I’m getting tired of homosexuality. Please someone say something straight… 
With the number of wisecracks on this page alone, you want more “straight” lines?
I said:
GAY’S SHOULD BE GLAD THAT THEY DON’T LIVE IN A COUNTRY WHERE THIS BAHAVIOR IS ILLEGAL.
and he said:
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Esprix:
** You, sir, are an ignorant homophobic bigot.
Esprix
There, I finaly got you Esprix. You couldn’t answer that one, could you ?
I dated a hermaphrodite once.
She’s since had surgery and become a Complete Woman [TM], though.
I disagree. Slippery slope is a logical fallacy and does not deserve to be addressed. Eventually, everyone is going to get to some combination of people which s/he believes should not be allowed to marry. Once one gets to that combination, it’s too easy to work backwards from there to whatever group is currently under discussion.
Hermaphrodites can go fu…never mind.
BTW, the soi disant PC term is “intersexed” or “intergendered.”
Again, I have no moral or ethical problem with the concept of poly marriages. My concern is that the legal rights of everyone involved be protected.
Oh and Poly? Don’t stick your tongue out at me unless you’re prepared to use it, honey!
OK, I’m back - as if any of you care… 
slythe wrote:
Hmmm, I’m SCA and a conscientious objector myself - we do have a lot in common. 
Hopefully if this idiot ever came after me he would spend a long, long time in the jail he wishes to send me to. And thank you to you, too, Polycarp.
Otto, I think Flinx has sufficiently covered the Mormon/homosexuality ground in this and other threads. Realize nothing you say will change his mind, and nothing he says will change yours. Be satisfied at least your vote will cancel out his. Again, this is the nature of faith - it defies reason.
SqrlCub wrote:
No, I think you just slipped my mind (although how that could have happened is beyond me). My apologies, of course.
CalifBoomer wrote:
Oh, grow up, or I’ll go back to calling you Marvinboomerdiamondorion.
See, here’s the part I don’t get - religion is a choice, but you certainly wouldn’t go around advocating NOT giving them equal rights, so even if you do think (incorrectly, according to those more expert than you) that homosexuality is a choice or merely a behavioral trait, why would you NOT give them the same rights you have? Plus, the reason racial civil rights laws were passed at the time was because there was legitimate discrimination going on against blacks in this country. You’ve already said that you agree discrimination occurs against gay people in this country. So why are you against spelling out equal rights for them as well?
Monty wrote:
Hmmm, I hope we’re not stirring up some bisexual stereotypes… but I get your point.
And tracer wrote:
Personally, I don’t have a problem with polygamous marriages (although I do see the legal problems Otto pointed out). In fact, I don’t think we should have denied the Mormons their right to do so. I actually know more than one multiple-partner relationship that works, or worked for a long period of time. Even the man I love and want to someday spend the rest of my life with think a 3-person marriage would work best for him, but myself, I don’t think I’d want that - I’m a one-man kind of guy, I think.
Polycarp wrote:
Which, in a way, sort of argues for the dissolution of civil marriages and setting up legal contracts between consenting members in the agreement. Heck, let’s call them “domestic partnerships.” That would also still leave individual religious denominations to perform or not perform such ceremonies as they see fit.
ORION***********ORION wrote:
Huh? What? Good God, you’re a moron. There’s no question to answer; but, if you wanted me to respond to your statement, then yes, I’m very glad that I don’t live in a country where homosexuality is illegal. Did you have a point?
Esprix
orangecakes
Gee, did you pick the wrong boyfriend…
Esprix:
Now, just a damned minute here. Bill & I decided some months back that my vote will cancel his. So if someone else is going to cancel his vote, then I’ll hafta find someone else. And what with famine, warfare, and civil strife at home and abroad, I just don’t have time to find someone else.
Waste
Flick Lives!
Oh, gosh, ok. Well, that means Otto’s vote, plus mine… hey! We’re two up! Gay marriages will become a reality! Woo hoo!
Esprix
Nah, I think I picked the right one. Perhaps you haven’t read any of his posts which mentioned me…
I’d vote for that too, BTW.
Please go to page 5 of this thread, to the 3-3 post of 9:42 made by Flinx. And thank you very much…
They do have a point, Rose. I’m not going to suddenly, magically turn completely straight overnight just because I prayed that I would. I’ve wanted to be straight for a long time, and I suspect it will be a long time still before I can say with confidence that I’m no longer attracted to men. I don’t say this to hurt you, but you’ve got to face reality here. Twenty years of homosexual feelings and behavior are not going to vanish overnight.
That said, I think that you are a kind, wonderful woman who does turn me on. As I’ve said ad nauseum, I’m not completely “gay,” only mostly. (Sounds like the “Princess Bride,” eh? “He’s not completely dead, he’s just mostly dead!”)
Where there’s life there’s hope. At least my body is hetero.
The poster formerly known as “Snark.” (Don’t ask.)
Esprix:
Just happy to be a part of the team. . .
Waste
Flick Lives!
Ugh! Could you please stop flaunting your sexuality in my face! Can’t you just keep it in the bedroom where it belongs? Jeez, everywhere I turn, it’s sex sex sex with you people! Give me a break! I really don’t want to hear it any more!
(KIDDING! I’m just kidding! Really!)
It does kind of make a point (not to you two, specifically, but in general).
Esprix
Mine, too. All for it.
Speaking of votes:
As most of you know, California’s Proposition 22 is up for public vote today. If it passes, and if it’s not subsequently ruled to go against the California Constitution or applicable U.S. law, “marriage” within California will be limited only to one man and one woman.
I saw an AWFUL lot of “Yes on 22” signs up on peoples’ lawns, and not one “No on 22” sign. I have a terrible feeling this one’s gonna pass, folks.