It’s still unhealthy.
I did mention that I mentioned ‘care’. Read it again.
So unhealthy is now a high-falutin’ word, and the claim that gay men in same-sex relationships are likely to engage in regular anal sex is not a credible one?
We don’t forbid heterosexual marriages because the participants might have anal sex. Sex is irrelevant to the question of whether gay marriage should be legal.
It’s totally and completely not a relevant one to the question of whether gay marriage should be legal.
I said it was a factor, not the factor. Are you really demanding learned citations supporting the idea that, when you take people out of procreational sexual activity, the birthrate will decline?
Granted, the reason of mine quoted here is a conjecture, based on the notion that sexuality is neither chosen nor inborn. I’m willing to admit that in the grand scheme of things, anyone could grow up to become gay, depending on the sum total of sensual stimuli they had opportunity of, and and how they responded to the experiences. Indeed, this notion is good for gays in that it seeks to normalize their sexuality as something that emerged naturally, and neither as a mere choice nor genetic anomaly. Anyone arguing in favor of gay marriage should accept that sexualities are substitutable. However, I have also demonstrated that procreation is not transferable; only one man and one woman are capable of independently reproducing, and this is the basis for distinguishing heterosexual couplings from *all other *couplings.
These are all sterile relationships by their very nature, and I can offer no such distinction. None of them should be eligible for marriage.
Again, they’re all sterile, and none of them should enjoy the numerous and varied legal privileges of marriage.
steabo, you are literally cracking me up. I’m laughing out loud here.
Just having come out of a committed, same-sex relationship, let me privy you to a little bit of inside information: a lot of guys, perhaps the vast majority, do not “regularly” engage in penetrative anal sex. I would estimate offhand that maybe 5% of our sex life involved anal sex. I wonder how this compares to many heterosexual couples? With all this talk of “tops and bottoms” hahaha, are you sure you aren’t gay if you’re talking about tops and bottoms all the time?
Now, I’m sorry for entertaining this thread derailing and will allow you to get back to your regularly scheduled program.
(Sympathy for the gays, I love it. Like we are to be pitied. steabo, you are killing me)
Non-same-sex couples, really?
This is not what I wrote.
You could have a baby together by having sex (I’m assuming you’re a dude). And if you weren’t married, you could more easily become a deadbeat.
Marriage isn’t required for procreation and vice versa. Fertility isn’t required or involved either. That’s about as relevant as the mechanics of sex.
Glad to be of service.
So, gays aren’t even fucking each other most of the time?! What’s the point of that?!
All this talk of tops and bottoms refers not to what has been posted here, but referenced in pop culture. Maybe I’m just watching to many Seth McFarlane series…
Seriously, though, how much could gay sex ever possibly result in procreation?
So should my “sterile” marriage, in which my wife and I for various reasons we decided not to have children be allowed?
[QUOTE=steabo]
So, gays aren’t even fucking each other most of the time?! What’s the point of that?!
[/QUOTE]
So you haven’t heard of oral sex?
[QUOTE=steabo]
Seriously, though, how much could gay sex ever possibly result in procreation?
[/QUOTE]
Again my wife and I have a great deal of sex that could not result in procreation. Should we still be allowed be married?
[quote=“Buck_Godot, post:228, topic:654663”]
Yes.
Yes.
Then I still don’t know what you mean by “all this talk.” I watch plenty of TV and people do talk about sex sometimes, but this isn’t something I’m exposed to an inordinate amount of the time. I’m not sure why that matters either, but you seem determined to make it part of this discussion and suggest that you’re somehow being inundated with information about sex between guys against your will. It’s preposterous to say marriage should be open only to people for whom accidental pregnancy might theoretically be possible.
Meh. I don’t know of many *straight *couples IRL that I’d like to see doin’ it. 
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
I don’t even know how to respond to this. What’s the point of what, exactly? A committed, loving relationship that doesn’t involve regular anal sex?
You’ve basically outed yourself. You just admitted that there’s no point to guys being together if they aren’t constantly getting some of that sweet, sweet anal sex.
From a posting of mine in another thread. In future steabo, could you simply refer to your arguments by number - this will save time:
For example, when you want to use your “gays are fucking in the anus” argument, you could just post NUMBER 2! NUMBER 2! ICK! (and a bit of #4! Cause “all this talk” is making me hot!)
Reasons to oppose SSM:
-
Jesus would have been against it, if he had ever said anything about it, and anyone had ever wrote it down. Because I know what Jesus thought.
-
Ick. I don’t like to hear about this. So stop talking about it.
-
The word “marriage” must, unlike all other words, remain exactly as I personally define it, and this definition must be frozen in time forever. Change makes me personally uncomfortable, therefore society must never be allowed to change.
-
If gays marry, then the population will plummet, because then every man will have the uncontrollable impulse to marry another man and have that sweet, sweet cock forever. (usually said by severely closeted men, who think that ALL men crave cock, and the only thing stopping them is strict rules)
-
If gays marry, then this will destroy the purity, the sanctity, and the holiness that is at the fundamental core of REAL marriages, such as the one between Dennis Rodman and Carmen Electra (9 days of marriage, which totally respected the institution) or that of Britney Spears and Jason Alexander (only 55 hours, but is much better than a union of two men who have loved and supported each other for 25 years)
Well, you seem pretty determined to show that I’m determined to bring it in, but the record shows that I’m not.
Is that all straight couples are, people for whom accidental pregnancy might theoretically be possible?
It’s called ironic outrage.
I not really concerned with what gays are doing (as unhealthy as it is), but I know what they’re absolutely not doing: producing any children.
Nobody mentioned it before you. I’d just rather not let you get away with it as a one-off because it was so irrelevant and said so much about your motives.
I’m straight, so no, that’s not all they are. But that appears to be the basis for marriage in your opinion. If two people could theoretically have a kid together, they should be allowed to marry even if they don’t want children or are infertile. If they’re the same sex, they shouldn’t be allowed to marry because they can’t have children with each other. Did I miss something? It’s not like you’re the first person to make these claims.
[quote=“steabo, post:229, topic:654663”]
So what you’re saying is that the right to marry has nothing whatsoever to do with procreation, with what you do, or even the result of what you do . . . but of who you are. Some people have the right to marry, because of who they are; and other people don’t have that right, because of who they are.
That’s astounding.
No, it’s not. What you propose is two different sets of laws.
The problem isn’t that we don’t “value” #2, the problem is that #2 is actually pretty insulting. On the continuum of insults lobbed by the anti-marriage movement, with 10 being “God Hates Fags,” you’re coming in about a .01 with your proposal, so it’s not a huge thing, but there’s really no getting around the fact that saying that marriage is a cornerstone of our society, and then telling a class of people that they’re not good enough to make up part of that cornerstone - indeed, that letting them in will actually weaken it, is inherently insulting.
Is this more important than all those other rights? No, of course not. But it’s not unimportant. In the most practical terms, your “two laws” proposal represents a crack in our legal protections that future homophobes could exploit to peel back our rights. Why give them that edge? Beyond the practical, of course, is the simply fact that I have a pretty strong opposition to the idea of my government passing laws calling me a second class citizen.
So if my “sterile” marriage is OK why do you care if gay marriages are “sterile”.
By the way are you married? and if so did you marry just for the sex and children? If so I feel sorry for you because you are missing the whole point.