Tuesday, July 12, 2011

So libs like to call gay marriage by the term "same sex marriage" well I have a different idea.

See, the primary means of sex in a gay relationship is up the ass, so from now on I am going to call gays who are married Anal Sex Marriage instead of the liberal term Same Sex Marriage.

Also in the case with lesbians, there isn't really transmission of fluids in lesbian sex so it's not really sex it's just two girls feeling eachother up. They are larping as a sexual relationship. (LARPing means Live Action Role Playing.) Lesbian "marriages" I am going to call LARP Sex Marriage.

Now, is Anal Sex Marriage and LARP Sex Marriage really the SAME thing as normal sex marriage? Heeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeell no! Is Anal Sex Marriage and LARP Sex Marriage EQUAL with Real Sex Marriage? No way in hell.

21 comments:

Friar Yid said...

This is stupid even by your standards, SJ. Defining marriage by what sex act you do is just plain dumb. If a straight couple engages in oral or anal sex, does that make their marriage a sodomy marriage? Next I suppose you'll be claiming that when Gandhi took a vow of celibacy he was essentially divorcing his wife.

The idea that there is such thing as a "normal" marriage (to say nothing of "normal sex marriage") is the precise reason why SSM is so inevitable-- because at the end of the day, the only solid reason opponents of it have is, "It weirds/creeps/grosses us out." And the more generations of young people who grow up knowing and loving real gay people, who are as "normal" as the rest of us, the less people are going to buy these increasingly lame and desperate justifications for denying rights and respect to 10% of the populace.

SJ said...

I have trouble looking at homosexual relationships as MARRIAGE because they can't even have sex normally.


>> "It weirds/creeps/grosses us out."

Friar reread, I did not say that in any of my arguments, and you are discussing the issue with me not with "other people" so please stick with the issues I bring up instead of (perhaps inadvertently) creating strawmen.

No real sex, no real marriage, no real marriage rights. Simple. Oh and before you start bein like well straight people sometimes don't have sex normally etc. etc. etc. we are talking about the societal institutions not individuals.

JRKmommy said...

Why do you care so much about this issue?

I don't get it. On one hand, you say "gotta do what makes you happy", and you couldn't stand religious rules interfering with your personal life. On the other hand, you harp on this issue, analyzing what consenting couples do in the bedroom.

SJ said...

>> Why do you care so much about this issue?

The state gives marriage licenses so gay marriage is a societal issue.



>> analyzing what consenting couples do in the bedroom.

What people do in the bedroom is not the problem. If gays wanna go at it up the ass and if lesbians wanna feel each other up, that's not where the problem is.

Sarra said...

Fr. Merriam Webster's Medical Dictionary:

sexual intercourse
Function: n
1 : heterosexual intercourse involving penetration of the vagina by the penis : COITUS
2 : intercourse (as anal or oral intercourse) that does not involve penetration of the vagina by the penis

love   
[luhv] Show IPA
noun, verb, loved, lov·ing.
–noun
1.
a profoundly tender, passionate affection for another person.
2.
a feeling of warm personal attachment or deep affection, as for a parent, child, or friend.
3.
sexual passion or desire.


QED.

SJ said...

That's cute Sarra.

I as a conservative only go by definition one

1 : heterosexual intercourse involving penetration of the vagina by the penis.

The other kinds of "sex" is just not real sex.

Anonymous said...

heterosexual sexual attraction is a reproductive function, although it can be expressed in other ways.

homosexual is by definition not. That's the difference.

What does this have to do gay marriage? Well, the main reason the government should have a stake in marriage at all is to track paternity. Otherwise the status of peoples sexual relationships is none of the governments business. But since tracking paternity is the governments business, the government should facilitate and privilege marriage as the preferred heterosexual relationship in order that as many folks as possible will be born with their dads in the picture.
None of that is applicable to gay marriage and therefore the status of gay sexual relationships are none of the governments and the rest of societys business.

SJ said...

