You don’t really want to get into this, do you?
If gay sex involves anal penetration (and one can only assume it is the norm, but with all this talk of ‘tops’ and ‘bottoms’). This involves nothing less than penetration of a literal toxic waste dump. I’m not trying to be hurtful or hateful, but how can that not be unhealthy?
Actually, it probably was not. Most of the examples of “orgiastic” behavior from Rome actually occurred in the first century, shortly after the change from republic to empire. By the time Diocletian got around to trying to stomp out Christianity for its civilly disruptive feuding at the end of the third century, the empire was nearly puritanical in its general behavior. Shortly after that, of course, the Christians snapped from oppressed to dominant and the Christians were not particularly keen on orgies, either. Following which, the empire trudged along for another 136 years before it fell.
So, there does not appear to be any evidence that Rome “orgied itself to death.”
The same things that distinguish a straight couple in love. :rolleyes:
:rolleyes: You do realize that anal sex is quite common among straights, and that many homosexuals don’t happen to like anal sex? And I expect it’s even less common among lesbians.
And your characterization of anal sex is something out of the 1950s.
However, thanks for helping demonstrate how opposition to SSM always comes down to either religion or “gays are icky”.
Making such an assumption is dangerous as it fails to consider actual evidence.
Heterosexual couples engage in anal sex.
This response of yours is a red herring as your original comment was based on a claim that homosexual sex was driven only by sensual desires as if heterosexual sex was not or that homosexual sex did not include desires for intimacy.
Trying to simply use high-falutin’ words to say “eewww!” is really not making your argument, particularly when you appear to have your facts wrong.
So, then, you have no problem with classifying different types of relationships, and having them legally-recognized as different? No rubber stamp on heterosexual sibling love? Agreed.
So, then, you do have a problem with treating participants who are party to the same types of relationships differently? Should we treat some non-sibling, adult heterosexual couples differently from others? Some adult gay couples differently from other gay couples?
Well pardon me. One set of laws and in the end same sex couples have a civil union and hetero couples have a marriage, is that it?
Do they get an official certificate? Is it illegal for SS couples to refer to their civil union as a marraige? What if a church preforms the service? Is it a marraige then.
and what useful purpose do you see this fulfilling?
Dual purposes, actually.
SS couples get the rights and privileges that OS couples have long enjoyed.
We reserve a special place for traditional marriage.
We no doubt share concern for #1. #2 I think is also important, as it has been a foundational principle for western society. Additionally, it seems like we should have a word for society’s recognition of such an important institution. One that commemorates the natural coming together of man and woman and the begetting of children. I understand that for those who don’t value #2, my position is not for them. But if someone values both of those things, then my position makes perfect sense and is the one that should be fought for. I’d venture to guess that if you took a national poll asking everyone, what would you prefer in the U.S.:
A) Committed gay couples should be allowed to get married, just like straight people, and enjoy all the same benefits and privileges
B) Committed gay couples should never be allowed to get married, and should not be able enjoy the same benefits and privileges that married couples enjoy
C) Committed gay couples should be allowed to enjoy the privileges and benefits enjoyed by their heterosexual counterparts, but “marriage” should be reserved for one man/one woman
…which do you think would be the most popular answer? My guess is C.
You still haven’t answered my post, Magellan01:
That’s a widespread belief and I expect it persists because invasions by Visigoths and Vandals, deforestation and plague and the economic/military depletion created by endless civil wars are less sexy by comparison.
Feel free to cite some historians who agree that “decadence” was as significant as any of the above. At the very least, I’m not aware the Romans had depopulated themselves to death.
Well, you seem to have overlooked the major element of my objection - namely I’m opposed to unequal treatment unless there is a very good reason for it (and the reasons you have given regarding society turning away from heterosexual reproduction are particularly specious and unsupported).
It’s actually quite easy to recognize distinctions among various gay couples - this couple is male, that couple is female. This couple is one white person and one black person, that couple is two Asian persons. This couple includes one left-handed person, that couple has two right-handed persons… It’s a trivial exercise. Please give us a distinction that justifies one gay couple having access to the numerous and varied legal privileges of marriage while another gay couple does not.
I can think of a few off the top of my head:
So that’s five reasons right there, all of which could apply equally to heterosexual couples. What have you got, some vague warnings about gay marriage turning the U.S. into a modern Sodom because it seems to you that it might? Please.
You could guess, sure, if you weren’t interested in actually finding out or being influenced by the results, as appears to be the case. But you’d be wrong, and you’d get more wrong every day.
Time to deal with it.
What do you mean “all this talk?” Nobody mentioned it until you did just now because it has nothing to do with marriage laws. From what I’ve seen, gays and people advocating SSM never bring up sexual methods when they’re talking about gay rights. Straight guys who oppose SSM bring it up because they think it’s gross.
Well, if unsupported speculation that happens to be conveniently aligned with one’s beliefs is on the menu, one could say straight guys bring it up because they’re secretly envious and curious…
Did you really have to use the word menu in this discussion? Ugh.
This is an odd statement to me. It sounds like you’re saying that using different names for state recognition of foo relationships and of bar relationships, and declaring the things those names refer to legally identical, is somehow a better approximation of equality than simply using the same name.
“Ideal” in what way? And how does applying the term “marriage” to state recognition of same-sex relationships interfere with this, whatever it means?
It seems to me that non-same-sex couples’ relationships are not affected by same-sex couples’ relationships or by those couples seeking – or getting – recognition of those relationships. A man and a woman can still get married and raise children, if that’s what you mean. Even saying “same-sex couples actually shouldn’t have the same rights because children” is at least consistent, even if I don’t agree and don’t think it’s factually accurate.
“I get the fact that gay couples are in love, but they don’t actually love each other.”
What distinguishes my relationship with my girlfriend from a really great friendship, except the sex?
I’m not sure what you mean by this, and I’m also unclear as to why this implies the word “marriage” needs a special place reserved for it. But if you mean what I think you mean, it’s like saying “you grew up on baby food and breastmilk, so that’s all you should eat now.”
Perhaps. But I’m more willing to believe that it would have a plurality than that it would be the Condorcet winner, and A is more just in any case.
(The results of surveys that ask about A versus B don’t necessarily apply here, but I’m not sure that matters.)
I don’t see option C on any of those polls, but then again no one has seriously proposed it. I doubt many of the plurality or now majority for A would switch to C.
That’s an interesting case. This makes sense for heterosexual unions where this level of genetic closeness could put children resulting from it at risk, but that is not an issue for a same sex union. Still, equality should be equality, so one set of rules for all would make it simpler.
Singer/Songwriter Cheryl Wheeler talked about how when it became legal in Massachusetts to marry her (soon-to-be) wife, they had to go get a blood test first.
Cite? And please, not from a homophobic site.
10 arguments against gay marriage and why they are not valid, if not outright ridiculous
Did you not read the rest of the comment?
This does not make anal sex any more healthy.
This does make it any less true.
On the contrary, I think I’ve shown a great deal of sympathy.