SF throws down the gauntlet to Cali

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Giancarlo


That pic thread was not telling anything about me, rather was comical.

I refute this- you are an infamous agelast, and entirely anhedonic.

And you still look like a sunburnt Shelley Duvall.

[Agathon]

A pity you aren't at 500 posts Molly, you could use my "enhanced" Giancarlo portrait as an avatar.

I would, but I don't want to dump DH.

[civman2000]

Very few gay men would remain with one partner over the period of their relationships, thus increasing their exposure to stds of various kinds. Even AIDS.

Secondly, their mode of intercourse, also puts them at a greater risk to contract stds.

You should also look at that article I cited way back up in the thread before accusing me of not answering your question.

You've demonstrated that being gay at all could harm people. but have said nothing that in any way specifically implies that getting married would worsen the situation.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I would, but I don't want to dump DH.

Yeah, you make such a nice couple .

[Agathon]

And surely you could have found a better Heraclitus fragment than that tired old one.

What about, "Those who seek gold dig up a great deal of earth and find little"

or my personal favourite - "the sun is the breadth of a human foot".

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by molly bloom


I refute this- you are an infamous agelast, and entirely anhedonic.

And you still look like a sunburnt Shelley Duvall.

You are an idiot.

[Agathon]

**** up Molly! I'm winning the moron game!!

[Imran Siddiqui]

Is he a moron as well?

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Agathon


I would, but I don't want to dump DH.

Agathon's wife grows more suspicious- her husband's attachment to heterosexuality may now be filipendulous...


I like that Heraclitus quote- let's not enter into a logomachy- there are fart better fezzes to fry.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by molly bloom


Agathon's wife grows more suspicious- her husband's attachment to heterosexuality may now be filipendulous...

Nope, but the attachment to lamer 80s TV is still there.

I like that Heraclitus quote- let's not enter into a logomachy- there are fart better fezzes to fry.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Giancarlo


You are an idiot.

Your surrejoin is, unsurprisingly, ventose.

You are pachyotous, pamprodactylous, a producer of profligate pandiculation in other persons, pantopragmatic, possibly pediculous, given over to perissology, lacking a phrontistery, and endowed with a pinguedinous pate, Pedro Poopy Pants.

[Pax]

Actually if gays were to get married it would make it harder to switch partners. If kids enter the picture it usually becomes even harder so I imagine if a gay couple adopted it would be even harder to breakup.

Additionally, Ben or any other anti-gay or anti-homosexual act person, this state of monogamy would greatly reduce the spreading of disease from multiple sex partners. That means that gay marriage would be good for the U.S. and the world as a whole.

Ben,
I asked earlier and you never answered. What proof do you have that homosexuality causes aids?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
We've been down this road, Skywalker...

Yes, and you keep being fvcking stupid EVERY SINGLE TIME.

One of the benefits.

Not the only one.

Try again.

So what benefit does society derive from married heterosexuals who don't have kids that it doesn't derive from married homosexuals?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Funny word, union.

Consider that for a minute.

Can the union be properly consummated? If you argue that the union is the only point, then you must alter the union to fit this change.

The union is not the same, and one of the indicators, that the union is different is that no children come from it.

AND THEY DON'T ALWAYS COME FROM HETEROSEXUAL MARRIAGE EITHER! STFU ABOUT THE CHILDREN BY NOW!

(sorry, BK is REALLY annoying when he's stupid)

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Let's take this from another direction.

You have two ways of defining sexual orientation. One is by the acts that the person commits, another is by the desires.

I am splitting the definition. If I were to sleep with a man, that would no more make me gay, than it would be if you slept with a woman.

However, one of the consequences of this split is that one's proclivities do not control one's actions, in that one can restrain them, or even go to the opposite of one's desires.

In this sense, you are not whom you sleep with, you can control your sexual desires.

So? How does Fez sleeping with a guy hurt you? Just because he can keep from doing something, doesn't mean he should. I could refrain from, say, eating chocolate. Does that mean it's OK to make eating chocolate illegal?