What do you think of gay marriage?

Judged:

1

1

1

agood1 wrote:

government has no business on people's bed.

Judged:

1

1

1

Equality wrote:

<quoted text>In Belgium, Spain, and South Africa, where homosexual "marriage" is legal, far fewer than 1/2 of 1% of homosexual have "married.
No significant percent of the homosexual population in The Netherlands has "married," and the practice went into steep decline after a pathetically small initial political charade.
Homosexual "marriage" is a fraud with no real basis in homosexual life.

Judged:

1

1

1

Equality wrote:

<quoted text>You've already made it plain that you hate yourself and the perversion that you've allowed to define your life. You don't have to display that again by using it as an insult.

Judged:

1

1

1

dodobird wrote:

the happiest couples ive ever met are gay/lesbians.

Judged:

1

1

1

Will wrote:

<quoted text>
LOL, and you LOSE this round.
That's because you IMPLICITLY ASSUME that 1) every human relationship EQUATES to a marriage or that gays have some sort of constitutional "right" to be equally or proportionally represented in civil marriage -- which are false assumptions, and that 2) gays have some sort of constitutional "right" to adopt children or that gays somehow have a constitutional "right" to be equally or proportionally represented as adoptive parents -- which are, again, false assumptions.

Judged:

1

1

1

Hmm wrote:

<quoted text> so half of all of those that are homoesexual are married?

Judged:

1

1

1

Hamish wrote:

<quoted text> Less than 1/2 of 1% of the homosexual populations of Belgium, Spain, and South Africa have "married." No significant percent of the homosexual population has "married" in ANY country that allows the cococted oxymoron.

Judged:

1

1

Sean D wrote:

<quoted text>
Whoa!! You have waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyy over intellectualized this. What you are forgetting about is the emotional component.

I was 16 once and questioning my sexuality, hoping to God I was at least bisexual, I got a girlfriend, we did it several times, full on, the str8 version of the rather graphic description I made earlier. It just did not do it for me. The emotional component flat lined. I was 16, so if you just breathed on me, I got hard, that wasn't the issue, the issue was not feeling it emotionally. When I had my first guy, wooooohooooo! there it was, everything I had hoped for and more. So, I have to disagree, it was not a learned behavior. Believe me, I tried, I really didn't want to be exclusively gay, and get a life of BS from the heterofacist.

Judged:

1

1

1

TxTraveler wrote:

<quoted text>
No, I'm not forgetting anything. Dys asked me to be specific about explaining how one learns to *enjoy* "gay sex". Enjoyment of a physical act and emotional bonding with another person are two different things. I answered the question I was asked, but if you want to discuss the emotional aspect next, I have no problem with that.
<quoted text>
To quote Ralph (from YOUR side of this debate), "And all this time I thought that sex was for recreation as well as reproduction." He's right; physical sex is for both. That being said, sexual acts do NOT create emotional bonds. Also, while there is an aspect of the physical release experienced during sex that aids emotional closeness, it is neither exclusive nor necessary for a close emotional bond. Your error here is applying your personal experience to society in general and assuming that the experiences of others can be deduced from your own - but they cannot.
My first sexual experience was similar to yours, without the orientation questions. There was zero emotional component - it was just a really fun evening. When I met my wife it was different, even though she is just as female as my first encounter. Why? Most likely because the emotional component was already there with her, and the sex made it better.
The obvious fact is that sexual acts and emotional bonding are separate things. One need only look at the wild success of the sex-for-money industry to see that. The Bible even makes a similar claim, in saying that there is such a thing as "a friend that is closer than a brother", meaning that extreme emotional bonds outside of sexual relationships are not uncommon.
I say this to point out - without belittling your experiences - that the lack of emotional bonding with the girlfriend and the bond with the first guy was more likely a result of their individual personalities and characters than their genders.

Judged:

1

1

1

RatherBeInMissouri wrote:

<quoted text>
How many time have you said that? You should really expand your vocabulary. You sound like a robot.
And you might include some more modern countries in your stats... France, England, Canada? Yeah...

Judged:

1

1

1

TxTraveler wrote:

<quoted text>
No, I'm not forgetting anything. Dys asked me to be specific about explaining how one learns to *enjoy* "gay sex". Enjoyment of a physical act and emotional bonding with another person are two different things. I answered the question I was asked, but if you want to discuss the emotional aspect next, I have no problem with that.
<quoted text>
To quote Ralph (from YOUR side of this debate), "And all this time I thought that sex was for recreation as well as reproduction." He's right; physical sex is for both. That being said, sexual acts do NOT create emotional bonds. Also, while there is an aspect of the physical release experienced during sex that aids emotional closeness, it is neither exclusive nor necessary for a close emotional bond. Your error here is applying your personal experience to society in general and assuming that the experiences of others can be deduced from your own - but they cannot.
My first sexual experience was similar to yours, without the orientation questions. There was zero emotional component - it was just a really fun evening. When I met my wife it was different, even though she is just as female as my first encounter. Why? Most likely because the emotional component was already there with her, and the sex made it better.
The obvious fact is that sexual acts and emotional bonding are separate things. One need only look at the wild success of the sex-for-money industry to see that. The Bible even makes a similar claim, in saying that there is such a thing as "a friend that is closer than a brother", meaning that extreme emotional bonds outside of sexual relationships are not uncommon.
I say this to point out - without belittling your experiences - that the lack of emotional bonding with the girlfriend and the bond with the first guy was more likely a result of their individual personalities and characters than their genders.