The government does have a role in enacting policies to make sure that kids have a mother AND a father.

JRKmommy said...

SJ - I thought that was the Bill Clinton definition, not the conservative one.

Anonymous and SJ: Paternity is another issue altogether.

The US has no laws against premarital sex, and in most cases there are no longer any real legal consequences to adultery either (other than divorce).

Governments have a role in determining who goes on the birth certificate, how child support is collected, how custody is determined and how access arrangements are enforced - but these are all separate issues from gay marriage.

Civil marriage is essentially a legal framework, in which both parties become subject to a bundle of legal rights and obligations. That's it. Except for a couple of areas like immigration, it doesn't really confer huge government benefits, and in some cases it actually reduces benefits.

So, what's the purpose of this legal framework? Primarily, it recognizes that couples stop acting like completely separate economic units. They tend to support one another, which is beneficial for society (just look at the number of elderly or disabled who receive care and support from their spouses). It is also true that this model of economic cooperation within a family becomes even more important when kids come along.

It may be appropriate to ask whether a legal framework which was clearly designed for heterosexual couples is really appropriate for most same-sex couples. I think, however, that this is a discussion for the same-sex couples themselves, possibly in conjunction with a good family lawyer. I could picture some saying, all romance aside, that they would prefer that their partner not have a claim to spousal support or their home or half of their assets if they ever break up.

What I don't see is how someone else's same-sex marriage in any way threatens my opposite-sex marriage. I mean, if my husband had said, "great, I can marry a guy now, I'm outta here", it wouldn't have been much of a marriage in the first place.

SJ said...

>> I think, however, that this is a discussion for the same-sex couples themselves, possibly in conjunction with a good family lawyer

Since it's asocietal issue I don't see why heterosexual couples can't say it's not appropriate.

JRKmommy said...

It may not be appropriate for the couple, on a personal and practical level, if they picture themselves sharing romantic lives but maintaining financial independence.

The issue of whether it would be appropriate for society is different. I'd like to see that answered with some solid logic, instead of the hodgepodge mix of religious arguments, distaste, baseless fear-mongering or simply irrelevant arguments that I've seen presented. I agree that society is entitled to decide make laws around family issues, if there is a clear, empirical basis to do so. I just haven't seen arguments that clearly make the case that allowing same-sex marriage actually harms society. It's been legal where I live for several years, and if it had such a major impact, I would have expected (as a family lawyer) to see it by now.

SJ said...

>>It may not be appropriate for the couple, on a personal and practical level, if

Since giving marriage licenses is a function of government it's perfectly appropriate for everyone to have an opinion on it.

>> of the hodgepodge mix of religious arguments, distaste, baseless fear-mongering or simply irrelevant arguments that I've seen presented

I have not made any religious arguments. I have not made argument from distaste. I have not made fear mongering arguments. I see my arguments as very relevant to the matter at hand.


>> I just haven't seen arguments that clearly make the case that allowing same-sex marriage actually harms society

anal sex spreads AIDS and gay couples are trying to take away a mother & father experience from kids.

SJ said...

Also in Cambridge, MA straight people are being discriminated against in pay checks.

JRKmommy said...

AIDS can spread regardless of whether the couple is married. If anything, having a higher number of partners and/or anonymous sex instead of a monogamous committed relationship increases risk. I can see a potential societal interest in promoting committed monogamous relationships over bathhouse sex.

Re parenting: I actually agree that there is a benefit to kids of having parents of both genders, to serve as role models. [This is an issue for single parents too, obviously.]

The studies that I've seen, though, seem to suggest that this is largely offset by the fact that same-sex couples need to plan their children, while around 50% of babies born as a result of heterosexual sex are unplanned.

How exactly is Cambridge discriminating against straights?

SJ said...

>> AIDS can spread regardless of whether the couple is married

True but the ass isn't just not a receptacle for the penis the ass is the opposite of a recepticle for the penis.

