[Cavalry Doc]

Originally Posted by frank4570

I'd be willing to bet that is because we are talking about guys. What if most heterosexual women were as eager for sex as most heterosexual men are? That's pretty much the situation with gay guys. The results should be easy to predict.



But if the goal is to rub the religious rights face in it figuratively, there will be active resistance, and for what? The end result is a delay in equal rights.

I absolutely agree. The advantages of working toward civil unions should be obvious to anybody who is not emotional about this issue.z
Again, it reminds me of the hostile open carry guys in large groups.[/QUOTE]

Well, not really. There are some anatomical differences between a rectum and a ******. Betty White has a great quote on that one. The mucous membrane of the rectum is more likely to be disrupted (abrasions, tears) and allow viral transmission than the ******l mucosa. Even when corrected for number of encounters, anal sex is more likely to be risky than ******l. Then there is the issue with monogamy, which wasn't always as popular as it is now in the gay community.


Still, we are talking about a virus, that has no brains and less morals. Anyone can get it, even virgins.

[HexHead]

Originally Posted by frank4570

I'd be willing to bet that is because we are talking about guys. What if most heterosexual women were as eager for sex as most heterosexual men are?

That's pretty much been my experience. Women like sex. Maybe even more than we do.

[Brucev]

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

I absolutely agree. The advantages of working toward civil unions should be obvious to anybody who is not emotional about this issue.z
Again, it reminds me of the hostile open carry guys in large groups.

No. The COTUS is the basis for oc/cc, etc. There is nothing in the COTUS that speaks to efforts to normalize debauched aberrant homosexuality, either by men or women.

Well, not really. There are some anatomical differences between a rectum and a ******. Betty White has a great quote on that one. The mucous membrane of the rectum is more likely to be disrupted (abrasions, tears) and allow viral transmission than the ******l mucosa. Even when corrected for number of encounters, anal sex is more likely to be risky than ******l. Then there is the issue with monogamy, which wasn't always as popular as it is now in the gay community.

Still, we are talking about a virus, that has no brains and less morals. Anyone can get it, even virgins.[/QUOTE]

[SGT HATRED]

Today it's homosexuality, tomorrow it's what? Marrying animals, cousins, brothers and sisters? Shoot wht not children? How low can our moral standard go?

[frank4570]

Originally Posted by SGT HATRED

Today it's homosexuality, tomorrow it's what? Marrying animals, cousins, brothers and sisters? Shoot wht not children? How low can our moral standard go?

Animals can't give consent. Cousins are already legal in some states. Brothers and sisters are proven to cause genetic deformities. Children can't give consent.
And, I really don't care what your moral standard is. I care about preventing non-consenting individuals from getting hurt. I'm sure there are some christians (your crew, right?) who say it is fine for a 14 year old child to marry a good christian man. That particular christian morality is not accepted in this country.

[Paul7]

Originally Posted by frank4570

Animals can't give consent. Cousins are already legal in some states. Brothers and sisters are proven to cause genetic deformities. Children can't give consent.
And, I really don't care what your moral standard is. I care about preventing non-consenting individuals from getting hurt. I'm sure there are some christians (your crew, right?) who say it is fine for a 14 year old child to marry a good christian man. That particular christian morality is not accepted in this country.

You're thinking of Islam. If you have a Bible citation to the contrary, let's see it.

[Paul7]

Originally Posted by SGT HATRED

Today it's homosexuality, tomorrow it's what? Marrying animals, cousins, brothers and sisters? Shoot wht not children? How low can our moral standard go?

Good question. Eventually the concept of marriage will be meaningless.

[certifiedfunds]

Originally Posted by Paul7

http://www.catholiceducation.org/art...ty/ho0075.html

Well, the Vatican should know

[Cavalry Doc]

Originally Posted by Brucev

No. The COTUS is the basis for oc/cc, etc. There is nothing in the COTUS that speaks to efforts to normalize debauched aberrant homosexuality, either by men or women.

There is nothing to prevent it in the COTUS either. If people want to do something that you think will damn them to hell, they have a right to do it, and you have a right to believe they are hell bound.

If there is a God, he gave us free will, for a reason.

[Cavalry Doc]

Originally Posted by snerd

I love that. A Paltry Poultry hot tub. But you should have blurred out the private parts, not because it is necessary, but because it isn't.

[Cavalry Doc]

Originally Posted by HexHead

That's pretty much been my experience. Women like sex. Maybe even more than we do.

Speak for yourself......




(just kidding, but I couldn't resist that one)

[Cavalry Doc]

Originally Posted by SGT HATRED

Today it's homosexuality, tomorrow it's what? Marrying animals, cousins, brothers and sisters? Shoot wht not children? How low can our moral standard go?

Draw a firm line at consenting adults. That will be more than sufficient.

[Cavalry Doc]

Originally Posted by Paul7

You're thinking of Islam. If you have a Bible citation to the contrary, let's see it.

