MichFan

Oooooh, you really got me on that one. I referred to myself as a stupid lib on the issue of assualt gun bans. Seems to me "stupid" is the insulting part, and I used it in regards to myself. You and your superior debating skills . Too bad you weren't around for the debate I was referring to when AD and others systematically hauled me out behind the woodshed and made me feel pretty stupid for supporting limitations on assualt weapons. But certainly you know better than I the context in which I use the word. Maybe you can intepret next what I would mean if I called someone a Democrat? A Republican? A Libertarian? A Conservative? Can't wait to learn more about my dark inner thoughts. If you're so concerned about the tone of words used in this discussion, why don't you focus your energy on those who are really throwing out accusations such as those calling people bigots? Typical lib, I guess (hmmm, whose definition of the word was meant by that statement ). BTW -- you're not really making any case for why gay marriage should be legalized. That's what this thread is about, isn't it?

There are multiple forms of the definition of sodomy. Some include any form of unnatural intercourse, some are specific to anal sex be it humans or animals. I think I have been specific enough in my postings to make it clear I am talking about the latter form of the definition. You are fooling yourself if you think that all men who sodomize women do it out of great loving respect for their partner, and that their "willing" women partners like it. Don't you think a man pressuring a woman for anal sex when she is menstrating just to get his rocks off is abusive, regardless of the context?

I use the word "lib" to describe being on the left side of an issue. I don't use it as an insult, but others obviously take it that way. The problem with being on the left side of an issue is that all too often there is no substantive case to support the position. The best I can tell from this thread, gay marriage should be allowed because it isn't hurting anyone, it involves consenting adults, and gays are becoming more socially acceptable. Not a very compelling argument for changing something that has been fundamental to our society for hundreds of years. If that is the new standard for setting public policy, I don't think you'll like the results when fully employed by other niche constituencies. In your case, your "more skillful" debating techniques have offered no red meat as to why gay marriage should be legalized, rather you have critiqued others who actually offer grounds for their position on why their methodology is not appropriate. With regards to the second quote from Arondale -- if being a Christian means whatever you say is rooted in the bible, then you really must not like the writings of our founding fathers.

Because when it comes to liberal positions it implies something deeper. Come on, AD, you took me to the ropes over my opinion on assault guns and I admitted I was a stupid lib on that position. If I can accept the label when it suits me surely I should be able to use it with others.

Your response implies that homosexual marriage has made it into mainstream America. Sorry to inform you, but 70% of Americans that have had the opportunity to vote on it have voted against it. Massachusettes' Supreme Court and Hollywood are not the mainstream.

Just as bad, yet I'm not proposing that we invade people's bedrooms to find out if they are engaging in sodomy. With gay males it is pretty much guaranteed that sodomy is occurring if they are having sex. So I do not agree with sanctioning a relationship in which sodomy is inherent. With heterosexual couples I believe sodomy is used many times as a form of abuse. Just like you don't hear gay males jumping up and saying they love anal sex, you also don't hear that from women. You certainly can make an argument there are laws on the book already that would criminalize the use of sodomy as a violent act without the need for specific anti-sodomy laws. If you are in favor of gay marriage then you are liberal on the issue. Stop ducking the label and wear it with honor. I'd gladly accept being called conservative on the issue and wouldn't take offense to it. I really didn't care to debate you on the point you were making. Your post accused two conservatives of selectivity applying biblical values as it suits their agenda. It's a ridiculous argument. Neither was suggesting that homosexuality should be illegal based on biblical grounds. The post from Arondale you quoted from had nothing to do with him using the bible to prove homosexuality was wrong, it was in response to his perception that others were improperly using verses from the bible. Just because people have religion doesn't mean they necessarily force their religion on others. You were accusing them of exactly that. It was wrong.

What do you propose -- we send Hallmark, FTD, Bath & Body Works, and Godiva instead of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines?

Hey libs -- just think about it. Our guys have swept Fallujah for over a week now and the worst you can find to criticize them is a soldier finishing off a guy who was probably as good as gone anyway. You are forgetting your freaking talking points!!! You don't care about armed combatants -- it's only when they drop their weapons and enter military prisons that you care about them. Keep your eyes on the big picture, libs. Think of all the innocent civilians that must have been killed during this battle. Now run off to your media sources, get back on-topic, and then come back and report to us the truly disgraceful numbers (from a liberal perspective).

Deal!!! How about adding alcoholics?

Hey, stick to legalizing marijuana and leave us contiguous 48'ers to ourselves with our gay marriage debate. You offer a potential solution though -- if gay couples promise to permanently remain in their bedrooms once married, I'll drop all opposition. It's that free and open integration with society thingy that really bugs me.

Typical lib kneejerk reaction. Arondale and ofiba never even mentioned the words sin, bible, or religion in any of their responses.

GG, well stated post. Nice to see someone from the left make an eloquent case. My argument, if you read the details I've provided about sodomy, is that I don't think our society is any further enlightened by enabling gay marriage. I don't believe America's morals have progressed/regressed to that point, and voters in state after state have confirmed it. Here in Ohio where the gay marriage ban was so broad as to disallow any form of civil union, and even certain heterosexual arrangements, the vote was a landslide.

Hey, the libs are finally getting religion!!! There's nothing more dramatic than a sacrifice at the altar to prove it.

