Important Stuff: White House congratulates athlete for having gay sex

Follow me VERY closely here:

Here is an example of one right: the right to decide medical decisions for the other spouse when the spouse is unable to make decisions on their behalf.

Please tell me how the (*)(*)(*)(*) does that apply to single people and how the (*)(*)(*)(*) that is not a right.

You clearly have no clue what rights are on the line or that come with marriage. NONE!

 

again I state, you have no clue what a "right" is and also, this is not a boresome gay marriage thread. There's a bazillion of them in the subsection

 

Nice dodge...you cant answer.

For the record, Sec refuses to answer (in bold):

 

http://www.politicalforum.com/gay-lesbian-rights/

13 of the 28 threads on the first page are gay marriage. Isn't that enough for you? Must you try and pollute every thread with the nonsense?

 

WTF does this have to do with your inability to answer 2 simple questions?

 

that is where there are plenty of gay marriage threads to discuss the nonsense vs trying to derail this thread. I'm not "dodging you", I'm pointing you to where there are lots of threads on the same topic over and over and over and not participating in your derailment attempts

 

Its a big deal because nobody has ever openly been gay in the NBA before, and coming out as gay in the world of sports is a very difficult thing to do given its culture and the attitudes surrounding it.

 

The Democrat party is filled with Homosexuals, including those in the white house cabinet.

I don't see why these congratulations are a problem.

 

and to some, all of the women banged by Wilt Chamberlain was a big deal as well.

 

Dodge #3 noted

 

So you link to a subset of a subset of topics about gay/lesbian rights as YOUR example?? What did you expect that they would be talking about? Get real.

 

Where did you find this nugget from McCarthy?

- - - Updated - - -

Collins was the FIRST - that is news. Wilt just followed a long line of athletes.

 

nope

merely providing a public service because the poster must be unaware that there is a subsection in this forum where he can discuss that topic all day long. In fact, that section is basically a group hug of the same handful of posters discussing the same topic. If you dare introduce an opposing opinion you are quickly insulted as the section is unmoderated.

 

"if you are in fact a homosexual male, it goes without saying that your jimmy gets inserted into other males or that you accept deliveries"

And that right there is the sum total of many people's (mis)understanding of homosexuality.

1) It's not all about sex. It's about attraction, falling in love, building a life together, etc.

2) It may come as a surprise to some, but gay men don't all engage in insertive/receptive sexual practices.

So "inserting your jimmy into someone, or having it inserted into you" is not the definition of gay sex, much less homosexuality more generally. As usual, the lesbians and bisexuals are ignored.

 

lesbians aren't ignored. In fact, it's a fantasy of most red blooded men to convert lesbians back to straight (at least the hot ones)

 

They were indeed ignored, because they didn't fit the agenda, which was to evoke disgust by painting a picture of men engaging in a particular sex act, as a means of demonizing gay men and inspiring hate toward them. That is very plainly your goal, protests to the contrary notwithstanding.

Back to ignoring your BS.

 

more histrionics? I don't understand.

Here is what amazes me. In this forum the majority of people don't care who or how you diddle as long as it's with consenting adults.

Most of us also agree that there is no difference between a straight chef and a gay chef. If the food is tasty, then we want to eat it.

Most of us agree that when stuck, gays and straights bleed red blood.

But, despite all of that, many here are targeted with vile and disgusting insults by the heterophobes and gay agenda people. The reason being is because we support LESS GOVERNMENT vs wanting government to make new rules based solely on who shares your bed with you.

So, because we want less government we are accused of being things which we are not.

And what is worse, all of those insults heaped upon us are overlooked by the moderators

 

We get it. You know that, if you say that gays should not marry, we can call you a homophobic person. So you claim that you have been fighting all along against government being involved in marriages. Didn't complain when heterosexuals got marriage licenses from the state. Didn't complain when married couples were getting tax breaks and tax benefits. Nope, only when gays started marrying, did you start complaining about the government involvement.

I got a bridge to sale you.

