The REALITY of Marriage Equality

I think marriage equality is the inevitable result of the staggering lack of PROOF that homosexuality (and bisexuality) is perversion, mental illness, criminal behavior, "an abomination in the eyes of the Lord" and whatnot. There's no proof because there's no verifiable TRUTH to the allegations! The detractors have only their beliefs, opinions, and yes, bigotry, not objective facts. A "mo" cannot go "strait" -- at least with any pleasure involved -- any more than vice versa. There's no science or REALITY behind the inexpressibly hypocritical double standard of legitimizing the natural aversion to the very thought of homosexual sex by heteros, but refusing the equal opposite for gays and lesbians. They're equally PEOPLE, what a concept.

To equate homosexuality (in and of itself) with REAL perversions and criminality like pedophilia and bestiality is just SICK and completely unsubstantiated. Also unsubstantiated BS is that there is a "gay agenda" or some kind of totalitarian takeover under the rainbow flag (or whatever) in the works. Equal means equal, not greater than. And yes, if it really needs to be emphasized, marriage equality obviously does NOT translate to one having the right to marry his/her sibling, pet or other animal, inanimate objects etc. Some people just need to get a clue.

It seems the bigots/homophobes tend to generalize ALL or most homosexuals as being the same as the more, um, demonstrative ones -- or to understate it -- who are occasionally seen at gay pride parades, the very few who display clearly illegal and sexually disgusting public behavior. That's obviously as false a generalization as there is. I would gladly and easily wager that the vast majority of gays and lesbians agree with and practice the virtue of being low key and humble enough as a very good general rule in life altogether. News flash: There are many different types and degrees of scummy wackos and other wackos.

If or when human population gets low enough to where there is a REAL imperative to breed, perpetuate the species, I could see (rightly or wrongly) where gay MARRIAGE might be justifiably illegal, but never any kind of outright persecution, officially and otherwise. Unless or until that happens, why not go with just the basics of human rights? ("Heaven" forbid there ever be anything above and beyond the basics here LOL). There clearly isn't, at least as yet, a necessary connection between marriage equality and procreation.

originally posted by: Lightworth
I think marriage equality is the inevitable result of the staggering lack of PROOF that homosexuality (and bisexuality) is perversion, mental illness, criminal behavior, "an abomination in the eyes of the Lord" and whatnot. There's no proof because there's no verifiable TRUTH to the allegations! The detractors have only their beliefs, opinions, and yes, bigotry, not objective facts. A "mo" cannot go "strait" -- at least with any pleasure involved -- any more than vice versa. There's no science or REALITY behind the inexpressibly hypocritical double standard of legitimizing the natural aversion to the very thought of homosexual sex by heteros, but refusing the equal opposite for gays and lesbians. They're equally PEOPLE, what a concept.

To equate homosexuality (in and of itself) with REAL perversions and criminality like pedophilia and bestiality is just SICK and completely unsubstantiated. Also unsubstantiated BS is that there is a "gay agenda" or some kind of totalitarian takeover under the rainbow flag (or whatever) in the works. Equal means equal, not greater than. And yes, if it really needs to be emphasized, marriage equality obviously does NOT translate to one having the right to marry his/her sibling, pet or other animal, inanimate objects etc. Some people just need to get a clue.

It seems the bigots/homophobes tend to generalize ALL or most homosexuals as being the same as the more, um, demonstrative ones -- or to understate it -- who are occasionally seen at gay pride parades, the very few who display clearly illegal and sexually disgusting public behavior. That's obviously as false a generalization as there is. I would gladly and easily wager that the vast majority of gays and lesbians agree with and practice the virtue of being low key and humble enough as a very good general rule in life altogether. News flash: There are many different types and degrees of scummy wackos and other wackos.

If or when human population gets low enough to where there is a REAL imperative to breed, perpetuate the species, I could see (rightly or wrongly) where gay MARRIAGE might be justifiably illegal, but never any kind of outright persecution, officially and otherwise. Unless or until that happens, why not go with just the basics of human rights? ("Heaven" forbid there ever be anything above and beyond the basics here LOL). There clearly isn't, at least as yet, a necessary connection between marriage equality and procreation.

