How, exactly, does gay marriage threaten me?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:by all means lets become sodam and gamorrah. Go ahead and put gay marriage on the ballot. You lose every time....by wide margins.

Are you using the New Revised Stupid version of the Bible for those spellings? At least TRY to look like an educated bigot.

since when does being anti-sodomy qualify someone as a bigot? your love of butt sex has driven you to insanity. BLOOD LIBEL!

I think you're exceeding the believable troll rhetoric level. Dial it back a bit and you'll seem more legitimate and less like you're just trying to get a response to your ALL CAPS BLOOD LIBEL.

[Anonymous]

Even Sarah palindrome stopped saying that.

[Anonymous]

Wow that was palin. Way to go spell check.

[Anonymous]

I think its funny to say blood libel any time you hear the tired and overused racism or bigot monikers. Everyone should do it. I've found it works great.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think its funny to say blood libel any time you hear the tired and overused racism or bigot monikers. Everyone should do it. I've found it works great.

If your intent is to make yourself look even more foolish, you're right, it works great.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think its funny to say blood libel any time you hear the tired and overused racism or bigot monikers. Everyone should do it. I've found it works great.

Yea, it must be frustrating to be called a bigot and a racist so often, especially after making so many racist and/or bigoted statements. That is one of my favorite forms of white victimization... "How dare you call me a bigot?!?! All I said was that gays are sexual deviant sodomist sinners who deserve to burn in hell! Why are you attacking me so unfairly?!?! Don't I have freedom of speech!?!?"

[Anonymous]

what does this have to do with white victimization???

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm saying it is offensive to religious people for the word "marriage" to be associated with a relationship built around sodomy, thats all.

You do not speak for "religious people.". You speak only for yourself. I, for one, do not share your beliefs, and I promise you that I am a religious person.

As a heterosexual married woman, would you define my relationship with my husband as built around vaginal sex? I must say, if asked to describe what my marriage is built around, I'd identify love, mutual support and consideration, kindness, and collaboration as the defining characteristics. Your fixation with sex as the defining element of a relationship is quite telling.

You could have "love, mutual support and consideration, kindness, and collaboration" with any number of people e.g. your brother, sister, father, mother, a friend. You don't have sex vaginal sex with them. If you think that vaginal sex wasn't a big draw for your husband, think again. Just ask him. Would he have married you if you were sworn to celibacy? You are his wife not his roommate.

In case you didn't notice, you can get sex with just about anyone, too.

The implication was that vaginal sex was necessary not sufficient.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:what does this have to do with white victimization???

White folks who complain about being called racist or bigoted after making racist or bigoted remarks are attempting to victimize themselves, removing the focus from their own distorted viewpoints and putting their accusers on trial. Deliberate or not, it is a method of self-victimization that attempts to absolve the racist or bigot of responsibility and accountability and instead turn him or her into a sympathetic figure unfairly under attack.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm saying it is offensive to religious people for the word "marriage" to be associated with a relationship built around sodomy, thats all.

You do not speak for "religious people.". You speak only for yourself. I, for one, do not share your beliefs, and I promise you that I am a religious person.

As a heterosexual married woman, would you define my relationship with my husband as built around vaginal sex? I must say, if asked to describe what my marriage is built around, I'd identify love, mutual support and consideration, kindness, and collaboration as the defining characteristics. Your fixation with sex as the defining element of a relationship is quite telling.

You could have "love, mutual support and consideration, kindness, and collaboration" with any number of people e.g. your brother, sister, father, mother, a friend. You don't have sex vaginal sex with them. If you think that vaginal sex wasn't a big draw for your husband, think again. Just ask him. Would he have married you if you were sworn to celibacy? You are his wife not his roommate.

In case you didn't notice, you can get sex with just about anyone, too.

The implication was that vaginal sex was necessary not sufficient.

Well then this is patently false. There are plenty of people who marry who do not, or are not even capable of, vaginal sex. We don't ban them from matrimony because they are paraplegic, have ED, or are older and just not interested in it anymore. I have not heard a campaign against these people, so why pick on others?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm saying it is offensive to religious people for the word "marriage" to be associated with a relationship built around sodomy, thats all.

You do not speak for "religious people.". You speak only for yourself. I, for one, do not share your beliefs, and I promise you that I am a religious person.

As a heterosexual married woman, would you define my relationship with my husband as built around vaginal sex? I must say, if asked to describe what my marriage is built around, I'd identify love, mutual support and consideration, kindness, and collaboration as the defining characteristics. Your fixation with sex as the defining element of a relationship is quite telling.

You could have "love, mutual support and consideration, kindness, and collaboration" with any number of people e.g. your brother, sister, father, mother, a friend. You don't have sex vaginal sex with them. If you think that vaginal sex wasn't a big draw for your husband, think again. Just ask him. Would he have married you if you were sworn to celibacy? You are his wife not his roommate.

In case you didn't notice, you can get sex with just about anyone, too.

The implication was that vaginal sex was necessary not sufficient.

Well then this is patently false. There are plenty of people who marry who do not, or are not even capable of, vaginal sex. We don't ban them from matrimony because they are paraplegic, have ED, or are older and just not interested in it anymore. I have not heard a campaign against these people, so why pick on others?

