Sodomite
marriage has been called “the defining civil rights issue of our time.” Oddly
enough, proponents don’t seem to be in a hurry to define the defining right.
They make it sound like sodomite marriage is a great
idealistic cause. But what, exactly, are they defending the right of
homosexuals to do to each other in a state of matrimony?
If you
have friends who defend sodomite marriage, and challenge you on your opposition
to sodomite marriage, this is what they’re actually defending. This is the
great civil rights cause of our time.
I’m taking the defintions verbatim from NHS safe-sex guidelines for lesbians and sodomites.
1. The right to perform conjugal anal sex:
Anal sex is putting a penis
into a sexual partners rectum (insertive) or having sexual partners penis
inserted in to the rectum (receptive)
2. The right to perform conjugal felching:
Felching is a practice that
involves sucking the semen out of a partner’s anus or vagina, with or without a
straw.
3. The right to perform conjugal fisting:
Fisting involves inserting the
entire hand, and sometimes part of the arm, into the anus or vagina of a sexual
partner.
4. The right to perform conjugal rimming:
Rimming involves oral (mouth, tongue)
contact with the anus for the purpose of sexual stimulation.
5. The right to perform conjugal sadomasochism:
The deriving of pleasure,
especially sexual gratification from inflicting or submitting to physical or
emotional abuse (including being humiliated, beaten and bound).
6. The right to perform conjugal faecophilia
This relates to sexual arousal
from the presence of faeces. In some cases faeces may be ingested
(Coprophagia).
7. The right to perform conjugal urophilia
Sexual activity involving
urine. (Can involve drinking urine, exchange of urine over or into the body).
8. The right to use conjugal butt plugs, &c.:
Sex toys can be used during sex
for sexual stimulation. They can be a variety of things, some of the most
common are dildos, butt plugs, vibrators and love eggs. Foreign objects are
also some times used in this role; many household items are adapted for sexual
purposes. Enemas and a douche may also be considered in the context of sex
toys.
Gross.
ReplyDeleteSo judgmental.
ReplyDeleteYou'll note that heterosexual couples already enjoy those rights.
ReplyDeleteThis is typically homosexual behavior.
Deleteyet it is not forbidden to heterosexuals.
DeleteIt is not forbidden to homosexuals, either.
DeleteThe point is acting as if conferring marriage on this conduct is noble.
No, it is not. But the article seems to say that same-sex marriage would "grant" those rights. Those rights are "granted" (read, not forbidden) to every consenting adult as it is. The rights are not forbidden within the bounds of marriage as it is.
DeleteSo what is the point of this article, except to ramp up the "ick" factor?
The point is to illustrate what proponents of homosexual marriage are actually promoting under the guise of "marriage equality."
DeleteOK. Now I have a little more time, and I can take it to explore in a little more detail why, and on how many levels, you are wrong.
ReplyDeleteFirst, you are wrong because none of these "rights" you cite will be granted to couples by the same-sex marriage law.
Why? for two reasons.
The first reason is that the marriage impacted is the legal marriage. It is not the religious marriage. No church will be forced to marry anyone. Mayors (or deputies) will be. The legal marriage is not a covenant between two spouses and the god they believe in, it is a contract between the state and the spouses, that regards joint ownership of property, custody of the eventual kids, visitation and inheritance rights, etc, etc. In this regards, a same-sex couple is no different than a barren couple, and I know of no religion that forbids marriage to barren couples. Once the law is passed, if a pastor does not want to marry a same-sex couple, they'll have to find another pastor that's ok with that, or have a town-hall wedding.
The second reason you are wrong is that the rights you cite are already enjoyed by everyone. The state does not forbid any sexual activity between consensual adults. It should not. It's not the role of the state. It's not close to the role of the state. Therefore, the law would not be granting rights that are already granted.
But even if you were right about those two things, you would still be wrong to argue as you do. Why? Because you are not arguing against granting people special rights. You are arguing against letting people in the minority having the same rights as the people in the majority. You are arguing, in short, for the oppression of a minority.
I know, you will tell me that you do that to enforce morals. But the thing is, unless you can demonstrate harm to a third party, you are not enforcing morals. You are enforcing your morals. And I want you to thing really carefully before you argue for a state that enforces the morality of the majority unto the minority. Because right now, you are in the majority, so it feels good. But demographics have a tendency to change over time. Once you have established a culture where it's ok for the many to impose their values on the few... How long before you're one of the few?
french engineer
Delete“No church will be forced to marry anyone…Once the law is passed, if a pastor does not want to marry a same-sex couple, they'll have to find another pastor that's ok with that, or have a town-hall wedding.”
