Fluorescent Testicle: BobBoxBody: I think most men are becoming less supportive of marriage overall. Holy Christ have you seen divorce laws? Can't blame men for killing themselves when they have to spend the rest of their lives paying alimony to women who work and paying child support to kids who aren't theirs.

I really am the only woman on Earth who got literally nothing in my divorce, aren't I? :P

I'm a woman, and I got less than nothing from my divorce; I ended up with tens of thousands of dollars of his debt.

\he refused to get a job because he wanted the time to focus on his "music career," jam with his band, and drink beer
\\good riddance

mbillips: Face it, if you're lonely and broke from paying child support, it's your fault. The secret to a happy marriage is to compliment her at every opportunity, buy her flowers, and do what she tells you to do. That's easy even for a completely narcissistic lazy person. Your stupid ideas aren't going to make you happy; they're just going to make you lonely and broke from paying child support.

Because everybody is exactly 100% the same, and nobody ever changes nor hides things from there significant other, evar.

fark men.

Wait a minute...

CujoQuarrel: I say get rid of government recognized marriage altogether and just have 'civil unions' for any two non-related adult people instead. Then 'marriage' is just between you and your religion.

I've been saying this exact same thing for years.

clevernamehere: Indubitably:

"It's going to be okay, sir, you are just experiencing what we call disillusionment via schooling; please just sit down, breathe, and find a happy place."

Who are you quoting? And why don't you answer the questions asked of you? And why do you reply to your own posts so much?

/why DeHate when I can DeLorean?

Your questions have answers that are self-evident.

That is all.

Korzine: But if two men marry, how will the courts completely screw one over in the name of "gender equality".!

this is America not some third world "hick" town. like britain

radarlove: gingerjet: radarlove: I'm anti government involvement in any form of religious ceremony, no matter what religion or who is participating.

So atheists who get married by a judge aren't married? A couple married by a ship captain aren't married? Or a notary public? Or a star fleet admiral in Vegas?

/marriage isn't a religious ceremony

Atheism is a religion.

Conveniently, marriage isn't atheist either. Well, atheist in the sense of the actual meaning of the word, but not in the way it's generally used on FARK.

Kurmudgeon: Znuh: However, if you're happy to let your tiny brain generalize, as you just did, it's your problem. And your ignorance.

Just don't put on any orange wigs anytime soon, Ok Znuh?

Classy. Buddy, for you, I'll wear anything you want.

trappedspirit

And that AIDS thing has to be a bummer.

Wrap that rascal, and you're good. Good practice even if it weren't for HIV - there are lots of STDs out there.

/where have you been for the past 20 years?

Stinkyy: "We're talking about taking the penis of a man and putting it in the rectum of another man and wriggling it around in excrement. And you have to think, would I want that to be done to me?"

This comes up in almost every thread about homosexuality. I really ought to just start pasting in a standard response. But I guess I'll type something out by hand again for now: Notice how, once again, it's the straight men who obsess over anal sex. Gay men actually don't talk about it nearly as much as the straights do.

You guys really, really, really like thinking about people's rectums (or maybe your own rectums). NTTAWWT, but honestly, I wish you'd go find yourself a nice rentboy and satisfy that curiosity or craving or whatever it is once and for all, so you'd shut up about it.

The worst part is, when same-sex marriage is finally legalized, they're still not going to stop. Legal equality will not be enough. They're after moral equivalence. And they will continue their attempts to silence those who do not agree with their position.

They will not stop trying until they change the worldview that has been held for the entirety of human civilization. Legal acceptance of their behaviours will not satisfy them. They will continue to intrude on people and institutions with deeply held beliefs, and call them bigots for holding such beliefs.

Such beliefs are not strictly a Christian or religious ideal. Homosexual relationships have existed forever. But they are not the equivalent of marriage. They are not the foundation for a family or a society. Being a biological dead-end, they are outside of the natural law, and that can never be changed.

It is not bigoted to believe such behaviour is outside of the natural law, or that it should not be codified into the legal system. Legal marriage is the recognition of the natural order. That is why heterosexual marriage has existed for all of human history. Homosexual marriage is outside of the natural order. That is why it has never been legally endorsed. Not until our generation, which has the prideful, arrogant audacity to redefine what marriage is all about.

