Gay Marriage

[LemmingofGlory]

The union and social fusing, or the older version of the accumulation of feminine/male chattel, "two flesh become one" (and use some KY, fella, yer lover had a jalapeno vindaloo curry chicken dinner last night) of two same genders folks is a rite that does not have a few thousand years of habit and almost universal currency around the globe, so it must have A different name.

Your joking parenthetical seems to indicate some bias. It's not as if heterosexual couples don't engage in anal sex, though it's not as common in US culture as in some others.

A codification that earns the kind of universal norming that marriage now has may well evolve over time for the lesbians and fairiescumrump rangers (cynical terms used deliberately: I am tired of the hijacking of the word "gay" by the homosexual community, damnit).

More bias. You reject using "gay" to refer to homosexuals because, historically, the word didn't come to mean that until relatively recently. So what do you choose instead? Slurs. Say what you want about it being cynicism, but that's the same language I heard just last night on public Bnet. And this is right after you wagged your finger at unrealshadow13 for not bringing himself up to the Lurker Standard.

Bottom line: You could have used "male homosexuals" or "androphiles" instead. Or used "homosexuals" to refer to both male and female homosexuals.

Let's talk just a bit about Pederasty in the Modern World, shall we? That's what is at the bottom of this.

Why? So you can argue against same-sex marriage by illustrating decadance in non-courting relationships? That's what you did, but that's not what we're talking about. The more appropriate terms here are elegantarian androphilia (mutual attraction of adult males) and elegantarian lesbianism.

Men who have sex with young boys are not androphiles. They're pedophiles. We're not considering marrying young children of EITHER sex to adult males, so let's leave that out of the discussion.

Men who have sex with men are not necessarily homosexual. If it's not too much of a stretch to say men who do not identify as homosexual will probably not marry another man, we can leave that out of the discussion as well.

So, let's call a fag a fag, and not a cigarette.

More slurs. You attempt to justify the use of the slur by preceding it with references to same-sex sexual activity and pedophilia. Just what is your implication here, Occhi? That this is the standard pattern of behavior for homosexual men? Do the "buggerers" in Afghanistan identify as homosexual, i.e. did they identify as being (almost) exclusively interested in romantic and sexual relationships with other males? Did you even look into that? If you didn't, then at best you've demonstrated the animalistic tendencies of the male sex drive. You have failed to establish the buggerers as homosexual.

Can society craft suitable codification for a legally sanctioned arrangement for two homosexuals, be they man or woman, so that they can go, in circumstances where such a will evolves, beyond the merely carnal and into the spiritual . . . with complete social sanction?

"Into the spiritual" is bogus. As another poster pointed out, atheists can marry. We're talking purely legal here.

Here's your bias, Occhi: All of your references to homosexuals seem to indicate you think it's just about sex, especially the hedonism remark. "Beyond the merely carnal..." Are you quoting something or do you really think that's what we're talking about? Before you were married, your wife didn't just mean sex to you, does she? You didn't need some marriage certificate to qualify your relationship with your wife as "more than sex." Neither is she just the mother of your children to you, is she? She's more than that. That's what we're talking about here. We're talking about same-sex people experiencing the very things opposite-sex people experience. But you seem to feel better categorizing it as about sex, sex, and only sex.

In any case, in this discussion let's stop, please, confusing the difference a lifestyle, one based on how one get's ones carnal pleasure, and on the combination of spiritual and legal bonds that have the full APPROVAL of society.

Fallacious. If homosexuality is based only around how one gets carnal pleasure, then so is heterosexuality.

-Lemmy