Arondale and ofiba -- well stated remarks. I think the decision that needs to be made regarding sexuality and the structure of civilly recognized relationships in modern society are whether there will continue to be a fundamental moral underpinning or whether we will cast morals aside due to their perceived origin in the church. I agree with arondale's assessment of the need for morals in society. The libs are currently moving down a path of selective morality, making a social argument for homosexual relationships yet staying with the moral argument on poligamy and incest. Anything to maintain their stigma of being hypocrats, I guess.

If we return to the Stone Age, I'll gladly disavow my opposition to gay marriage. Of course, if I'm the alpha male I can have all the women I want without fear of being called a polygamist. Using your analogy I guess you've proved my point. Two men can be sodomized by a gay person. One becomes a homosexual and the other stays straight. That makes homosexuality a disease. So running fast is comparable to anal penetration? Or anal penetration is "exceptional"? The fact is that there is a scientific basis to this argument. The proximal and distal sphincters are not designed to provide pleasure during penetration. The proximal is an involuntary muscle that lets you know when things are starting to happen down there. The distal is a voluntary muscle that tells you to find a bathroom soon. The concentration of nerve endings are on the interior of these structures (thus, the necessary risk of gerbil entrapment for wierdos to achieve any heightened anal sensation). Stretching of these muscles through forced penetration does exactly what you might expect it to -- hurts like hell. Imagine the hardest session you've ever had on the crapper, and then imagine that repeatedly for however long it takes a partner to finish. I won't even get into the medical problems this can cause. Having once lived next door to a gay couple in an apartment building, the sound of gay lovemaking that carried through the walls was violent and extremely disturbing. Welcome to the wonderful world of sodomy. Libs want to recognize such a relationship as loving and give it broad social understanding and respect. I'll stand by my position that anyone who sodomizes someone is diseased, and anyone who voluntarily submits themself to sodomy is also diseased.

If we are going to broaden the use of the term "disease" to include mental abnormalities such as reliance on alcohol, then yes, homosexuality is an abnormality and thus a disease whether it be genetic or a developed behavior. The anus was not designed to be penetrated and provides no physiological function in that regards, so how can one argue that it is not abnormal?

We are not talking about treating homosexuals like people (which I do, BTW). We are talking about recognizing their relationships as institutional marriage. 70% of the American voters see a distinction there.

It's really quite humorous, actually. Libs believe homosexuals should not only have all rights granted to heterosexual couples on the basis of consenting adults but also should be broadly socially embraced to the point of teaching our Kindergarteners about them. Yet if a third partner were to want to enter a marriage with two other consenting adults, they would still be discriminated against. Or if two cousins were consenting adults they would still be discriminated against. The basis for this? Not good for the family to have polygamist parents or cousins hitting on each other at family reunions? If health of the traditional family structure were an issue with libs we wouldn't even be talking about gay marriage. Potential for birth defects among cousins? Libs already have the solution for this through genetic testing and abortion. No lib has ever been able to provide a coherent explanation as to why homosexual marriage should be legal while polygamy and marriage between cousins should not. Instead of facing these issues head on, libs claim they are red herrings and don't even delve into them. I guess the argument would be gushing with hypocracy were they ever to try.

So now I have a fear of homosexuals? Okay -- then thank God I live in a country where 70% of the citizens are homophobes by your definition. Come on, libs, is this really the best you can do? I throw out some tangible facts and all you can come up with is this? I expected some lib would at least step up and say they like having their anus rigorously penetrated in an attempt to prove me wrong.

I love the reaction from libs when they get confronted with the dark facts about that which they so heroically espouse. Next thing you know they'll be asking thier congressperson to include enemas in the government handout package for poor homosexual males. Poor men should be able to have clean homosexual relations as well, right?

I'd argue both are diseases. I don't think a guy who imbibes excessively in alcoholic beverages is any more diseased than a guy who uses an enema and then allows other men to anally penetrate him.

Yet another reason from libs to blame America. I guess some people are more concerned about legalizing sodomy, which truth be told is a fairly brutal practice, than upholding a fundamental virtue of civilization (traditional marriage). Why not just rewrite the statment to read "Bring me your tired, poor, weary, homosexuals, and sodomists." Now that would be truly reversing the stigma.

It was an impossible request to fulfill, gmac. Libs are always surprised when Bush isn't as extreme as their talking points tell them. Once they have to fend for themselves, it all falls apart.

So do you think family members should be able to marry? What are your grounds for limiting marriage to two people? There are plenty of people who believe in polygamy, why discriminate against them? Why would a man taking two wives be any more offensive or wrong than a man marrying another man?

Society should take one of two positions on marriage. Either it is a union between a man and a woman, or it is a union between anyone who freely enters it. In the latter position, that would allow for polygamy and intra-family marriage in addition to gay marriage. When African-Americans were extended equal rights under the Constitution, we didn't continue to separate Hispanics and Asians -- essentially all minorities have been provided the same freedoms. When women were granted the right to vote, we didn't tell transsexuals that they still didn't have any rights. So why should marriage be redefined to fit only one group of people? If you're going to open it up on the grounds of freedom, open it all the way as we have historically done in this country. I'm 100% against such a change, but it is the height of hypocracy for libs to say we should expand freedoms but limit them to one group.