Oh?
One letter and two measly numbers? Lightwieght wanker 
(Merciful snip)
Would you and your new sexual-tension frenemy mind terribly taking this WWF trash-talking Internet Tough Guy bullshit to the playground where it belongs? This thread is about brazil84 being a piece of shit, and that’s a topic MORE than rich enough to deserve exclusivity.
Pblblblblblblblblblblblbt.
You’re just jealous.
And yet you go on to say -
These are the same arguments raised against SSM - 'I find it disgusting, so you shouldn’t do it." “What you are doing is morally wrong, so I am going to attack you for wanting it.” “What they are doing doesn’t affect your marriage at all, so you should shut up and condone it.” Etc.
I’m sure you’re aware that the same people who condemn the Mormons for being against SSM condemn people in a relationship like the one described in the OP.
You mentioned sado-masochism. I think this is the key - if the person said his marriage was based on that kind of dynamic, there would be any number of Dopers who would leap to his defense. The issue is not that the relationship is exploitative; it is that it is allegedly based on religious principle. That’s what triggered most of the condemnation. It’s not exploitation that Dopers are against, just religious principle. If that is what is going on the marriage described.
Regards,
Shodan
This thread has nothing to do with any kind of marriage, dickhead. How many times do I have to say it?
Shodan, I know you’re a dumb-ass and all, but we are saying this guy is a misogynistic dick, nothing more. Nobody’s saying that S&M should be illegal, or trying to make a Constitutional Amendment to ban it. If you just want to say “gay relationships are exploitative and I think people who engage in them are assholes”, go ahead (though you should probably be able to back it up somehow). That’s an opinion, with no ramifications that actually affect people who are into S&M’s lives. I’m sure you get a boner feeling like you’re being persecuted because of your religion, but you’re bringing up shit that has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
Poor kids. Now they’re probably going to be subjected to an even worse education.
Edit: Anywho, I don’t see the misogyny/sexism. I think those words are thrown around a bit too often.
You’re a fucking moron.
My first inclination was to type “It takes one to know one!”, but that would have been juvenile. Therefore, I’ll defer to my second inclination and will respectfully disagree.
Well; black + conservative implies that already. That’s kind of like Capitalists for Stalin.
Hey, we’re all forgetting the most important issue here, and that is the concept of a gynophobic douche makes no sense. I mean, if it’s gynophobic, then how exactly is it going to wash anything? It’d be like douching with castor oil. No, you want the gynophilic douches, yessiree.
[Moderating]
phouka, point well taken about the relative fragility of the human body, buy let’s ease off on the complicated hypotheticals about killing other posters, please. You’re getting uncomfortably close to the “threatening death” on another poster.
[/Moderating]
It would be like throwing a bunch of negative magnets at a positive magnet!!!
I am so stealing this line.
No. At best, those arguments are second cousins; as others correctly observe, the key element of the SSM discussion revolves around its legality, not its potability. I believe the majority of SSM advocates would be thrilled to have the majority of voters think, “I don’t like the thought of that kind of relationship, but I believe it should be legal.”
I suspect many would say that religion is exploitative, or has the potential t be exploitative. Of course there are some unhinged opponents of anything that begins “relig…” But even so, the OP is consistent: he opposes these kinds of relationships whether religiously-based or fetish-based.
IMO douches are inherently gynophobic, really - their function is to “clean” something that’s naturally self-cleaning and in fact functions better without chemical intrusions damaging it.
DOUCHES KILL*
*helpful bacteria in the vagina, leading to higher rates of bacterial and yeast infections, as well as increasing risks of infertility
I’m saving this post for future reference 
Which brings up another aspect of this that illustrates the typical liberal doper’s worldview.
If the relationship discussed in the original thread were between two rich white men, a typical liberal doper wouldn’t bat an eye. But because the “exploited” party is a woman, the typical liberal doper gets all het up about it.
The undercurrent here is that liberals don’t think that people like women, blacks and poor people are really able to make decisions for themselves–they need the guiding hand of the liberal to keep them in line and out of trouble.
As a SSM advocate I can vouch for this. People have the right to be as outraged or disgusted by gay marriage as they like, as long as they don’t try to restrict others from having the right to do it. And FTR I feel the same about Biblical marriages and D/s relationships, not that that’s the topic of the thread.