not entwined with the nuclear family and that it is seen as just a legal mechanism for conferring certain rights and benefits upon long-standing couples. This devalues marriage and undermines it as a pillar that supprts the nuclear family.

3) Opening up marriage to same-sex couples will be the death knell of its exclusivity. The allowance of same-sex marriage will require a rewriting of the rights, benefits and duties of married couples (because marriage laws were written with male-female unions in mind and many laws will no longer be appropriate), which will almost inevitably be a "dumbing down". There will be less that is special and 'set-apart' about marriage and its currency and worth will be devalued.

4) The institution of marriage currently has the total support of the church. This support is very important, especially in a religious country like the US. Allowing same-sex marriage will seriously undermine the support that the church can, and would want to, give it. It will drive a wedge between the church and the state on the issue of marriage. For those wanting to see a gulf between church and state this will be a good thing, but for the institution of marriage it would be terrible. We could face a future where the church, rather than stoop to accomodate this new civil marriage system, tries to reclaim marriage by having exlcusively religious marriages for its members. Then following these religious marriages the couple could go and make it a civil union as well, if they wanted to. What would be happening is that marriage would become too meaningless/untraditional for the church and too traditional/out-of-date/negatively-associated for everyone else. The result: civil marriage suits no one and dies a death, replaced by highly religious ceremonies at one extreme and loose ceremonial unions (or no unions at all) at the other.

In summary: Same-sex marriages would be a big step along the road to a future in which... Marriage has little weight, little meaning and little value. The benefits, rights and duties that are associated with it are whitled down until there si nothing left but a skeleton, where once there was a healthy body. The church has retracted its support of civil marriage in favour of a reclaimed religious marriage for its congregation. In the end marriage as a state institution and support for the general nuclear family withers away, to be replaced by purely-religious marriages at one end of the spectrum and a diversity of ceremonies and unions at the other. Marriage is dead, the population is divided and children suffer.

__________________
I've been 4thTimeLucky, you've been great. Goodnight and God bless!

gibber71

The same could be said now with heterosexual marriages.Are people really interest in the sanctity of marriage or are they only interested in their 'special day', the hoopla and 150 chicken dinners.If not the case,why do so many marriages end in divorce or seperation? Obviously, "till death do us part" means very little or nothing anymore and if that is irrelevant,isn't the church also since that is one of it's dictums?

As far as the religious traditions go,I think most people use that excuse as a crutch. I enjoy seeing people getting married in a church who already live together (living in sin),use birth control(that's a no-no),and are going to get right shitfaced at the reception( the bible not mention something about debauchery?).Offer someone to get married in a church or on a ocean cruiseliner in the Carribean all expenses paid,and which option do you think they will take? I think in any marriage,gay(if allowed) or straight, the religious aspect is secondary at best in regards to why those people choose to spend their lives together in the first place.

suviko

Yeah, marriage is an institution. Have you been reading functionalist social theory perhaps? They don't ONLY say that marriage is an institution, but also that other institutions can take it's place and do the same things in society if needed and that marriage has many forms. We claim that western people are monogamous what comes to marriage, but are we? There's really big percentage of couples of which one or both are rewed. Serial monogamy can be argued to be a kind of polygamy. And while co-habiting hasn't the same legal privileges, it is also an institution in the West by now. People know what that phrase means automatically and they know how the behaviour pattern of things work, just the same as when someone says "marriage", it gives us a rough idea of what these people are doing and what their life is like compared to say singles or widows.


As stated above, there are many sorts of institutions and institutions, same as the state and communities evolve. If marriage as institution is in decline, that can tell us it might be not needed anymore. The post-modern or post-technlogical society has pluralistic values and that most people accept. We might have to let go of the idea that marriage means the same for everybody.

In the 1960, most of the brits and us citizens whined it's somehow touching into their "privacy and civil rights" if they are made to wear seat belts.. ATM in Finland, the state doesn't want to give groceries rights to sell wines when majority of the population wants it and the reason is that alcohol related diseases and death rates would go up. Common people are not always the best judges to choose what is best for the WHOLE of society. They think about themselves, their own family and their friends.