The Golem wrote:

<quoted text>
Again, you assume without proof. Growing up in the Midwest in the 50's and 60's I had no idea of the possibility of sex with another man.

Much of my feelings, actions and fantasies going back as far as I could remember made sense, finally. I understood why I had wanted to matter to certain boys as the most important person in their lives, and them in mine, since at least age 8, and had never had similar feelings for girls.
I understood how another boy's smile could make my whole day, where if a girl friend was angry with me, it just didn't upset me or turn my world upside down in the same way.

Hamish wrote:

<quoted text> Less than 1/2 of 1% of the homosexual populations of Belgium, Spain, and South Africa have "married." No significant percent of the homosexual population has "married" in ANY country that allows the cococted oxymoron.

TxTraveler wrote:

<quoted text>
No, I'm not forgetting anything. Dys asked me to be specific about explaining how one learns to *enjoy* "gay sex". Enjoyment of a physical act and emotional bonding with another person are two different things. I answered the question I was asked, but if you want to discuss the emotional aspect next, I have no problem with that.
<quoted text>
To quote Ralph (from YOUR side of this debate), "And all this time I thought that sex was for recreation as well as reproduction." He's right; physical sex is for both. That being said, sexual acts do NOT create emotional bonds. Also, while there is an aspect of the physical release experienced during sex that aids emotional closeness, it is neither exclusive nor necessary for a close emotional bond. Your error here is applying your personal experience to society in general and assuming that the experiences of others can be deduced from your own - but they cannot.
My first sexual experience was similar to yours, without the orientation questions. There was zero emotional component - it was just a really fun evening. When I met my wife it was different, even though she is just as female as my first encounter. Why? Most likely because the emotional component was already there with her, and the sex made it better.
The obvious fact is that sexual acts and emotional bonding are separate things. One need only look at the wild success of the sex-for-money industry to see that. The Bible even makes a similar claim, in saying that there is such a thing as "a friend that is closer than a brother", meaning that extreme emotional bonds outside of sexual relationships are not uncommon.
I say this to point out - without belittling your experiences - that the lack of emotional bonding with the girlfriend and the bond with the first guy was more likely a result of their individual personalities and characters than their genders.

Judged:

1

The Golem wrote:

<quoted text>
You would seem to have the bizarre definition of "natural." A thing is said to be natural if it is found in nature, rather than human made. A thing can be natural whether or not it is moral and whether or not it is healthy.

Leaving aside the question of whether donuts can be considered natural, it is certainly for a dog to eat all the food that it finds, either within a human home or within the wild. The dog may eat too much and become obese, it may eat something that is toxic or eat may eat its own puppies right after giving birth to them. None of these actions are "unnatural."

There are repeated studies posted on this Board showing that homosexual coupling, even long term coupling occurs in many species. Natually. Your claim of it being unnatural becomes an exercise in nonsense.
Further, you cannot then turn arund and claim that homosexuality is immoral because it is unnatural, when we have just established that it is natural.

Judged:

1

Josh in New Orleans wrote:

<quoted text>
For once I agree with you. It has nothing to do with sexual orientation, but more to do with gender. It is gender discrimination when a same sex couple are declined a marraige license. And you're right on a second front, the state has no interest in homosexual relationships. The purpose of civil marriage is to officially grant two persons and their children rights of kinship.

Judged:

1

JaneKrahe wrote:

<quoted text>
So, why do you think YOUR concocted philosophy of heterosexual "marriage" should be undemocratically forced on an unwilling nation?

Judged:

1

1

1

Janitor wrote:

<quoted text>
So, are you saying that if a gay person or a lesbian continued to attempt to build a relationship with a member of the opposite sex they would eventually succeed?

I assume you haven't had any close relationships with gay friends. I know my gay friends are gay and that they are attracted to their own sex for the same reason the straight friends I have are attracted to the opposite sex.

And, many of them were not only in heterosexual relationships, but married and had children before they finally admitted to themselves it wasn't natural for them. No two people are the same and the fact that the situation doesn't exist for you doesn't mean it doesn't for them anymore than the reverse is true.

RatherBeInMissouri wrote:

<quoted text>
That being said, why are you incapable of having that close emotional bond with another man? If in fact it come down to personality and has nothing to do with gender. By that reasoning, I could argue the entire human race is bisexual.

Judged:

1

1

1

TxTraveler wrote:

<quoted text>
You missed my third paragraph. I said:
"The obvious fact is that sexual acts and emotional bonding are separate things. One
need only look at the wild success of the
sex-for-money industry to see that. The Bible
even makes a similar claim, in saying that
there is such a thing as "a friend that is
closer than a brother", meaning that extreme
emotional bonds outside of sexual relationships
are not uncommon."
I do in fact have several close, man/man emotional bonds. I have 4 friends that I would trust anything and EVERYTHING to, and one that is possibly closer than my bond with my wife - it's a real tossup. None of those happen to be sexual relationships though.