Still, go ahead. Get "married". Seek all those other rights you feel you don't have today.
But shut up already with insisting homosexual relationships are equally valid.
The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God say differently.

Paris1127: Not surprising that it's Tasmania that may be the first Australian state to legalize same-sex marriage. The Greens have a lot of support there. Tasmanians are also open supporters of the Devil:



The Tasmanian Community frowns on your shenanigans.

OgreMagi: RnR

I would continue but I'm patiently waiting by my mail box for a muffin basket.

Not surprising. Even though I'm trying to be more open-minded about human sexuality, I have to admit, there is... a switch that gets "thrown" if you will when you see two dudes kissing. I don't think the Bible can be properly interpreted to damn gays and lesbians. It's not a religious prejudice. It just... is. Maybe it's surprise that such things actually do happen. Straight men (and society at large) don't get to see much homosexual interaction on a daily basis; such individuals make up a rather paltry 11% of the population the last time I checked. Maybe guys are just conditioned to see male and female acting affectionate towards each other. I think it's also hard for a straight guy to grasp the idea of being attracted to another man.

I don't like that the switch gets thrown and reason it out in my head that it is explainable (and benign) behavior, but there is a moment of pause when you see that sort of thing or consider it. Anyone else get what I'm talking about? Maybe I can figure this out and get over it.

Lemmon714: The worst part is, when same-sex marriage is finally legalized, they're still not going to stop. Legal equality will not be enough. They're after moral equivalence. And they will continue their attempts to silence those who do not agree with their position.

Yep. You figured out our top-secret gay agenda.

Listen, and understand. The gay community is out there. We can't be bargained with. We can't be reasoned with. We don't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And we absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are fabulous!

Lemmon714: The worst part is, when same-sex marriage is finally legalized, they're still not going to stop. Legal equality will not be enough. They're after moral equivalence. And they will continue their attempts to silence those who do not agree with their position.

They will not stop trying until they change the worldview that has been held for the entirety of human civilization. Legal acceptance of their behaviours will not satisfy them. They will continue to intrude on people and institutions with deeply held beliefs, and call them bigots for holding such beliefs.

Such beliefs are not strictly a Christian or religious ideal. Homosexual relationships have existed forever. But they are not the equivalent of marriage. They are not the foundation for a family or a society. Being a biological dead-end, they are outside of the natural law, and that can never be changed.

It is not bigoted to believe such behaviour is outside of the natural law, or that it should not be codified into the legal system. Legal marriage is the recognition of the natural order. That is why heterosexual marriage has existed for all of human history. Homosexual marriage is outside of the natural order. That is why it has never been legally endorsed. Not until our generation, which has the prideful, arrogant audacity to redefine what marriage is all about.

Still, go ahead. Get "married". Seek all those other rights you feel you don't have today.
But shut up already with insisting homosexual relationships are equally valid.
The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God say differently.

It's like Bevets, but with longer sentences!

/i'd argue you, but I know willful ignorance when I see it
//When the world ends due to gays having sex, then I'll probably be looking to the Lexus lot, rather than to the sky for atonement

Marine1: Not surprising. Even though I'm trying to be more open-minded about human sexuality, I have to admit, there is... a switch that gets "thrown" if you will when you see two dudes kissing. I don't think the Bible can be properly interpreted to damn gays and lesbians. It's not a religious prejudice. It just... is. Maybe it's surprise that such things actually do happen. Straight men (and society at large) don't get to see much homosexual interaction on a daily basis; such individuals make up a rather paltry 11% of the population the last time I checked. Maybe guys are just conditioned to see male and female acting affectionate towards each other. I think it's also hard for a straight guy to grasp the idea of being attracted to another man.

I don't like that the switch gets thrown and reason it out in my head that it is explainable (and benign) behavior, but there is a moment of pause when you see that sort of thing or consider it. Anyone else get what I'm talking about? Maybe I can figure this out and get over it.

Agreed. Two dudes kissing is a total turn-off. I really wish they'd stop putting it in all the porn I watch.

No, seriously though, the problem is one of hegemonic masculinity. Homosexuality is more of a challenge to that power structure than any woman having power.

I never understood why straight men would have any problem with gay men. Every gay man in the world is one less you have to compete with for females.

