For instance, I have yet to hear a rational explanation of how a gay marriage in Massachusetts denigrates a heterosexual marriage in Kansas or Arizona.
"Rationality" is not easy to judge. But their standard argument is that being married is supposed to confer social status. This clearly harkens back to the days when an unmarried woman had very little status, but I guess we have to be satisfied that in this case, at least they're only going back a century or two for evidence to support their argument, instead of going back to the Bronze Age where the alleged evidence for most Biblically-based arguments is found. Anyway, if two men can get married (so the argument goes) then it demeans the traditional heterosexual marriages, especially the wife.
Yeah, I know. If a woman is "allowed" to do something that a man can do (in this case: marrying a man), I don't quite understand how it's demeaning.
Of course they don't mention the divorce rate, the high incidence of spousal and child abuse, infidelity, etc. It seems to me that these phenomena cast more aspersions on the institution of marriage than two people of the same gender who love each other and are willing to endure public ridicule, insults, discrimination in housing and sometimes even physical violence, in order to institutionalize that love.
Anyone can do that, whether the offending thing is the gay sex store or the Westboro Baptists. They can ignore it or they can decide to become offended.
It's not so easy to ignore the Westboro Bastards, especially if it's your loved one's funeral that they're attempting to desecrate. The cops don't let them gather within sight and sound of the ceremony, but still you have to plan your drive there and your drive home carefully, so you don't see and hear their insulting signs and chants along the way.
In any case, it's certainly not the gayness of men that makes HIV so prevalent among their numbers.
Medical professionals tell us that contact with an infected person's blood is the highest-probability vector for transmitting HIV. Although (as an earlier post pointed out--or maybe one on another thread, there are so many about this topic) it's a cliché that all gay men practice anal intercourse, the assumption remains unrefuted (for now) that they nonetheless practice it at a statistically significantly
higher rate than we do.
There is no basis for the belief that homosexuality is not right, or to believe that it is somehow wrong.
Doesn't it go back to that hateful little book that causes so many of the world's problems: the Bible? After all, in the USA at least, it is predominantly the fundamentalist Christians who are in the vanguard of the anti-gay demographic. The Westboro Bastards are the vanguard of the vanguard: the reason they picket military funerals is that God hates America for being so tolerant of homosexuality, so he has arranged the world so that our soldiers are being shot at by Muslims. Or something like that.
I think that what I'm talking about is not rocket science. So I see no need to go into much detail.
A classic Wynnism. You can always find a clever reason for your obfuscation.
You actually
DO need to go into detail, because it's obvious (even to you, which is why you have to go on the defensive) that we really don't understand the reasoning behind virtually
everything you post. You fancy yourself an Oracle, and hope that we will spend hours carefully decoding your snarky little epithets, frantically PM'ing each other to compare our work.
Well you're not, and we won't.
It's not so much that homosexuality is about harming other people. It's about the homosexuals harming themselves. And "unsanitary practices" being the least concern in all this.
Right on the first part, wrong on the second. It's about homosexuals
being harmed by homophobes. Admittedly, physical violence against them is on the wane, but passing laws allowing motherfucking Christian businessmen to not transact business with them is certainly
harmful.
The common problem in "sex for pleasure" - whether it is between two men, two women, a man and a woman, a human and a thing, or whichever combination or number there may be - is the objectification of self and other in the process.
And how common is that in real life, as opposed to discussion boards, pornography and shock-videos?
As we get older, most of us mature, and "sex for pleasure" with no vector of affection (or at least companionship) becomes increasingly infrequent.
Of course, in our culture, we are raised to objectify ourselves and others this way, and to even feel good about it. So people typically see no problem with such objectification ... and psychotherapists earn big moneys on account of that.
Speak for yourself. I've seen all the propaganda and have never found it any more enticing than the billboards that once begged me to use tobacco because it would somehow make my wife look like Raquel Welch. I can't think of anyone I know (well enough to be able to rummage around in their heads) who has objectified himself to any steady and significant level. And that includes my gay friends.
As for psychotherapy, the #1 reason among my friends for undergoing it was to lose weight. Ironically, one of the other Top Five reasons was to conquer anorexia and bulimia. To hell with sex: American society is obsessed with
food!
By talking down to Syne, assuming herself superior to him.
He does seem to paint a fresh bulls-eye on his forehead every morning.
So it seems. Sorry.
Then whose (mis)quote was that in James's post? I'm only asking because you've probably tracked it down already.