Quote:

2) Opening up marriage to same-sex couple will send a message that marriage is not entwined with the nuclear family and that it is seen as just a legal mechanism for conferring certain rights and benefits upon long-standing couples. This devalues marriage and undermines it as a pillar that supprts the nuclear family.

I don't know man-man-children families, but I know many lesbian families and they live just like nuclear families and they are by no way threat to those values. They BECOME threat to those values if they are somehow not allowed to live as a family and be like everybody else; Then they have to live as something else and become rebels.

Quote:

3) Opening up marriage to same-sex couples will be the death knell of its exclusivity. The allowance of same-sex marriage will require a rewriting of the rights, benefits and duties of married couples (because marriage laws were written with male-female unions in mind and many laws will no longer be appropriate), which will almost inevitably be a "dumbing down". There will be less that is special and 'set-apart' about marriage and its currency and worth will be devalued.

The social world has to be redefined all the time. Usually the eritten code is not changed, but the practice changes. Compare the family life 50 years ago, 100 years ago, 200 yaers ago.. It's not static, family and marriage as institutions are all the time redefined. You can't beat your kids or wife nowadays. You can't sleep with your household servants freely - or who even has those, and if someone has, who counts them to belong to your family?? It's not automatically devalued. It's revalued.

Quote:

4) The institution of marriage currently has the total support of the church.

Actually, it never has. It's still taboo to marry cross-racially in some places and societies. It's still and probably will always be forbidden to marry your close realtives. These all are sovial norms and the church or the people belonging to it uphold it. Marriage of Suitable People [tm] have total support.

Quote:

This support is very important, especially in a religious country like the US. Allowing same-sex marriage will seriously undermine the support that the church can, and would want to, give it. It will drive a wedge between the church and the state on the issue of marriage. --- .

Even if US is more religious than most European or some Oceanian & Asian nations, you still uphold the idea that church & state are separated, right?

Quote:

Marriage is dead, the population is divided and children suffer.

Marriage will most likely never totally die. It will just change, as it has, through history and cultures. It's a popular overreaction to scream "History/religion/art/politics/marriage/substitute-some-other-valuable-institution-in-here is dead!" when times are changing and in the days when Bible was written, some people thought ways are already so currupt and things so bad that God mus be putting and end to this World.

suviko

Just a really incoherent side note:

I have no idea what it feels like for a man, but it can be extremely pleasurable for a woman too. So..

Btw, someone just cried in another web forum how "adoption is so unnatural!" LOL. That person probably hasn't heard the stories of animals adopting even cubs of other species. Somehow everybody claim to be expert on nature & what is natural.

manalone

The thinking goes that men have a physical feature which, when stimulated, generates pleasure (ie a prostate gland).

The Female Rectal tract is devoid of such a feature.

As to who has more pleasure? Well, that's one of thos impossible questions, like who has better orgasm or some such. It varies so widely between individuals that you can make no sex-wide generalisation.

[/QUOTE]
Btw, someone just cried in another web forum how "adoption is so unnatural!" LOL. That person probably hasn't heard the stories of animals adopting even cubs of other species. Somehow everybody claim to be expert on nature & what is natural.[/QUOTE]

There's no point discussing natural with regard to humans. Marriage is not natural our social order is not natural... hell some of our best looking people ain't natural (silicone etc)

Incidentally, is a dog adopting a kitten natural? Can we really look to animals for examples of "proper" behaviour?

__________________
--
Man Alone
=======
Abstainer: a weak person who yields to the temptation of denying himself a pleasure.
Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary.

Willowsr

To you religous zelots... In the words of the 'J' word himself.... Judge not lest ye be Judged...

To the politicians who feel the need to stick their nose into the bedroom of two consenting adults.... Get the fuck out and do something meaningful like feed the hungry, house the homeless, stop the child molesters, stop spousal abuse, stop the senseless killing in our streets, make a real difference in the educational system in this country, spend as much money making peace as war... and when you've done all of that... come back and if you ask really nicely... I'll let you into my bedroom to watch...

4thTimeLucky

Well Willowsr you certainly know how to make an entrance.

- We are not discussing controlling what occurs in the bedroom, we are discussing what happens at the marriage registry.