Since ancient times a marriage was not considered consummated until vaginal sex had taken place. Marriages could be nullified if one of the parties could not complete the act. So it's not marital window dressing. In the vast majority of marriages, it's a pretty big deal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm saying it is offensive to religious people for the word "marriage" to be associated with a relationship built around sodomy, thats all.

You do not speak for "religious people.". You speak only for yourself. I, for one, do not share your beliefs, and I promise you that I am a religious person.

As a heterosexual married woman, would you define my relationship with my husband as built around vaginal sex? I must say, if asked to describe what my marriage is built around, I'd identify love, mutual support and consideration, kindness, and collaboration as the defining characteristics. Your fixation with sex as the defining element of a relationship is quite telling.

You could have "love, mutual support and consideration, kindness, and collaboration" with any number of people e.g. your brother, sister, father, mother, a friend. You don't have sex vaginal sex with them. If you think that vaginal sex wasn't a big draw for your husband, think again. Just ask him. Would he have married you if you were sworn to celibacy? You are his wife not his roommate.

In case you didn't notice, you can get sex with just about anyone, too.

The implication was that vaginal sex was necessary not sufficient.

Well then this is patently false. There are plenty of people who marry who do not, or are not even capable of, vaginal sex. We don't ban them from matrimony because they are paraplegic, have ED, or are older and just not interested in it anymore. I have not heard a campaign against these people, so why pick on others?

Since ancient times a marriage was not considered consummated until vaginal sex had taken place. Marriages could be nullified if one of the parties could not complete the act. So it's not marital window dressing. In the vast majority of marriages, it's a pretty big deal.

So are you telling me that you are against the elderly marrying for companionship? Do you object to paraplegics marrying? No, of course you don't. So whatever bit of history you want to cite, you yourself do not have a strict requirement.

The fact that sex is a pretty big deal to the vast majority is true. But that is a matter between the two people getting married. And if it is between them, then they can choose the type of sex they want to have.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm saying it is offensive to religious people for the word "marriage" to be associated with a relationship built around sodomy, thats all.

You do not speak for "religious people.". You speak only for yourself. I, for one, do not share your beliefs, and I promise you that I am a religious person.

As a heterosexual married woman, would you define my relationship with my husband as built around vaginal sex? I must say, if asked to describe what my marriage is built around, I'd identify love, mutual support and consideration, kindness, and collaboration as the defining characteristics. Your fixation with sex as the defining element of a relationship is quite telling.

You could have "love, mutual support and consideration, kindness, and collaboration" with any number of people e.g. your brother, sister, father, mother, a friend. You don't have sex vaginal sex with them. If you think that vaginal sex wasn't a big draw for your husband, think again. Just ask him. Would he have married you if you were sworn to celibacy? You are his wife not his roommate.

In case you didn't notice, you can get sex with just about anyone, too.

The implication was that vaginal sex was necessary not sufficient.

Well then this is patently false. There are plenty of people who marry who do not, or are not even capable of, vaginal sex. We don't ban them from matrimony because they are paraplegic, have ED, or are older and just not interested in it anymore. I have not heard a campaign against these people, so why pick on others?

Since ancient times a marriage was not considered consummated until vaginal sex had taken place. Marriages could be nullified if one of the parties could not complete the act. So it's not marital window dressing. In the vast majority of marriages, it's a pretty big deal.

You know what else was common in ancient times? Human slavery. And infanticide. And witch burning. And public stoning. Women as property. Life spans under 40 years. Arranged marriages. Rigid class systems and formal ostracism. Do you recommend we bring these back as well? Vaginal sex was seen as consummating a marriage because women were believed to belong to the men of society. First the father, and then her husband. When in possession of her father, she was expected to remain a virgin. Upon having ownership transferred to the husband, she was now his sexual possession and she could be "deflowered". It wasn't the vaginal sex itself that was consummating, but the breaking of the hymen. If this didn't take place, the husband had grounds for annulment under the notion that he was entitled to a virgin bride and the belief that a broken hymen could only be the result of sex. It wasn't about the "right" way to have sex or love or join people together... it was about the subjugation of women to men and the use of sex and sexual organs as organs of empowerment.

[Anonymous]

I have vaginal sex with my fiance quite often. Does that mean we are already married and we can stop dealing with caterers, florists, DJs, photographers, etc, etc, etc.?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have vaginal sex with my fiance quite often. Does that mean we are already married and we can stop dealing with caterers, florists, DJs, photographers, etc, etc, etc.?

My wife and I had vaginal sex before we were married, and had a wedding consisting of some friends and a rabbi, then a dinner afterwards. The marriage has lasted decades without the caterers, florists, etc. We still have vaginal sex, but are happily married even on all those days that we don't. And we would like to see our gay son find himself a mate and get married, with whatever type of sex will make him happy. I don't think there is a God, but I figure it does not matter. as long as we agree on His basic rule that we should treat others as we wish them to treat us. I fervently believe that if He exists, He does not want us fighting over Him!

Pardon me for getting away from politics there, but I think the golden rule is relevant to the question that started this thread, namely, gay marriage in no way interferes with my marriage, so I should not interfere with theirs.