FizixJunkee: Fluorescent Testicle: BobBoxBody: I think most men are becoming less supportive of marriage overall. Holy Christ have you seen divorce laws? Can't blame men for killing themselves when they have to spend the rest of their lives paying alimony to women who work and paying child support to kids who aren't theirs.

I really am the only woman on Earth who got literally nothing in my divorce, aren't I? :P

I'm a woman, and I got less than nothing from my divorce; I ended up with tens of thousands of dollars of his debt.

\he refused to get a job because he wanted the time to focus on his "music career," jam with his band, and drink beer
\\good riddance

I left with the crap I could fit in my car, his debts, and shiatty credit from when he didn't make a single mortgage payment. He got the house but didn't have a job. He was a very sick alcoholic, had totaled his car, refused to get a job that he considered beneath him, etc. My credit is finally repaired. I still think I got off easier than his current wife. He hasn't had a job in 6 years and at one point was driving on a suspended license and sent some kids to the ICU. She doesn't believe in divorce and for some god-awful reason keeps trying (and failing) to have kids with him.

reillan: Marine1: Not surprising. Even though I'm trying to be more open-minded about human sexuality, I have to admit, there is... a switch that gets "thrown" if you will when you see two dudes kissing. I don't think the Bible can be properly interpreted to damn gays and lesbians. It's not a religious prejudice. It just... is. Maybe it's surprise that such things actually do happen. Straight men (and society at large) don't get to see much homosexual interaction on a daily basis; such individuals make up a rather paltry 11% of the population the last time I checked. Maybe guys are just conditioned to see male and female acting affectionate towards each other. I think it's also hard for a straight guy to grasp the idea of being attracted to another man.

I don't like that the switch gets thrown and reason it out in my head that it is explainable (and benign) behavior, but there is a moment of pause when you see that sort of thing or consider it. Anyone else get what I'm talking about? Maybe I can figure this out and get over it.

Agreed. Two dudes kissing is a total turn-off. I really wish they'd stop putting it in all the porn I watch.

No, seriously though, the problem is one of hegemonic masculinity. Homosexuality is more of a challenge to that power structure than any woman having power.

Hm... I'm not sure. Some of the gay dudes I know are the "manliest" guys I know as well. They work on cars, watch sports, etc. They do things that are masculine.

Lemmon714: The worst part is, when same-sex marriage is finally legalized, they're still not going to stop. Legal equality will not be enough. They're after moral equivalence. And they will continue their attempts to silence those who do not agree with their position.

They will not stop trying until they change the worldview that has been held for the entirety of human civilization. Legal acceptance of their behaviours will not satisfy them. They will continue to intrude on people and institutions with deeply held beliefs, and call them bigots for holding such beliefs.

Such beliefs are not strictly a Christian or religious ideal. Homosexual relationships have existed forever. But they are not the equivalent of marriage. They are not the foundation for a family or a society. Being a biological dead-end, they are outside of the natural law, and that can never be changed.

It is not bigoted to believe such behaviour is outside of the natural law, or that it should not be codified into the legal system. Legal marriage is the recognition of the natural order. That is why heterosexual marriage has existed for all of human history. Homosexual marriage is outside of the natural order. That is why it has never been legally endorsed. Not until our generation, which has the prideful, arrogant audacity to redefine what marriage is all about.

Still, go ahead. Get "married". Seek all those other rights you feel you don't have today.
But shut up already with insisting homosexual relationships are equally valid.
The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God say differently.

"Connections and alliances so unnatural that God and nature seem to forbid them should be prohibited by positive law and be subject to no evasion." Something like that, right?


Cause that came from 19th century Virginia, relating to interracial marriage...

ciberido

Stinkyy: "We're talking about taking the penis of a man and putting it in the rectum of another man and wriggling it around in excrement. And you have to think, would I want that to be done to me?"

This comes up in almost every thread about homosexuality

It should come up more in threads about heterosexuality. What did Jim Morrison say? "The men don't know what the little girls understand?" uh-huh. There are so many variations on this theme I don't know where to start.

And what about oral sex? Makes NO sense whatsoever, does not result in procreation, and has the potential to be nasty if the recipient is not maintaining western hygiene standards. Yet it's universal, gay or straight. Nobody cares. FUN! Even just kissing...two mouths? You have the potential to wish you were dead if this goes wrong.