- Politicians get involved in these issues because they believe that marriage and the family is an issue that relates to "child molesters", "spousal abuse" and "eduction". Crazy huh!

- In the words of the 'J' man himself....

"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."
- (NIV, Mathew 19:4-6)

__________________
I've been 4thTimeLucky, you've been great. Goodnight and God bless!

glasscutter43

What two consenting people do with their crotches or whom they marry, is really none of my business.

__________________
Book 'em Danno

Willowsr

[QUOTE]Originally posted by 4thTimeLucky
Well Willowsr you certainly know how to make an entrance.
- We are not discussing controlling what occurs in the bedroom, we are discussing what happens at the marriage registry.
- Politicians get involved in these issues because they believe that marriage and the family is an issue that relates to "child molesters", "spousal abuse" and "eduction". Crazy huh!

4thTimeLucky...
Unfortunately... Politicians are unable to make a distinction and pass laws regarding sodomy and 'same sex' rights... it's not about sex as you said... it's about respecting one persons lifetime commitment to another and changing the legal system to address todays societal needs... it has NOTHING to do with sex, child molestation, or whatever...
btw... once... in my "Crusader" days, I associated persons in same sex relationships with child molesters... I got over that and apologized for being that closed minded and hateful and ignorant.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by 4thTimeLucky - In the words of the 'J' man himself....
"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate." - (NIV, Mathew 19:4-6)

4thTimeLucky...
guess we could make this a bible verse 'shootout'... flipping to the book of Ruth *grin*...

But.... I'm not going to do that... I had my "Crusader" days ... I was "holier than thou" to a very dear friend... I 'rebuked' her in the name of God and all that is holy... then... after two years of hatefullness to her... I spent a 'mens prayer weekend' at church... ya' know what came to me in prayer?
I was the one who was judged... I was wrong... and I was compelled to ask forgiveness of the one I rebuked.

I eventually got the balls to do so... and do you know what she did? She asked if she could give Me a hug... I was humbled as I'd never been humbled before... I learned about love...

Maybe we could spread a little more of that around...

The_Dude

i think we should start a poll about this and see where the tfp members are standing on this.

no discussion, just a poll (btw, can you add a poll to this now?)

__________________
"Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

4thTimeLucky

Dude - Good idea on the poll thing.

Willowsr
This may surprise you.... but I am not a christian.... or any religion. I just thought that if you were the sort of person that quotes the Bible you might be up for hearing more.

As for the other stuff.... I am not equating homosexuals with child molesters. I am making the point that marriage and family are related to "child molestation" (most of which is conducted by a family member), "spousal abuse" (all of which is conducted by a family member!) and "education" (the real school is the home). If we can ensure that the institution of marriage is strong then we may help the family unit to be strong and then we will be making a positive contribution to those issues you listed.

I'm glad you got the hug.

__________________
I've been 4thTimeLucky, you've been great. Goodnight and God bless!

~springrain

*steps back into this thread for a moment*

4thTimeLucky...

to a point i agree with you... if we can ensure that the institution of marriage is strong... perhaps we can help to heal each other and "support the family" as you stated... that included ALL FAMILIES... even homosexual ones...

outlawing their marriage and committment only weakens the support... if anyone thinks that by keeping it illegal we will "stop the ill that is homosexuality"... they are fooling themselves...

let's start loving and supporting one another instead of pointing our finger and judging.

Cynthetiq

I was at a Father's day celebration for a gay couple and their adopted 5 year old. They had been taking care of this young boy since he was 1.5. They are a very loving and caring couple and I would wish for them to be able to raise him in the environment that they currently have, which is with the Papa and the Daddy. Fortunately for them they work at companies that have same sex benefits for domestic partners.

I would like to see however if this is extended to a homosexual couple that it be extended to a heterosexual couple if they follow the same guidelines of how they define the criteria for the domestic partner.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

4thTimeLucky

I think that the anti-SSM camp can make their case without judging or pointing fingers.
I know a lot of people were saying homosexuality is "disgusting" and "unnatural" - which is very judgemental - but that's why I decided to try and make a case that was based on reason and not disgust.