That remains to be seen. It’s an incremental strategy. Deny your true intentions to gain a foothold.
“The second reason you are wrong is that the rights you cite are already enjoyed by everyone…Therefore, the law would not be granting rights that are already granted.”
I don’t grant that these are actual rights. But even if they were, up until recently, homosexuals didn’t have the right to do these things *in marriage*. So, yes, that’s something new.
“Because you are not arguing against granting people special rights. You are arguing against letting people in the minority having the same rights as the people in the majority. You are arguing, in short, for the oppression of a minority.”
Under preexisting law, everyone has the same right to marry a member of the opposite sex.
As for “oppressing a minority group,” I guess you support pederastic marriage.
“I know, you will tell me that you do that to enforce morals. But the thing is, unless you can demonstrate harm to a third party, you are not enforcing morals.”
Adopted children are harmed.
The bottom-line is that, as long as the brothel has a fresh coat of paint, sodomite marriage proponents ignore what goes on inside.
"
DeleteThat remains to be seen. It’s an incremental strategy. Deny your true intentions to gain a foothold."
So you're not opposing gay marriage. you'r eopposite what you thing those who want gay marriage will want to do next. That's not defending your rignt. That's a preemptive strike. You are keeping people from doing what they want because they might someday want to do something you ar eopposed to. You call yourself a Christian?
"Under preexisting law, everyone has the same right to marry a member of the opposite sex."
"Under preexisting law, everyone has the same right to marry a member of the same race."
I have changed two words. It does not change the validity of your argument. Can you see how your argument looks? I'm even pretty sure that the very argument I wrote was used at the time where interracial marriage was forbidden.
Under preexisting law, every heterosexual adult has the right to marry the adult he or she wants to marry(as long as the other consents). Under the proposed law, every adult has the right to marry the adult he or she chooses, as long as the other consents.
"As for “oppressing a minority group,” I guess you support pederastic marriage."
I can't see how you would think that. Children are not capable of either giving consent nor signing contracts. That's what the status of childhood means in legal terms.
"Adopted children are harmed."
Are they? I have seen no proof of that coming from the countries that have adopted same-sex marriage or civil unions in the last decades. Can you provide one?
And even if they were, then they would be harmed not by same-sex marriage, but by same-sex adoption. Once more, you are not opposing same-sex marriage, you are opposing something else.
I am sorry, but so far, you have not given a good reason to oppose same-sex marriage.
french engineer
Delete“So you're not opposing gay marriage. you'r eopposite what you thing those who want gay marriage will want to do next.”
False dichotomy. Try both.
“That's not defending your rignt.”
I don’t need to defend my right to marry a woman. That’s already a given.
“That's a preemptive strike.”
Has a nice ring to it.
“You are keeping people from doing what they want because they might someday want to do something you ar eopposed to.”
Actually, I was merely responding to your assertion on your own terms.
“You call yourself a Christian?”
You call yourself intelligent?
“Under preexisting law, everyone has the same right to marry a member of the same race.”
Last time I checked, preexisting law also allows everyone to marry a member of a different race.
“Can you see how your argument looks?”
Looks logical. Next question.
“I'm even pretty sure that the very argument I wrote was used at the time where interracial marriage was forbidden.”
That’s an argument from analogy minus the supporting argument. Try again.
“Under the proposed law, every adult has the right to marry the adult he or she chooses, as long as the other consents.”
So you’re proposing incestuous marriage between consenting adults (e.g. father/son, father/daughter, mother/daughter, mother/son).
“I can't see how you would think that. Children are not capable of either giving consent nor signing contracts. That's what the status of childhood means in legal terms.”
Now you’re adding qualifications you didn’t include in your original claim.
By what moral authority do you make consent a precondition of marriage? Do you believe in moral absolutes? Is that a moral absolute?
“Are they? I have seen no proof of that coming from the countries that have adopted same-sex marriage or civil unions in the last decades. Can you provide one?”
We don’t need studies to know the obvious. Children are better off in natural, normal families.
“And even if they were, then they would be harmed not by same-sex marriage, but by same-sex adoption. Once more, you are not opposing same-sex marriage, you are opposing something else.”
Marriage includes adoption rights. Moreover, marriage itself connotes social approval. That legitimate makes it easier for homosexuals to adopt kids.
“I am sorry, but so far, you have not given a good reason to oppose same-sex marriage.”