These same trolls post this stuff, and it's always wrong. Most of the kinky sex is straight people, most sex offenders are straight people, blah blah blah.

They just need something to use to attack gays, so they choose the same old lines, or resort to a faith-based argument. There is nowhere in The Bible where either Jesus or God says anything bad about homosexuality. If it mattered, don't you think one of them would have mentioned it at some point?

I would think that if anyone, Christians would be the first to welcome gays. I thought that was their whole thing - they use the stone the builders rejected? If society for some reason was against gays, The Church, IMO, should be in there on angel wings protecting His flock.

I don't get it.

God created Man in His Own Image.

Jon iz teh kewl: what is 'gay marriage' and how does it differ from NORMAL marriage?

seriously.

Flunked bio101

Marine1: reillan: Marine1: Not surprising. Even though I'm trying to be more open-minded about human sexuality, I have to admit, there is... a switch that gets "thrown" if you will when you see two dudes kissing. I don't think the Bible can be properly interpreted to damn gays and lesbians. It's not a religious prejudice. It just... is. Maybe it's surprise that such things actually do happen. Straight men (and society at large) don't get to see much homosexual interaction on a daily basis; such individuals make up a rather paltry 11% of the population the last time I checked. Maybe guys are just conditioned to see male and female acting affectionate towards each other. I think it's also hard for a straight guy to grasp the idea of being attracted to another man.

I don't like that the switch gets thrown and reason it out in my head that it is explainable (and benign) behavior, but there is a moment of pause when you see that sort of thing or consider it. Anyone else get what I'm talking about? Maybe I can figure this out and get over it.

Agreed. Two dudes kissing is a total turn-off. I really wish they'd stop putting it in all the porn I watch.

No, seriously though, the problem is one of hegemonic masculinity. Homosexuality is more of a challenge to that power structure than any woman having power.

Hm... I'm not sure. Some of the gay dudes I know are the "manliest" guys I know as well. They work on cars, watch sports, etc. They do things that are masculine.

The challenge comes from the convergence point between what is expected and what is experienced. We expect a relationship to have a clear male role and a clear female role. We most often expect to see those roles easily enforced by the genders associated with them, but it's understood when the roles are flipped, as there is still a clear male and clear female role. We joke about the guys whose women "wear the pants in the family," etc. In a male|male relationship, we assume those roles must still be enforced (one guy is the "biatch"), but it becomes more difficult to ascertain. The easily-visible dichotomy is challenged, and we're left in a situation where we have to question our own sense of what is masculine. Because such questioning is, itself, hyper-unmasculine, we find ourselves struggling to ignore the questions at the same time as we're faced with them, and the discomfort level grows.

Either that, or you could just be homophobic. :D

studebaker hoch: ciberido

Stinkyy: "We're talking about taking the penis of a man and putting it in the rectum of another man and wriggling it around in excrement. And you have to think, would I want that to be done to me?"

This comes up in almost every thread about homosexuality

It should come up more in threads about heterosexuality. What did Jim Morrison say? "The men don't know what the little girls understand?" uh-huh. There are so many variations on this theme I don't know where to start.

And what about oral sex? Makes NO sense whatsoever, does not result in procreation, and has the potential to be nasty if the recipient is not maintaining western hygiene standards. Yet it's universal, gay or straight. Nobody cares. FUN! Even just kissing...two mouths? You have the potential to wish you were dead if this goes wrong.

These same trolls post this stuff, and it's always wrong. Most of the kinky sex is straight people, most sex offenders are straight people, blah blah blah.

They just need something to use to attack gays, so they choose the same old lines, or resort to a faith-based argument. There is nowhere in The Bible where either Jesus or God says anything bad about homosexuality. If it mattered, don't you think one of them would have mentioned it at some point?

I would think that if anyone, Christians would be the first to welcome gays. I thought that was their whole thing - they use the stone the builders rejected? If society for some reason was against gays, The Church, IMO, should be in there on angel wings protecting His flock.

I don't get it.

God created Man in His Own Image.

Well hello there, turd-lover.

studebaker hoch: ciberido

Stinkyy: "We're talking about taking the penis of a man and putting it in the rectum of another man and wriggling it around in excrement. And you have to think, would I want that to be done to me?"

