CELTICEMPIRE
Zulu Conqueror
it wasn't, God made the male and female private parts the way they are for a reason.
Is gay marriage really that different?
- Thread starter useless
- Start date
it wasn't, God made the male and female private parts the way they are for a reason.
ParadigmShifter
Random Nonsense Generator
Surely he was having a laugh, trolling, or drunk when he made the male genitalia though.
To stimulate the sex toy market for male-female couples that wanted to experiment with gender roles?
warpus
In pork I trust
And he put the g-spot deep up a male anus, because.. hmmm.. why exactly?
Intelligent design.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
Neither was your mouth, and that's safer than penis-in-vagina.
_random_
Jewel Runner
You sure about that?
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
He's right, more or less- the g-spot is basically just an undeveloped female prostate.
Tani Coyote
Son of Huehuecoyotl
- Joined
- May 28, 2007
- Messages
- 15,191
And so, it is proven that the change in risk doesn't mean anything! Bravo!
On to the next nonsense reason homosexuality is immoral or whatever.
Moderator Action: Please back off from the sexually explicit discussion
I guess that's fine? I mean, it seems kind of weird to have standardized, intimate standardized contracts for roommates/strangers/whoever to sign, but whatever.
I'm still concerned about the benefits thing, though. Now, I think the current tying of health insurance to employment is one of the more bizarre aspects of the modern (American) economy, but it's here to stay, for now at least. Do you think companies will just accept giving insurance costing thousands of dollars to their random employee's roommate, just because they made some private agreement? ("Hey dude, if you get me health insurance, I'll buy the beer!") I realize that's not technically prohibited by the current situation, but I suspect that making it so explicitly open and devoid of any romantic or sexual or even long-term connotations would accelerate the growth of this sort of behavior, and would probably simultaneously accelerate the growth of companies not offering health insurance, if they can get away with it. (Or cutting benefits as much as they possibly can)
I suspect it will become considerably less "fine" in time, but let's hope that religious war doesn't start up.
They did; it didn't stick.
And I don't think icky is in and of itself the right word. It's gross, yes, but also immoral, and strange, and Just Not OK. (Unless it's two hot chicks, but that's another topic) So it's really not comparable to two fat people having sex, unless you think that's immoral and strange as well. It's beyond a simple "Oh gosh, I did NOT need to think about that" reaction.
And I think it's quite arguable that its criminalization has actually led to far greater abuses than otherwise would have occurred in many, many ways. (Certainly, its criminalization with a mediocre level of enforcement has done the trick)
And that's the thing -- people tend to think polygamy is Weird and Not OK, largely because they think of it as both a violation of what marriage should be, and because they associate it with something socially harmful (Abusive cults). But lots of people have the exact same mental thoughts about gay marriage, just with slightly different content. (Maybe fewer abusive cults, and more health-destroying promiscuity) I can hear the protests now -- "Not ALL gay men, much less gay people, are like that! Bigot!" -- but if "Only some of us do that, so don't punish us all!" is a good argument, why aren't we applying it more fairly within the context of marriage?
The least we can do is be consistent in our reasoning.
I'm aware of that; I wasn't referring to the dangers of any particular act, but actual innate vulnerability to disease, which is irrelevant to sexual orientation. In other words, two gay men, two bi men, and two straight men who perform the same action are, everything else being equal, equally likely to catch an STI. The action and partner choice matter for disease purposes, but orientation does not. (This point is really unimportant, but I feel the need to clarify what I was trying to say)
I'll happily admit that polygamy is on the slippery slope. The main legal reason to delay its legalisation is that it's quite a bit more complicated to create a legal framework for it. I'm not 'against polygamy' for any reason other than I think that the discussion regarding group consent are difficult and contracts that deal with spousal allowances (i.e., wills, benefits, insurance, etc.) would need careful discussion.
holy king
Deity
nah, come on, we ll know that homosexuls dont know how to handle historic discussions.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
Slippery slope to what?
ParadigmShifter
Random Nonsense Generator
A nagfest.
GhostWriter16
Deity
Slippery slope to what?
Well, a gay person can claim they are being slighted since they cannot marry a person of the gender they are attracted too. They might hae a case. To try to claim that you are being slighted since the Government won't acknowledge that the truckload of women you just brought home as your wives is just silly. I mean, why? You wouldn't even have a case.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
Firstly, that doesn't come close to answering my question.
Secondly, affirming your own prejudices in a verbose fashion does not and has never constituted an argument.
{self deleted after I found the Mod's warning. Too bad, cause it was hilarious.}
warpus
In pork I trust
I think it's weird for the government to be involved in people's sexual lives period.
That's a good point actually.. something I didn't think about. But hey, on the other hand you could argue that it's unfair that my co-worker is able to milk more benefits out of the system than me if he is married and I'm not.
What do you mean by the first part of the sentence? actually, what do you mean by the second?
In the eyes of the government two men having sex is not immoral, because that's a religious idea and not a secular one.
As such it doesn't belong in this discussion, unless you want to attach it to the ceremony part of marriage, which isn't really a big deal. Some churches will marry gays and others won't. It's fine.. and up to them.
Hey, for what it's worth I don't really have that much of a problem with polygamy - aside from the whole 'women tend to get abused' angle of it.
And who sees gay marriage as something socially harmful? Harmful how? With polygamy it's clear - women were being abused. A lot of women. Who gets abused in the case of gay marriage? Sure, either of the partners could get abused, and it happens, but it also happens in straight marriage.
Similar threads