 

When I was single I used to say, "I can talk to anyone. I can eat alone. however there are some things I can only do with a cooperative woman.
I think if you polled straight men, a large majority would say they would prefer to do almost anything with their best male friend than with their wife-except have sex.
Can any gay males say they prefer talking to, eating with, fishing with and playing cards with their favorite female than their male partner?

 

I have no doubt there are some that can (though I'm not one of them). What's your point, exactly?

 

The ancient Greeks were notorious for having male sex, but most of them still married women and reproduced with them. Why didn't they marry their favorite males?
Obviously the answer is that these Greeks were still men in every social aspect of the word. They developed architecture, artwork, furniture, and fought wars while philosophizing and advancing western civilization in every way. Their women did domestic things and raised the kids. They understood their roles and consideed marriage a supplemental situation so all aspects of life could be lived to the fullest. A man who has to do his own laundry, cook his own meals, iron his own clothes and clean his own house doesn't have time to cure cancer or invent a better mousetrap.
A child with a female parent well-versed in traditional female activities and a male parent acquainted with the traditional male activities can learn enough from both to be self-sufficient, but would prefer one set of activities over the other because no one has time to excel in both. When a child is raised with only half of those skills being learned he will end up dependent on someone else for the other half or do them poorly. Early marriage to a person who excels in the other half is essential. Early marriage to someone who excels in the same half makes for a sloppy life.
When a man who likes hunting, fishing, sports, politics and home improvement marries a woman who likes none of those things but knows, cooking, nutrition, exercise, interior design and color coordination all domestic and recreational needs are adequately met for themselves and their children, but when they have to talk to each other their only common ground is the few things in common they talked about before marriage.
To supplement this they have friends, usually of the same gender and with common interests. Over the course of the year, they might spend more total waking hours with their best friend than with their spouse, but they'd rather be married to their spouse because the sex is satisfactory and not having to trouble themselves about areas of life in which they have minimal interest compensates for a lot of misfortune.
Would marrying your best friend be an improvement over marrying your lover?

 

For me, it's the same thing. Which makes me very fortunate, I suppose. The division of labor in a household doesn't have to be along the gender lines you describe. Some people find those kinds of rigid gender roles too confining. They can lead to unrealistic expectations, too. Just because a household is headed by two men or two women doesn't mean the two partners have no diversity of skills between them.

I don't spend more time with friends than my husband because I have a largely anti-social personality. He and I do have a lot in common, but we also bring different skill sets and preferences to the table when it comes to household labor.

People need to get past this notion that just because such an arrangement would never be suitable for them, that it can't be suitable for others. We aren't carbon copies or clones. Different strokes for different folks.

 

Thank you for responding. I wasn't finished with the Greeks.
They developed four words for love:
Agape, religious love, that allows spiritual people to love all humans and nature,
Filia, love for people of mutual interests or mutual good character,
Pathos, love for the suffering, as in sympathy and empathy, and
Eros, physical love based on attraction.
Obviously the last one should be reserved for only a percentage of those in your preferred gender. The other three can be developed within hours on an internet forum. that one however is the one we marry for. Could you not consider marrying for the other three, and couldn't that include your parent, child or sibling?
A man is gay when he feels eros for Brad Pitt instead of Angelina Jolie, but is eros alone a good reason to change your walk, voice and favorite colors?
The other characteristics associated with homosexuality can not be ignored. Something is happening in the brain. Until 1973 that was labeled insane. What changed then besides public opinion?
I never developed a close male friendship because of homosexuals. I got suspicious about the two men who tried hardest to get close and chased them away. Since marriage all male friendships have been within couples friendships.

 

When people acknowledged the earth was a sphere and not flat, nothing changed but public opinion--the earth was never flat. People were simply wrong. And prior to 1973, people were wrong about homosexuality. You are right. Only public opinion changed...but it was wrong to begin with.

 

simply a good marketing campaign

the best thing that can happen for homosexuals is apathy. The more people who could care less with whom you share your bed the better.

We have no business involving ourselves with what 2 consenting adults do in their bedroom. It's not who they are. Having sex with women does not make a better person than a guy who sleeps with other guys and vice versa.