This comes up in almost every thread about homosexuality

It should come up more in threads about heterosexuality. What did Jim Morrison say? "The men don't know what the little girls understand?" uh-huh. There are so many variations on this theme I don't know where to start.

And what about oral sex? Makes NO sense whatsoever, does not result in procreation, and has the potential to be nasty if the recipient is not maintaining western hygiene standards. Yet it's universal, gay or straight. Nobody cares. FUN! Even just kissing...two mouths? You have the potential to wish you were dead if this goes wrong.

These same trolls post this stuff, and it's always wrong. Most of the kinky sex is straight people, most sex offenders are straight people, blah blah blah.

They just need something to use to attack gays, so they choose the same old lines, or resort to a faith-based argument. There is nowhere in The Bible where either Jesus or God says anything bad about homosexuality. If it mattered, don't you think one of them would have mentioned it at some point?

I would think that if anyone, Christians would be the first to welcome gays. I thought that was their whole thing - they use the stone the builders rejected? If society for some reason was against gays, The Church, IMO, should be in there on angel wings protecting His flock.

I don't get it.

God created Man in His Own Image.

I can't believe I'm doing this, defending a position I disagree with....

....Have you even READ Leviticus? There's about 6(give or take a few) total verses about what men can and cannot have sex with. Your own biblical ignorance has rendered your argument invalid and people are now free to ignore you without so much as a second thought to any POSSIBLY sane points you may have made.

/100% equal rights
//Not Christian, but raised Southern Baptist Convention
///People really don't like to "witness" to me, as I turn their scripture back on them

Marine1: Not surprising. Even though I'm trying to be more open-minded about human sexuality, I have to admit, there is... a switch that gets "thrown" if you will when you see two dudes kissing. I don't think the Bible can be properly interpreted to damn gays and lesbians. It's not a religious prejudice. It just... is. Maybe it's surprise that such things actually do happen. Straight men (and society at large) don't get to see much homosexual interaction on a daily basis; such individuals make up a rather paltry 11% of the population the last time I checked. Maybe guys are just conditioned to see male and female acting affectionate towards each other. I think it's also hard for a straight guy to grasp the idea of being attracted to another man.

I don't like that the switch gets thrown and reason it out in my head that it is explainable (and benign) behavior, but there is a moment of pause when you see that sort of thing or consider it. Anyone else get what I'm talking about? Maybe I can figure this out and get over it.

Yes, but straight men such as myself do see god awful ugly or old people kiss sometimes. That's a big boner killer right there.

trappedspirit

And that AIDS thing has to be a bummer.

Wrap that rascal, and you're good. Good practice even if it weren't for HIV - there are lots of STDs out there.

/where have you been for the past 20 years?

Living in an AIDS free world.

That kind of ignorance is how we got into that mess to begin with.

Lemmon714: It is not bigoted to believe such behaviour is outside of the natural law, or that it should not be codified into the legal system.

Yes it is. Shut up, bigot.

Marine1: Not surprising. Even though I'm trying to be more open-minded about human sexuality, I have to admit, there is... a switch that gets "thrown" if you will when you see two dudes kissing. I don't think the Bible can be properly interpreted to damn gays and lesbians. It's not a religious prejudice. It just... is. Maybe it's surprise that such things actually do happen. Straight men (and society at large) don't get to see much homosexual interaction on a daily basis; such individuals make up a rather paltry 11% of the population the last time I checked. Maybe guys are just conditioned to see male and female acting affectionate towards each other. I think it's also hard for a straight guy to grasp the idea of being attracted to another man.

I don't like that the switch gets thrown and reason it out in my head that it is explainable (and benign) behavior, but there is a moment of pause when you see that sort of thing or consider it. Anyone else get what I'm talking about? Maybe I can figure this out and get over it.

I'm straight. Have never experimented with guys, never kissed a guy, never wanted to. And I believe I couldn't get aroused by a guy (I'm pretty visual when it comes to sex and dudes just don't have the right equipment). I have farked my missus up the back passage, and I'm not really into that either (although she wishes I was more into it). Also don't like anyone playing with my chocolate starfish during sex or at any other time. And when I was younger, I think I also experienced that switch you refer to.