The relevance to me ceased at the statement "I think..." Who cares about gay marriage anyway. Try caring about something that affects you personally….

a reply to: notmyrealname

Sure, again, "Heaven" forbid anyone ever think about anything outside one's self-centered interests. I'm very thankful there are people who don't operate that way.

a reply to: Lightworth

I always think it is funny that bigots imply that gays want to make things more free for everyone and that equals oppression to Christians. Now the argument has morphed into "Gays are going to storm into churches and FORCE us to marry them!"

originally posted by: Lightworth
a reply to: notmyrealname

Sure, again, "Heaven" forbid anyone ever think about anything outside one's self-centered interests. I'm very thankful there are people who don't operate that way.

So you are a proponent of telling people how to conduct their own lives? Who made you so dang important? Just leave people alone and everything will be fine.

a reply to: notmyrealname

As much as you'd like to pretend the argument is over. The gay marriage debate hasn't ended yet. TRUST me, the conservatives haven't given up yet as evidenced by states already drafting legislation to do things like redefine what legal marriage is, tell state employees they are allowed to discriminate against homosexual marriages based on religious beliefs, and other bigoted nonsense.

Issues don't die overnight, no matter how much you may want them to.

a reply to: Krazysh0t
So, what am I to do? I didn't care about gays or gay marriage before this nonsense started and I do not care now. If everyone was like this, there would not be conflict.

a reply to: Lightworth

You have a lengthy paragraph about how "...bigots/homophobes tend to generalize all or most homosexuals".

You are generalizing all the people who disagree with homosexuality as bigots and homophobes. I am not a bigot and I am certainly not afraid. I simply do not believe that homosexuality is what was intended in the grand design. One look at the genetalia of the species makes it fairly clear what the intent, and outcome, of union should be. Just because two men or two women can do something together does not necessarily equate to the fact that they should.

Personally, I am tired of being branded a homophobe because I disagree with homosexuality. That is the LGBT group trying to empower themselves at my expense by presenting themselves as "better" than me. Its about equality, not greater than, right?

Sorry, but I disagree with your opinion. I think homosexuality is perverse by definition. One of the definitions is, "Having an effect that is opposite to what is intended or expected." Again, the male and female are obviously meant to work together, the end result is procreation. To intentionally manipulate that into something of personal gratification with no expectation of the intended result is, by definition, perverse.

Does that qualify as proof, or is the dictionary a bigoted homophobe?

a reply to: notmyrealname

Sometimes people care about things that you don't care about. It's best just to ignore it until it blows over and something else catches the publics attention. Trust me, I've been in your position before. There are issues that I just think are the most idiotic things in the world and can't believe that people care so deeply about them. Well, whining about it isn't going to stop them. Probably only anger them by exposing your insensitivity to their issue. It's best just to stay quiet, ignore it and just wait it out. It'll go away. It always does.

Thankfully for you, this was ruled on THIS year instead of next year. This means there is plenty of time for it to leave the public consciousness before the election season gets into full gear. This issue won't be as important to the candidates next election season as it was in prior elections.

originally posted by: Lightworth
To equate homosexuality (in and of itself) with REAL perversions and criminality like pedophilia and bestiality is just SICK and completely unsubstantiated.

What most people seem to ignore is the huge difference between gay women and gay men, lumping everyone into the same boat....

When a woman pleasures a woman it doesn't have to involve a waste disposal organ.

Eeeewwwww!

Forget religion, that came later, nature rules everything and going against it must be questioned.

And to those who say things like "well some animals do it so it must be natural"....there are messed up animals too.

a reply to: Vroomfondel

No proof, just opinion, once again. With that "logic," I suppose everyone who has ever had a "one night stand" or anything less than absolute devotion in marriage, procreation or strict monogamy is automatically a pervert. Nature is nature, and it's not always storybook perfect and beautiful; sometimes it just is what it is.

a reply to: nerbot

PUHLEEEZE!!! How many HETEROSEXUALS have ever had anal sex??!! I know I like it occasionally, and I'm a hetero man. Are you prepared to generalize ALL gay men as liking and having anal? Ever heard of oral?

originally posted by: Lightworth
a reply to: nerbot
Are you prepared to generalize ALL gay men as liking and having anal?