Ex-bishop Fredrick Merril Jessop was found guilty on Monday of marrying a 12-year-old girl to polygamist leader Warren Jeffs, who is serving a life term for sexually assaulting two child brides.

People do a lot of bad things for a lot of reasons. Some use religion as an excuse to do bad things. For most religions, that is a bastardization of the tenets of the religion. No, Jeffs was not a good man, and not doing God's work. But he claimed he was.

[certifiedfunds]

Originally Posted by Brucev

No. The COTUS is the basis for oc/cc, etc. There is nothing in the COTUS that speaks to efforts to normalize debauched aberrant homosexuality, either by men or women.

[/QUOTE]

Even a blind dog finds a bone now and then.

You're absolutely correct! That is why this isn't a federal issue and the fed needs to stay out and let the people of the states decide.

[Restless28]

Originally Posted by G-19

Paul, thinks it just fine also. Maybe him and Biden have a lot in common.

Yes. They both support personal freedom without religious prejudice.

[certifiedfunds]

Originally Posted by Paul7

Like what?

Art

Science

Medicine

Literature

Business

They don't reproduce and do engage in a deadly lifestyle. We tell kids not to smoke but endorse this lifestyle that is as dangerous as smoking.

All? You're comfortable with generalizations like that?

Do heterosexuals ever engage in a deadly lifestyle? Do they all.

I don't endorse the lifestyle. Who here is endorsing the lifestyle?

While we're on the topic, exactly what is the lifestyle?

IMHO, homosexuality is often the result of childhood trauma. With our many dysfunctional families we are manufacturing gays.

IMHO some healthy families are manufacturing gays.

Take these two twin brothers I know. One grew up to be perfectly well-adjusted and hetero. The other brother's loafers never touch the ground.

So should siblings, or three people, or a man and dog be able to marry?

What do the laws in their state say?

[Brucev]

Originally Posted by Restless28

Yes. They both support personal freedom without religious prejudice.

Wrong. As to RP... he is a zero. What he thinks is irrelevant. As to JB, he is a deokrat. When he opens his mouth out come lies. If he thought it would get him votes, he'd come out and support muslim law as the new norm. He gets behind homos because he doesn't want them behind him. He just wants their votes.

[ChuteTheMall]

Originally Posted by certifiedfunds

You're absolutely correct! That is why this isn't a federal issue and the fed needs to stay out and let the people of the states decide.

As usual, we agree.

I hope it's on every ballot in every state this November.

[Paul7]

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

People do a lot of bad things for a lot of reasons. Some use religion as an excuse to do bad things. For most religions, that is a bastardization of the tenets of the religion. No, Jeffs was not a good man, and not doing God's work. But he claimed he was.

I was asking for a citation from the Christian scriptures to support this, your example is a Mormon, who most orthodox Christians consider a cult.

[Paul7]

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

Draw a firm line at consenting adults. That will be more than sufficient.

So we should legalize prostitution? Polygamy?

[stevelyn]

Originally Posted by Paul7

So we should legalize prostitution? Polygamy?

Why not? What's wrong with either of those?

Granted I wouldn't want to be married to more than one nagging woman, but still it's practiced in other cultures and was acceptable in the earlier days of ancient Hebrew mythology.

[Cavalry Doc]

Originally Posted by Paul7

So we should legalize prostitution? Polygamy?

Why any man would want to deal with two wives is beyond me, and prostitution is often a trap, where people are forced into it, I'd have some reservations.....

But I see no reason for me to interfere with what freely consenting adults wish to do in their relationships.

I am only one person, and other than posting here, which has no effect on current laws, I don't feel strongly enough one way or the other to take the effort to change things.

[Cavalry Doc]

Originally Posted by stevelyn

Why not? What's wrong with either of those?

Granted I wouldn't want to be married to more than one nagging woman, but still it's practiced in other cultures and was acceptable in the earlier days of ancient Hebrew mythology.

I don't get a lot of nagging, but as wonderful a catch as I am, I would expect that there would be significant jealousy issues and competition for my "affection" time.

[/sarcasm]

I do think that being committed to a single person, forsaking all others in that way, is the way to go if you want a happy and lasting partnership. If women are a commodity, that would be different, but I prefer an equal, not a subordinate.

[Paul7]

Originally Posted by stevelyn

Why not? What's wrong with either of those?

Granted I wouldn't want to be married to more than one nagging woman, but still it's practiced in other cultures and was acceptable in the earlier days of ancient Hebrew mythology.

OK, and as the Constitution is silent on those things, it is up to the people and their representatives, the same as gay marriage.

My point was that we don't allow everything consenting adults want to do. Drugs would be another thing.

[frank4570]

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

I don't get a lot of nagging, but as wonderful a catch as I am, I would expect that there would be significant jealousy issues and competition for my "affection" time.

You're doing it wrong.


Or, so I've heard.