What's different for me these days is I have met and grown to like many gay people. I've worked with them, hung out with them, shared advice with them. And they're totally normal. They're no different to anyone else, except for their taste in sexual partner, which if you think about it is again not unusual (I've had female friends who date guys, so why is having a male friend who dates guys unusual? Similarly, I've commented on hot chicks with my lesbian friends just the same as with my straight male friends). They don't threaten me, they don't cause any problems for me. So it's been easy to move beyond any prejudices I may once have held.

I've also learned from my step-kids, who have a gay grandfather. They have never found their grandfather's long-term same-sex relationship unusual. Kids find other people's relationships normal if they're not hurting anyone. My kids are far more confused by the anti-gay-marriage crowd than their grandfather.

Znuh: Classy. Buddy, for you, I'll wear anything you want.

Just stay out of movie theatres and don't invest large in weaponry, other than that I could care less what you do.

reillan: No, seriously though, the problem is one of hegemonic masculinity. Homosexuality is more of a challenge to that power structure than any woman having power.

There's this attitude that I've been observing for years now but have never had a good name for. It's a sort of bigotry like misogyny or homophobia, and it seems to be associated with both, but it isn't exactly either. I've been calling it "machismo" but I know that really isn't the right word for it. It sounds a little bit like hegemonic masculinity to me.

Essentially it's the belief that there are (and should be) rigid gender roles which people should follow, and it amounts to a long list of actions that are considered masculine (and thus men should do and women shouldn't) or feminine (and thus men shouldn't do). I couldn't put down an exhaustive list without writing a book, but it includes such obvious things as "Boys don't cry" and "Men don't wear lipstick" to rules governing every aspect of life. One example that really stuck in my mind came from a fark thread in which someone decreed "Hot tea is better left to the chicks." There are rules, even, listing which foods and beverages are masculine (beer) and which are feminine (hot tea, salads, "fru-fru" mixed drinks). There was even a book once titled "Real Men Don't Eat Quiche."

Is this attitude, this perception that most actions an adult can take are either masculine or feminine, part of hegemonic masculinity, or is there another term for it? It frustrates me that I don't have a good word for it.

blueviking

....Have you even READ Leviticus? There's about 6(give or take a few) total verses about what men can and cannot have sex with. Your own biblical ignorance has rendered your argument invalid and people are now free to ignore you without so much as a second thought to any POSSIBLY sane po ...

About to bring this one up myself - Leviticus 18:22 ""Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

Leviticus was a man. I don't worship men. OK, I'm going to start over.

Leviticus is not a God. Nor is he the Son of God. I don't worship Leviticus. He has no superpowers, did not create the Universe or Men - gay or otherwise, and really I don't even know why people keep referrencing him. He (supposedly) said one sentence, in a Bible thick as a phone book, and we're supposed to think THAT is what the entire book teaches us? Really?

studebaker hoch: blueviking

....Have you even READ Leviticus? There's about 6(give or take a few) total verses about what men can and cannot have sex with. Your own biblical ignorance has rendered your argument invalid and people are now free to ignore you without so much as a second thought to any POSSIBLY sane po ...

About to bring this one up myself - Leviticus 18:22 ""Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

Leviticus was a man. I don't worship men. OK, I'm going to start over.

Leviticus is not a God. Nor is he the Son of God. I don't worship Leviticus. He has no superpowers, did not create the Universe or Men - gay or otherwise, and really I don't even know why people keep referrencing him. He (supposedly) said one sentence, in a Bible thick as a phone book, and we're supposed to think THAT is what the entire book teaches us? Really?

TROLL! TROOOLLLLLLL!

/burn it

Lemmon714: The worst part is, when same-sex marriage is finally legalized, they're still not going to stop. Legal equality will not be enough. They're after moral equivalence. And they will continue their attempts to silence those who do not agree with their position.

They will not stop trying until they change the worldview that has been held for the entirety of human civilization. Legal acceptance of their behaviours will not satisfy them. They will continue to intrude on people and institutions with deeply held beliefs, and call them bigots for holding such beliefs.


This is exactly what they mean by homophobia. Seriously, read those comments again...it's downright pathological and would probably require psychiatric visits and medication to cure. I'm a straight guy, I cannot watch men kissing, the idea of touching another guy beyond a handshake makes my skin crawl. But I don't in any way fear gay encroachment on my life, work, or social circle. Even if I get called a bigot for some reason, who cares. There's a difference between being squeamish about gay sex and homophobia and this is it right here.