Different institutions have different traditions and different functions. We can often stretch the role of institutions to be more inclusive or fulfill more functions. Sometimes this stretching is a good thing and makes the world a better place, but sometimes the stretching weakens the institution and causes it to tear apart. The anti-SSM camp is simply saying that the institution and tradition of marriage is a very strictly delineated one. Furthermore at this time it needs our support, and they contend that the institution of marriage - if I can use the analogy of company - is better supported by concentrating on its core competencies than diversifying into new markets.

__________________
I've been 4thTimeLucky, you've been great. Goodnight and God bless!

smarm

Just a piece of information, for what it is worth:

At the company I work for, the benefits for same sex couples are the same as for married hetero couples. If you "live with," but are not married to, your hetero significant other in the same conditions that the same sex couple live in, you do not get the same benefits, however. The reason for this is that there is no method for the same-sex couple to have a legally binding commitment, so the company accepts their word instead. I heard the VP of HR state that as soon as there was a legalization of "marriage" for same-sex couples, they would be required to present the same "documentation" of their commitment as heterosexual couples do.

Prophecy

Makes me wonder if I could sue your company for discrimination....

__________________
La Disciplina È La Mia Spada,
La Fede È Il Mio Schermo,
Non salti Ciecamente In Incertezza,
E Potete Raccogliere Le Ricompense.

bender

Edited as the message was long and boring.

iamjero

I dont give a rats ass who marrys who. Marriage is a stupid institution, and I believe its very close to being abolished. What percentage of people stay married? Im sorry but the victory for gays having the right to same sex marriages is a small one. Marriage is a outdated and overrated.

Hopefully noone taks this post wrong. I have nothing but love for anyone who has the cajones to stand up for who they are. Its just that whats the point of fighting for something that has become so cheap.

__________________
"Ideas are far more powerful than guns. We don't allow our enemies to have guns, why should we allow them to have ideas?"

- Joseph Stalin

Cynthetiq

it's only as cheap as the people make it.

I am 34 and I know plenty of people who've gotten married who've been married now for over 15 years. It's takes effort to make a marriage work. As far as I'm concerned a majority of the people who get divorced weren't ready to be married at the time. I'm glad that I didn't run off during my younger days I would be divorced now. I waited until I was much further along in my life and career and now am very much ready to settle down with my wife.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

Prophecy

I have no clue, but I've heard people answer this question by saying that God created free will. Free will is what allows people to "become" gay. The fact that we can think for ourselves allows us all to act differently. However, because we have free will that mean we sometimes act in ways that God doesn't approve of. Does that make sense?

yep

__________________
La Disciplina È La Mia Spada,
La Fede È Il Mio Schermo,
Non salti Ciecamente In Incertezza,
E Potete Raccogliere Le Ricompense.

lurkette

I think the key problem in this issue is that we are a society in transition - as we become more diverse (yay!) we have to put our money where our mouths are in terms of living up to our national ideals. Granted, the consitution, like the bible, is open to interpretation based on the mores and norms of the times, but it seems pretty clear that they had in mind a secular state. Not necessarily a secular NATION but a secular government at least.

And that's where the key problem is right now - we're going from being a largely homogeneous Christian society to being a very diverse one in which a plurality of opinions have to be respected.

The big problem with marriage is (as others have stated here) that its religious aspects and its civil aspects have been completely collapsed. There are many people who are married civilly but have no interest in the religious underpinnings of marriage. And the state recognizes those marriages with legal door prizes (automatic medical power of attorney, inheritance rights, etc.). It seems downright hypocritical to deny similar rights to similarly civilly connected people just because they don't fit the religious definition of a marriageable couple according to many religions. However, it's difficult if not impossible for some people who believe they have a monopoly on truth (and till recently have had a monopoly on government as well) to admit that as a country we are moving toward a more broad-minded and objective perspective.

The other big problem with this controversy is that people are not thinking rationally, they are thinking ideologically. Some people simply can't stand that other people don't think the same things they do. Their beliefs are threatened by science (most scientists agree that homosexuality is in fact a largely biological and not a purley psychological phenomenon) and by constantly being confronted by Others Who Do Not Believe As We Do. It's these people, a small but vocal minority, who can't stand the cognitive dissonance of having a gay couple be accorded the same status as a hetero couple.