>> Re parenting: I actually agree that there is a benefit to kids of having parents of both genders, to serve as role models


Thank you.

>> How exactly is Cambridge discriminating against straights?

By paying gays more $$$ just for being gay.

For the record I deleted a comment by someone using the nickname Sir Copperhead who didn't add anything to the conversation. I
have no need to say twice in one thread that there are no religious-based arguments here.

Friar Yid said...

SJ- I have trouble looking at homosexual relationships as MARRIAGE because they can't even have sex normally.

Which is both none of your business and immaterial to whether or not someone's marriage should count as legitimate. The idea that society or government should be able to determine a real marriage from a fake one based on what the couple does in the bedroom is absurd.

And for the record, you can't claim "they have the wrong kind of sex" as a reason SSM isn't "real" marriage and then turn around and say "What people do in the bedroom is not the problem."

"It weirds/creeps/grosses us out."

Friar reread, I did not say that in any of my arguments, and you are discussing the issue with me not with "other people" so please stick with the issues I bring up instead of (perhaps inadvertently) creating strawmen.


The only argument you made here is "it's not normal," which I can't interpret as anything other than "I think this is weird" or that it personally makes you uncomfortable. There are plenty of things people do in the world that I find weird, from levirate marriage to voreaphilia to the Freemasons to Chess Club. The fact that I experience dissonance from people that enjoy these activities doesn't mean they're illegitimate.

If I'm missing something I'm happy to be corrected.

No real sex, no real marriage, no real marriage rights. Simple.

Ridiculous. A marriage is not defined by what kind of sex its participants engage in. And by this logic a married couple that practices celibacy or takes years to consumate (child marriages, long-distance marriages, marriages involving sexual disfunction such as vaginismus) would not be "real" marriages and no one would be entitled to any marriage rights.

Friar Yid said...

SJ- gay couples are trying to take away a mother & father experience from kids

More doomsday rhetoric. Gay people are not trying to "take away" a mother & father experience from children. There are a lot of permutations of how GLBT people start & raise families, and the idea that their goal from the start is to deprive their kids suggests a lack of contact with real life gay folks. I would imagine the real motivation is wanting a family, wanting to be parents, and of course, wanting their kids to be happy.

Living in an area with a large GLBT population I can assure you that there are a lot of kinds of gay families-- in several cases I've even seen kids with two mommies and two daddies who move back and forth every week or two. Is this MY ideal? No. But the fact that it's different doesn't mean it can't work well, OR that the government has the right to prevent GLBT people from living their lives and having families.

The government doesn't prevent drug or alcohol abusers from getting married or having kids. The government doesn't demand single moms & dads, divorcees, or widows & widowers get married within a certain time frame or it'll take their kids away. It doesn't say that parents who travel or work abroad for large parts of the year (military?) have ceded their right to be parents. I see GLBT marriages and families as part of this category-- different from the traditional hetero, 2-parent dynamic, but not an entirely separate deviant category that has no legitimacy within the spectrum.

SJ said...

>> Gay people are not trying to "take away" a mother & father experience from children.

That's EXACTLY what they are doing in virtue of being a gay couple.

The government needs to strengthen and promote the heterosexual family. GLBT is NOT the answer.

JRKmommy said...

What else would you suggest government do to strengthen and promote families?

Sir Copperhead said...

@ JRKmommy:

SGay is probably going to delete this comment, but I would like to try and answer your question on his behalf. I am not entirely sure, but I think that SJ believes that not only should opposite-sex couples be the only ones allowed to marry, but SJ has supported forcing homosexuals and lesbians into heterosexual relationships. I.e., marry homosexuals to lesbians. He thinks that marrying gay men to gay women will solve the problem. I'm not making this shit up!

IF SJ ever marries, which will probably never happen (hopefully!), on account of his own sexual frustration and repression, but if he does, I would pity his wife. It would not take long for Mr. SJ to wind up toe-tapping in an airport restroom.

SJ said...

Copperhead, you're not Stephen Colbert.