Absolutely not. Don't be so obtrusive. The point I was making is huge compared to yours.

a reply to: Lightworth

That sounds like a last gasp argument. "God made me and God doesn't make mistakes..."

God created life, and gave it free will. That means you cant blame God for your decisions and you face your own consequences. You don't get to blame it on nature or God. (for many that is the same thing)

Or, if you insist that God is responsible: God made bigots, homophobes, and gay-bashers. And God doesn't make mistakes.

You cant have it both ways. (no pun intended)

The people you mentioned will face the consequences of their actions. The weakness of the individual does not change the intent of the design.

originally posted by: nerbot
When a woman pleasures a woman it doesn't have to involve a waste disposal organ.

1. Some homosexual couples don't do that.
2. Some heterosexual couples do.

Fail on that argument.

originally posted by: notmyrealname
So, what am I to do?

Find a topic you ARE interested in and leave us to discuss this? How about that?

a reply to: nerbot

Men don't have to pleasure each other with their butts either. Or did you forget that men also have hands and mouths?

a reply to: nerbot

Sometimes with two women, it does involve anal. Sometimes with a woman and a man, it does involve anal. Sometimes with a man and a man it does involve anal. Sometimes, with any of these combinations, it doesn't involve anal.

Cars, planes, and guns aren't seen in nature - so they are all evil and perverse, and we must get rid of them!

a reply to: Vroomfondel

To disagree with homosexuality as you do and see it as a perversion, does make you a homophobic bigot.

You can be disgusted at the thought of gay sex, just as you can be disgusted at the thought of two 80 year olds having sex, or two people who you deem as physically repulsive having sex, that is natural. However to state homosexuality is wrong or a perversion based on the notion that due to the design of genitalia they must be used in a particular way doesn't make sense and is a little hyper critical. Oral sex is enjoyed by most people, I guess that is unnatural?

If you want to down the path of design, all males have a g spot only reachable through their rectum and can achieve a deeper internal orgasm when the prostate gland is stimulated whilst having an orgasm. You don't have to be gay or think gay things either.

Your whole procreation arguement is nieve, gay people aren't infertile and can make a decision to undertake steps to create a new life. Sure surrogacy is needed but unless you dissagree with straight couples doing the same then again you are homophobic. I suppose wet nursing is perverse and unnatural even though without it, I doubt you'd be here as somewhere down your family line one of your relatives would have been wet nursed when we lived in communes.

a reply to: ProleUK

This whole post is absurd.

Its not as I see it. Its as defined. I see the definition and do not attempt to rewrite it to fit my personal viewpoint. If it makes you feel better to think you have painted me as homophobic, have at it. Just as long as you know you failed. I am still not afraid and I wont be any time soon.

I never said I was disgusted by anyone having sex, age, looks, notwithstanding.

Its not hypercritical, it is necessary. The design has intent. To ignore that is an act of desperation.

The make g-spot is debatable at best.

Your last paragraph - absurd. The fact that steps have to be taken and surrogacy involved shows exactly how abnormal it is and does nothing whatsoever to make me a homophobe. That doesn't even qualify as warped logic. Its just gibberish. I do disagree with heterosexual couples using surrogacy to have children. Some people were not meant to procreate, for whatever reason, that is the case. Your statement about wet nursing - the rules regarding insults in the forums prevent me from saying what I really want to say to a statement that ridiculous.

And on that note, I relieve myself of having to further address such intellectual incontinence. Good day to you all.

a reply to: Vroomfondel

Most of my views are based on logic.

By your view masterbation is not natural and perverse as a penis is designed for a vagina only.

Sure, you have an opinion, but by your post and use of definition I do call youyr view hypercritical as im sure you will, like most normal males masterbate.

You are homophobic, as you like definitions so much, maybe you like to look up the definition of it and read your post again.

One of your distant relatives will have been wet nursed at one stage. Its a form of surrogacy which I assume you would deem as unatural.