Of course, you have an ax to grind. Your ax is not the standard of comparison.
Sorry, Steve, I know I promised you I'd sworn you off, but here I am again for another fix. This is just too much not to comment on- you say, in reply to the engineer:
ReplyDelete"We don’t need studies to know the obvious."
That just about says it all. We don't need the real world to know what the Bible says, in other words. Again- what skin is it off your nose if gays marry and do icky things? You don't have to do them, or approve of them. Would you like to also outlaw Islam and atheism?
I ain't steve, but please, do you honestly think it's simply a question of live and let live?
Deletei) We don't need studies on everything to know what the real world is like. We don't need studies to know the difference between men and women. We don't need studies to know that men and women were designed for each other, unlike homosexuals.
Deleteii) The point of this post is not whether homosexuals do "icky" things, but whether homosexual marriage is the great civil rights issue of our time. This is what the alleged right of homosexuals to marry actually boils down to. Giving homosexuals the right to do these things in marriage. Painting marital varnish on their practices.
It's revealing that homosexual marriage proponents like you get so uncomfortable when I simply spell out what married homosexuals would do to each other. Are you ashamed of homosexuals?
iii) If it were up to me, I'd deport Muslims.
iv) Homosexuals aren't content with permission or tolerance. They demand unconditional approval. Brainwashing children from elementary school and upwards. Adoption. Political hegemony.
zilch
Delete"We don't need the real world to know what the Bible says, in other words."
I didn't cite the Bible in this post. Try again.
"Again- what skin is it off your nose if gays marry and do icky things? You don't have to do them, or approve of them."
I see. Do you take the same approach to kiddy porn or child prostitution?
No, steve, I don't take the same approach to kiddy porn or child prostitution. Why should I? Is gay marriage the cause of kiddy porn or child prostitution? How is this an argument? You might as well say "if gay marriage, then Hitler".
ReplyDeleteAnd what makes you think I get uncomfortable with talk about sexual practices?
And about what we don't need studies for: we don't need studies to know that eyeglasses and baseball are unnatural. Maybe you should go after those too.
And if you want to deport someone, you should probably rather deport atheists than Muslims- they are more dangerous to Christianity, because they have the real world on their side, unlike Muslims. But I'm afraid it's too late now- yours is a losing battle.
The point is, Zilch, is that people who make shows like Glee paint this serious emotional romantic picture of homosexual relationships in an attempt to make it look as meaningful and beautiful as normal heterosexual relationships. Many of those people are straight, but there's a reason they aren't coming out to say, "I think we should make it a constitutional right for homosexuals to engage in conjugal fisting." That doesn't exactly carry the same blissful overtones they're trying to convey- indeed, they may agree with Steve that there's an "ick factor", which is precisely why they don't go there.
Deletezilch
Delete"No, steve, I don't take the same approach to kiddy porn or child prostitution. Why should I?"
It's called an argument from analogy. You said: "Again- what skin is it off your nose if gays marry and do icky things? You don't have to do them, or approve of them."
Well, then, by parity of argument, why would you oppose kiddy porn or child prostitution? After all, as long as you don't have to do them, or approve of them, it's no skin off your nose.
BTW, homosexual increasingly require everyone to approve of homosexuality.
"And about what we don't need studies for: we don't need studies to know that eyeglasses and baseball are unnatural. Maybe you should go after those too."
i) You're attacking an argument I didn't use.
ii) I'm not a baseball fan.
iii) Glasses restore natural vision. Restore acuity. So you're comparison backfires.
"And if you want to deport someone, you should probably rather deport atheists than Muslims- they are more dangerous to Christianity, because they have the real world on their side, unlike Muslims. But I'm afraid it's too late now- yours is a losing battle."
Actually, I've read how the story ends: Christians win, atheists lose (Rev 19-21). You can't judge by the halftime score.
Prince- that may well be true for some people. Me, I don't care what people, homo or hetero, do in the consenting adult privacy of their bedrooms. Why gay marriage threatens someone who is free to not choose it for him- or herself is beyond me.
ReplyDeleteAnd yes- there are homosexuals who do really nasty stuff: kiddy porn and child prostitution, for instance. But of course there are heteros who do this too. Do you have any evidence that allowing gays to marry will increase the incidence of any of this real nastiness? I didn't think so.
zilch
Delete"Me, I don't care what people, homo or hetero, do in the consenting adult privacy of their bedrooms."
So if a pain freak consents to be vivisected, that should be legal.