Conservatives and Homosexuality

Post Reply New Topic

In California during the Proposition 8 campaign, some people on the gay rights side were using donor lists to target businesses for boycott, and were forming websites to list the names of everyone who'd originally signed the petitions to place Prop 8 on the ballot in the first place. There was also a lot of angry rhetoric being tossed around about anyone who voted for the proposition, and this combined to make our former member feel he was being coerced by the anti-8 crowd, and compelled a pro-8 vote from him out of contrariness.

Unless you are Catholic.

If you are, then you must remember that every sperm is sacred.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUspLVStPbk&feature=related[/youtube]

And I don't really blame them (the anti-prop 8 side, not the former member); I probably would have boycotted any business that supported Prop 8 too. And it's not like the pro-Prop 8 side weren't playing dirty either; given all the scare tactics they used to coerce people into voting in favor of Prop 8; not to mention an assload of their funds coming from the Mormon Church.

All I have to say is wow, I really feel like I am in the Twilight Zone - so far it seems I'm the ONLY person who's parsed the issues or tried at hand at some form of objectivity with the bigger picture. NT's don't even walk in lockstep and group-think this bad. Free thinkers my arse.

Rofl, nm, sorry about the last post. I just realized that everyone's staying perfectly on track in agreement - its not about sorting through bigotry and bad guesses vs. actual motives but actually people saying, for some reason going three quarters of the way but not completing the thought - that the religious simply don't belong here (ie. procreating), should not have any right to hold a social institution of their own, and that its not an issue about what's right or fair for both sides but rather 'theism needs to go extinct'. No wonder my suggestions made absolutely no sense.

I don't think the posts on this thread along the lines of "homophobia is totally gay" or "anti-gay Republicans are all just closeted gays" were meant entirely in earnest.

As far as your other post that assumes there is a shared mentality that "theism needs to go extinct," you may want to consider that several theists, myself included, have posted in favor of gay rights here.

I think the most important part of what I said - cutting to the chase - is that the real answer to the gay marriage issue would be a new and equal institution, made for and by the gay community. It would serve a function in a specialized way, as does marriage. In either case it needs this much specialization, otherwise it stops serving any involved.

What I don't understand is how people keep beating their heads into the prop 8 issue and beating their heads into conservatism. It frankly shouldn't surprise me on a boards where people seem quite serious with the notion that to disagree with Obama's health care plan would indicate that its simply because he's black - to state that is to say one of two things, that its a miracle that the person can type on their own let alone string speech together or, much more likely though I'll admit either is possible - that the person saying it is so thoroughly convinced in the health care plan that racism is the only plausible explanation that they can think of, which is still divergent enough from the realities of thought on the other side of the argument that its truly dogma vs. dogma with a big artificial line in the sand (ie. sharing of absolutely no reality aside from the sky trees, and dirt, its a huge false conflict based on deliberate and entrenched misunderstandings; it completely f's the world up when people throw human-to-human objectivity to the wind or fabricate motives for the other side that aren't there).

I don't think anyone in this thread has a problem with gay equality, just that I see many different possibilities and most being ignored or sidelined in preference of breaking open an older institution. I don't know what about the frailty of human interaction, human systems, or how difficult they are to change or build, that people are missing. Yes, it would be difficult for the gay community to collaborate, get together, and get the type of consensus wanted but I don't think that dragging a priest up to a an altar to bless them or get married in court is the core of what they'd want - in theory perhaps, in practice it makes no sense.

this idea that anal sex is "icky" is infuriating.

ok so they say that having anal sex is like "f*****g poo" (quote from an idiot friend).
NO

poo is not stored in the anus, after a bowel movement there may be fecal matter left in there afterwards but as with all sex you clean out the orifice before begginning.(you do clean vaginas its just more frequent because of the various utis and such that can occur so its not really seen as cleaning out for sex.)

saying anal sex is like f*****g poo is the equivalent of saying f*****g vaginas is like f*****g blood...there is blood there frequently and some may linger.
are you a hemophiliac? no.

both orifices (anal and vaginal) are not primarily used for sexual pleasure (in an evoloutionary viewpoint) vaginal is shaped for rthe baby coming down , anal is for the feces coming down. sexual pleasure is something that we evolved to have , sexual pleasure is the secondary use of these orifices , yet, as we know, just because its secondary in an evoloutionary sense doesnt mean its secondary in a personal sense. majority of people have sex for pleasure.

and the whole thing of gays are sodomites and thus are going to hell.
Firstly: that is one interpretation of that (another is that they were sleeping outside marriage in an orgy)
Secondly: im pretty sure well over 90% of people (married or unmarried-adults im talking about) have had oral sex. oral sex=sodomy.
should we remove their rights to marriage? they broke the same rule that deny homosexuals the right to marry.

then you have to explain then whole history of how marriage wasnt invented by religion anyway.

sigh-i dont talk a lot but i felt i had to get this off my chest.

There is not a chance in hell that such an institution would stand up against the precedent of Brown v Board.

If anyone ever tried it on me I would be infuriated.

ruveyn

They all say that. I'll bet you'd be thrilled.

i am not against homosexuals. they are living people just like any other people.
i can not understand how they can be attracted to their own sex.
to push my "thing" into an anus is an extremely abhorrent idea in my mind.
i do not think it is morally wrong because i have no morals.
i do not think less of a person if they do it because it is just an activity that they like to do.

but in my own case, i am repulsed by excreta, and to push any part of my body into the chute that excreta is ejected from is unthinkable.

if a person likes to bang their phallus with a hammer, then it does not affect the workings of the world in any way but subjectively for them. i would not like to do that as much as i would not like to explore the excremental pipe of a person with my "thing", but that does not mean that anyone who does is a lesser being than i am.

whatever i am severely degraded tonight and i an not able to ascertain what is acceptable to say so i will post no more.

There are lots of activities that other people find sexually stimulating and do not affect me at all. As long as there is mutual consent I see no reason why my preferences should be considered.

Conservatives like the idea of a nanny state coming into your bedroom to tell you what is and is not acceptable.

Anal and oral are definitely out. As are hand jobs.

And, no tongue kissing.

i am sorry i should be asleep but i do not see any point in what you posted and if you reply i willnot see it for many hours because i am bedraggled with fatigue.

Not I. The yuccchhh factor works with me. I detest male homosexual behavior. But I am not about to interfere with it when other folks do it. That is their business, not mine. I will cavort only with females of the species.

ruveyn