Why won't gay people accept democracy ?

Haroki · Nov 18, 2008

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

Okay, in an ideal world...

Now, let's compare the data of reality, i.e. divorce, abuse, poverty, adultery, conflict etc. vs. a stable family of homosexual parents.

Get the point yet?

The article makes no comparison of the less than ideal reality of America today vs. long term studies of children brought up by stable, loving, well educated, conflict free, financially stable gay parents.

Jesus Fucking Christ.....

I didn't know that the disgusting alcoholic pedophile troll had his goalposts mounted on a truck.....

killthesunshine · Nov 18, 2008

who freakin cares how you get your rocks off??!!
just get 'em off!! get ME off so i can think straight!

maybe you use a platsic sleeve..

i dont care .. have fun

sex is highly overrated.

animals do sex, are they so smart?

sex is entertainment ..

sex has little to do with real gray matter

killthesunshine · Nov 18, 2008

"Sport sex" is best kind of sex

for next 15 minutes afterwards i can think so clearly..

before the fog of wanting to mate again sets in

give me a new woman every hour i can go all week, maybe two

jem · Nov 19, 2008

Quote from Cutten:

What makes you think all people of one group have the same views? I'm quite sure that numerous gay people think polygamy should be tolerated.

My point was more subtle.

If you change the definition of marriage - then why not make it a trio? If you can't deny gays the sue of the term marriage by a vote of the majority then on what basis can you deny a trio.

ZZZzzzzzzz · Nov 19, 2008

So, why not make it a trio?

Quote from jem:

My point was more subtle.

If you change the definition of marriage - then why not make it a trio? If you can't deny gays the sue of the term marriage by a vote of the majority then on what basis can you deny a trio.

jem · Nov 19, 2008

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

So, why not make it a trio?

because we should respect the will of a majority vote when it comes to the definition of marriage.

If the majority vote for a trio - than a trio it is.

seriousNews · Nov 19, 2008

Quote from killthesunshine:

who freakin cares how you get your rocks off??!!
just get 'em off!! get ME off so i can think straight!

maybe you use a platsic sleeve..

i dont care .. have fun

sex is highly overrated.

animals do sex, are they so smart?

sex is entertainment ..

sex has little to do with real gray matter

it might be overrated, but it has it's own reasons

actually your last post hints at one of the reasons behind it

supply has always been far less than demand

increasing the number of gays versatile/bottom, increases supply

maybe one day you will be able to implement the idea of creating colons of beautiful women at very low prices, drugging them to hell, and selling them at less than the cost of a xbox 360, that way you might even succeed in underrating sex, but what's the point you won't be able to continue making as much profit as you did when you first started

shooting people doesn't require gray matter, doesn't mean you shouldn't care what others think about shooting others

in the end it is humanity that is overrated, most humans are just junk

Mercor · Nov 19, 2008

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

So, why not make it a trio?

Don't forget the intellectual and philosophy basis for marriage.
The tax advantages of marriage all have been in place only for the purpose of keeping a family unit intact, for the protection of the children. Especially in the case of early death of a parent.

Now you ask why not a trio? Why not a group of 10 or 20. Orgy communes. Nudist camps.
How about two "reformed" pedophiles. Are there any limits?
Can common sense be part of the equation or is "anything goes" ok and society should only act after something horrible happens.

This is the Liberal Dogma, no boundries, no core morals or beliefs, always asking "Why not make it a trio?"

Cutten · Nov 19, 2008

Quote from Pa(b)st Prime:

I give you props for passing the duplicity test. I suspect though that the SSM lobby would be horrified if incest marriage rights accompanied them on the same ballot iniative....

That's probably correct. But bear in mind that blood relatives who get adopted, and thus never met from birth onwards, have on occasion met later in life, had sex/married, then years later it's been found out - and some such unfortunate individuals have been given long jail sentences.

To me that is tyrannical injustice. Consensual sexual relations between adults by definition cannot have any victim, therefore incest laws are immoral.

Either you support liberty or you don't. There is no middle ground. Liberty means liberty for everyone, not just people you approve of tolerate. It means liberty for people you disagree with, find disgusting, whose behaviour you hate. Otherwise you end up like Germany and Austria where you can go to jail for reading Mein Kampf or using a swastika on a documentary about Hitler.

Mercor · Nov 19, 2008

Quote from Cutten:

To me that is tyrannical injustice. Consensual sexual relations between adults by definition cannot have any victim, therefore incest laws are immoral.

In most places I don't think adult incest is a crime or ever prosecuted. There may be some old laws on the books but not enforced.
All the current law is for the protection of children. Protection from incest and birth defects.

Consensual incest relationships may have victims. Social stigmas for one, maybe someday in a perfect world it will lose its stigma or maybe it is good to deter incest sex.

Babies are the victims. If incest leads to pregnancy and prove of greater birth defects is that enough for laws against it. What if they find couples over 40 also have higher rates of defects can we also make laws against them? It is a dilemma for civil libertarians.