I think we're on our way to a more rational, tolerant society (at least that's my hope) but it's just going to take people time to adapt to this idea, the way it took time to adapting to the idea of civil rights for blacks and equal rights for women. I hope that someday people will recognize that love is love is love, whatever it looks like, and there couldn't possibly be anything wrong with that.

__________________
"If ten million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."

- Anatole France

4thTimeLucky

good post Lurkette. It's pretty hard to argue with that.

__________________
I've been 4thTimeLucky, you've been great. Goodnight and God bless!

~springrain

i couldn't agree more... i read it earlier but didn't have the chance to respond...

very well spoken... thank you... *warm smile*

The_Dude

we're watching a movie called 'philidelphia' in my english class and we're going to discuss the issue!

i'm gonna have a field day!

__________________
"Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

manalone

Sure, in primary character the state is secular. However, how do you account for the fact that the underpinnings of the majority (especially when you examine who votes) remain christian (oir at least religious)?

Are we moving so far away? I think it might be a matter of a simple reversion to a previous model. In any case, is it right to force acceptance on people when they think such a thing is wrong?

It's also worth noting that if you refer to America as the homogenous society that the country was founded due to religious (admittedly all-christian) persectution,

Does respect for plurality of opinion lie in every example?

There still has to be some boundary as to who can marry, right?
Children, animals etc... How do we now decide a basis for what things we should recognise as deserving of equality and what remains criminal.

Remember sexual laws are essentially a fashion. To the ancient Greeks, it was acceptable (nay, expected) that a boy (~14) be initiated into adulthood by a Man. This is clearly illegal by our standards.

Rational basis for argument is well and good, but this is a pure moral issue, and so it depends a great deal on ideology. Your (and I might add My similar) ideology of acceptance and equality can not truly be said to be any more rational than any other perspective. It depends on no empirical basis.

Anecdotal scientific "evidence" aside, the theory of the origin of homosexuality is, in my opinion, equally as irrelevent as the question of the "natural" quality of homosexual sex. Whether physchological or physiological, it is, to my mind not important, as we are far from the natural creatures we started out as.

Let's be fair. Some people oppose homosexuallty on a rational basis. They consider sexual intercourse to be restricted to procreation. They are neither backwater technophobes nor bigoted fools. They are people with an opinion, just not the one many others share.

Neither ethnic minorities nor women have reached equality. Indeed it could be argued that the whole experiment in Political Correctness has led to greater inequalities in certain areas while a backlash grows in those who do not fit into a useful category.

Society is, and will to my mind never be, a rational entity. humanity is not rational on an individual basis, so why expetc the net result to be rational?

Within certain boundaries, I agree...

__________________
--
Man Alone
=======
Abstainer: a weak person who yields to the temptation of denying himself a pleasure.
Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary.

manalone

Well, I gave it a go.

Lurkette made an excellent and well though out argument, I just want to test the boundaries of the statement.

I feel somthing of a heel

__________________
--
Man Alone
=======
Abstainer: a weak person who yields to the temptation of denying himself a pleasure.
Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary.

4thTimeLucky

LOL manalone.

But what are you doing you fool? Don't you know that this is now page 5 and no social debate thread has ever made it to 6? She canny take it cap'n!

__________________
I've been 4thTimeLucky, you've been great. Goodnight and God bless!

The_Dude

i thought about this a lot, and i have a question

wouldnt a man know more on how to please another man than a woman would?

the same case for women?

__________________
"Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

Prophecy

Some people say yes, some people say no. Anyone who has devoted their life(or part of it) to living with some would better know their s/o's needs and wants better than someone who hadn't devoted their life to being with that person.
Ex: Who knows better how you feel about things: your mother and father or that elderly couple who live down the street.

Gender has nothing to do with it. Everyone is wired different as people have often said in this thread alone. All men and women know as a general rule men like to get head. There are women who can't give head to save their life and some that should get medals for what they do. I'm sure the same could be said of males.

Being the same sex as your partner does not automatically make you better suited to know what they want. You might have a head start at guessing what they would like because you have the same parts, but that's all.

__________________
La Disciplina È La Mia Spada,
La Fede È Il Mio Schermo,
Non salti Ciecamente In Incertezza,
E Potete Raccogliere Le Ricompense.

manalone

Are men better at blowjobs? Do women dive a better muff?