Marine1: Straight men (and society at large) don't get to see much homosexual interaction on a daily basis; such individuals make up a rather paltry 11% of the population the last time I checked.

African-Americans make up about 12% of the population of the U.S. Perhaps it's okay to discriminate against them, too?


I don't like that the switch gets thrown and reason it out in my head that it is explainable (and benign) behavior, but there is a moment of pause when you see that sort of thing or consider it. Anyone else get what I'm talking about? Maybe I can figure this out and get over it.

That switch doesn't get thrown for me.

Maybe it's because we live in Los Angeles where things are a tad more liberal than in flyover country. Our daughter has four friends with same-sex parents. She's never commented or asked questions about them. Our daughter knows that some kids have a mom+dad. Other kids might have mom+mom, or dad+dad, or they might be adopted, or raised by aunts/uncles or grandparents. She also knows that some families have one kid (like ours) or many kids. There's no one-size-fits-all family; one kind of family is no inherently better than any other.

Paris1127: /meanwhile,here in Western Australia there is no registry for LGBT couples
//even Queensland, the Florida of Australia, has a registry

If it's the Land of Queens, surely they'd be rather supportive of teh ghey?

blueviking: About to bring this one up myself - Leviticus 18:22 ""Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

This comes up in a lot of these threads, I don't want to do the whole spiel, but briefly: The Bible is nowhere near as clear on most topics as many people (both Christian and non-) think it is. Keeping in mind that the Bible was not written in English, unless one reads it in the original language one has to understand that translation errors are at least a possibility. In the case of the particular verse you cite (Leviticus 18:22), it may be a mistranslation of a command for two men not to have sex in the BED of a woman.

"But that's silly" you might say, "Why would God be ok with homosexuality in general, but not ok with with homosexual acts that take place in a woman's bed?" Keep in mind that separation of things was an essential part of religious purity for the people of the time. That's why there are rules in Leviticus about mixing different kinds of fibers or mixing meat and dairy. "It's ok to have sex in THIS bed but not ok to have sex in THAT bed" fits the theme of separation-as-religious-purity that informs all of Leviticus.

Lemmon714: Being a biological dead-end, they are outside of the natural law, and that can never be changed.

Lemmonparty714: I must have missed that day in Biology 101. What, again, is "natural law"? A law of physics? Is it a written law? If so, who wrote it? Along those same lines, what is "natural order"?


The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God say differently.

Who is this "Nature's God" of which you speak? Can you provide me with his email address or phone number so that I can contact him?

">Link">LinkRapmaster2000: darkedgefan: I am not surprised. There are only two types of men in this world. Gays and homophobes. I just don't get the gay lifestyle. How can you look at another man's hairy a$$ and find love? Stay in the closet!

I think the same thing every time I've got another casual pick-up back at my toolshed. It disgusts me every time I'm thrusting up against one. Just the thought of it makes me sick!

made me think of this:
http://www.theonion.com/articles/why-do-all-these-homosexuals-keep-su c king-my-cock,11150/

ciberido: blueviking: About to bring this one up myself - Leviticus 18:22 ""Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

This comes up in a lot of these threads, I don't want to do the whole spiel, but briefly: The Bible is nowhere near as clear on most topics as many people (both Christian and non-) think it is. Keeping in mind that the Bible was not written in English, unless one reads it in the original language one has to understand that translation errors are at least a possibility. In the case of the particular verse you cite (Leviticus 18:22), it may be a mistranslation of a command for two men not to have sex in the BED of a woman.

"But that's silly" you might say, "Why would God be ok with homosexuality in general, but not ok with with homosexual acts that take place in a woman's bed?" Keep in mind that separation of things was an essential part of religious purity for the people of the time. That's why there are rules in Leviticus about mixing different kinds of fibers or mixing meat and dairy. "It's ok to have sex in THIS bed but not ok to have sex in THAT bed" fits the theme of separation-as-religious-purity that informs all of Leviticus.

That's a bit of a stretch, because (if memory serves) in the Hebrew translations it is pretty explicit, and all the Jews I've met inform me that it is correct.

/not a biblical scholar, religion interests me in general
//all religion