It's an interesting question. but it is one that I guess depends on the recipient's tastes way more than the gender of the partner.

__________________
--
Man Alone
=======
Abstainer: a weak person who yields to the temptation of denying himself a pleasure.
Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary.

Mutant X

Congrats to the couple. I see nothing wrong with sharing your heart with the whomever you choose it to be. It's not for anyone outside of oneself to decide who is truly right for you. Regardless of race, creed, religion, or sexual preference.

The_Dude

we had this discussion in my english class after watching philadelphia.


i was so ready for it, and i faced VERY VERY VERY LITTLE opposition.

about 95% in my class were for gay rights and gay marriages.

this is east texas we're talking about, captial of the bible belt.

if redneck hicks are for it, i cant image how others arent

__________________
"Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

rodgerd

Yeah. Pity about Bonobo, dolphins, and sundry species of birds, off the top of my head. Plenty of animals engage in same sex fucking. Sadly, one species of apes has some idiots with hangups about this.

That's be a hell of a surprise to the happy, successful, and well adjusted friends of mine raised by lesbians.

Perhaps you should get some life experience.

rodgerd

Of course. Racism is a valid world view too! How dare a Jew get offended by someone circulating the Elder Protocols of Zion and demanding we get rid of Jews.

The irony of someone whining about:

...and then propounding extremist moral relativism.


And therin lies the rub. I don't want to stop you believing whatever crap others believe. They want to interfere with the private life of my gay friends. These are not morally equivalent actions.

rodgerd

Well, there are two issues; one is the general principle - it's interesting to listen to people squeal when they feel the shoe's on the other foot. I've heard plenty of Christians whine "discrimination" for simply being put it a situation where their views are not automatically given prominence. Discrimination is no fun, and if you accept intervention on the general principle that your ability to get, hold, and advance in a job (for example) ought to be based on your ability to do it, you shouldn't be then trying to exclude people for non-job related reasons.

Put it another way: how many homophobic Christians would squeal like a stuck pig if they jost a job or a contract because of a capricious decision by a gay atheist who hates Christians?

The second is that while in a perfect world people would be let alone, we live in an imperfect world with entrenched power structures. Post slavery in the Southern US, the whites still had the bulk of land, money, and political power, and resurrected the Jim Crow laws. When those were struck down, the generally wealthier and more powerful whites still found ways to try to keep blacks from getting an fair shake.

So long as government intervention is aimed at giving people a fair shot based on their own merits, I don't see the problem, and anti-discrimination laws fall into this catgeory.

Come back and tell me when you're living on the streets because you can't get a job and no-one will rent a flat to you.

rodgerd

Perhaps you're not as drug free as you thought; someone's been spiking your Kool-aid, and now you believe in fairies at the bottom of the garden.

rodgerd

The Bible also prescribes punishments for anyone wearing mixed fabrics. Worn any polycotton lately?

And besides, I fail to see why fairies at the bottom of the garden have to do with coming up with a decent, functional society. People are welcome to Xenu, Jesus, or UFOs, but forming public policy around them has a poor history.

rodgerd

This would be fine if marriage looked, across much of Western history, anything like the 50s nuclear family you are apparently assuming as the norm. The reality is that for much of our history, common-law marriages (de facto relationships), divorce, polygamy, temple prostitution and the like have been parts of orderly, functional societies such as classic Greece, Rome, down through to pre Victorian Europe.

Those societies managed. In fact, the biggest shift in family patterns - away from living in communities with one's extended family - actualy happened with the suburbinisation of the 40s and 50s in the West, and the rise of the nuclear family, disconnected from broader roots and ties.

If you're appalled by social changes since then, I suggest you spend a lot more time researching how people actually lived prior to the mass migration to the suburbs; it was very different, and very much not the classic nuclear family model. People who feel that's the solution to all our problems are, I would suggest, drawing the wrong conclusions. It's the starting point for most of them.

rodgerd

Aren't Texans big on the gummit butting out of their lives, in general? I imagine that plays a part for many otherwise conservative people who one may expect to be more strongly agin'. Consider Barry Goldwater as an example.