It seems that so many posts in a few threads now keep repeating how disgusting the thought of gay sex is. It makes me wonder how often these people's minds are fixed on the images of men having sex with other men.

Anyway, these are the very people, who should be in favor of civil marriages for gays. Nothing kills the sex drive like a marriage certificate, so if you allow them to marry, your imaginaation may rid itself of gay fantasies, and focus on a bickering old couple.

Why even talk about the gay sex act when the issue is what people are calling gay marriages. Except to confuse or to make fun of people.
They aren't trying to pass laws to allow gay sex acts.

Now I noticed you used the term Civil Marriage in your post which is what it should be called.
People should stop making up a new sectors and just stop putting the spotlight on the Gay part.

Two people want to get together and live their lives together, so be it. Live and let live. Last I looked , no one was hunting down Gay people and hanging them in the streets....well not here in America anyway.

I will tell you one thing. Ivy is more of a man they many who post their hate around here.

When I refer to civil marriage, I include hetero as well as homosexual marriage. I used the term civil merely to differentiate a religious marriage from a state sanctioned marriage, two entirely different entities.

The definition of "normal" is what it is. It's just not me who says it. Nobody can honestly argue homosexuality is normal.

I doubt you have the slightest idea of what does or doesn't make a good or bad Christian.

While you may admire the fact that Ivy sticks by his beliefs, you have a very odd idea of what makes a man. A real man isn't disgusted by his fellow human beings, like Ivy is by homosexuals and transgenders. A real man doesn't think that women are should be submissive to their men. A real man doesn't lack compassion for their fellow human beings. And neither does a true Christian, one who believes in the teachings of Jesus Christ - that we are all children of God and that we must love our fellow man. Jesus didn't say we get to pick and choose which of His creations we get to love.

Take a step back and get off your soapbox. Your holier then thou attitude and "you have a very odd idea of what makes a man" is in poor taste. You don't need to come down on me like that.

He has his ideas and you have yours,
You just don't get the fact that he IS allowed to have his.

Last I looked God still allows this to happen

Well, I've never really given much thought to gay sex. But let's be honest, I think most men, if asked to picture it in their heads, would say that the idea kinda puts them off their lunch. But that doesn't mean that they're necessarily hateful or unaccepting of gays. And if you're truly objective, and not just paying lip service to some politically correct ideal, just flip it around. Go ask a gay man what he thinks when he pictures sex with a woman. You'll get the same response most of the time.

Now I worked in funeral service for 25 years. In Manhattan there are A LOT of gay men in that industry, and I got along well enough with most of them because there's the same percentage of assholes among gay men as among straight men. But you had to hear these guys talk about women. Their favorite expression was "cow." I've heard more than one gay man compare sex with an older woman to having sex with a cow (the younger ones didn't bother them as much for some reason ).

I'm just saying, it works both ways and we're being way too PC here. I accept gay people. But I don't want to picture two gay men doing it any more than a gay man wants to picture himself having sex with a "cow."

Well, I've never really given much thought to gay sex. But let's be honest, I think most men, if asked to picture it in their heads, would say that the idea kinda puts them off their lunch. But that doesn't mean that they're necessarily hateful or unaccepting of gays. And if you're truly objective, and not just paying lip service to some politically correct ideal, just flip it around. Go ask a gay man what he thinks when he pictures sex with a woman. You'll get the same response most of the time.

Now I worked in funeral service for 25 years. In Manhattan there are A LOT of gay men in that industry, and I got along well enough with most of them because there's the same percentage of assholes among gay men as among straight men. But you had to hear these guys talk about women. Their favorite expression was "cow." I've heard more than one gay man compare sex with an older woman to having sex with a cow (the younger ones didn't bother them as much for some reason ).

I'm just saying, it works both ways and we're being way too PC here. I accept gay people. But I don't want to picture two gay men doing it any more than a gay man wants to picture himself having sex with a "cow."

Last I looked God still allows this to happen

While you may admire the fact that Ivy sticks by his beliefs, you have a very odd idea of what makes a man. A real man isn't disgusted by his fellow human beings, like Ivy is by homosexuals and transgenders.

A real man doesn't think that women are should be submissive to their men.

A real man doesn't lack compassion for their fellow human beings.

And neither does a true Christian, one who believes in the teachings of Jesus Christ - that we are all children of God and that we must love our fellow man. Jesus didn't say we get to pick and choose which of His creations we get to love.

That's like saying you being disgusted by rapists and child molesters don't make you a "real woman."

Take a step back and get off your soapbox. Your holier then thou attitude and "you have a very odd idea of what makes a man" is in poor taste. You don't need to come down on me like that.

He has his ideas and you have yours,
You just don't get the fact that he IS allowed to have his.

Last I looked God still allows this to happen

It's nothing like that actually. Rape and child molestation are bad by definition, whereas being gay is not (except for in the eyes of God, which is irrelevant to the point.) You can't compare one to the other, because the former involves performing sexual acts on someone who either doesn't have the ability to consent, or has the ability, but didn't give it. I don't know how many times this has to be pointed out to you, but I know it is the last time I'm explaining it.

So, the question is whether redefining in the most radical way ever conceived -- indeed completely changing its intended meaning -- is good for society.

It isn't.

The major reason is this: Gender increasingly no longer matters. There is a fierce battle taking place to render meaningless the man-woman distinction, the most important distinction regarding human beings' personal identity. Nothing would accomplish this as much as same-sex marriage.

The whole premise of same-sex marriage is that gender is insignificant: It doesn't matter whether you marry a man or a woman. Love, not gender, matters.

Some examples of this war on gender:

--This year Harvard University appointed its first permanent director of bisexual, gay, lesbian, transgender, and queer student life. The individual, Vanidy Bailey, has asked that he/she never be referred to as he or she, male or female. Harvard has agreed.

--In 2010 eHarmony, for years the country's largest online dating service, was sued for only matching men and women. Its lack of same-sex matchmaking meant that it violated anti-discrimination laws in some states. As a result, eHarmony was forced to begin a same-sex online service.

--Each year more and more American high schools elect girls as homecoming kings and boys as homecoming queens. Students have been taught to regard restricting kings to males or queens to females as (gender-based) discrimination.

--When you sign up for the new social networking site, Google Plus, you are asked to identify your gender. Three choices are offered: Male, Female, Other.

--Catholic Charities, which operates the oldest ongoing adoption services in America, has had to end its adoption work in Illinois, Massachusetts and Washington, DC because the governments there regard placing children with married man-woman couples before same-sex couples as discriminatory.

Increasingly, even the mother-father ideal is being shattered in this battle to render male-female distinction insignificant.

--The socialist French government has just announced that in the future no government issued document will be allowed to use the words "mother" or "father." Only the gender-neutral term "parent" will be acceptable in France.

--And in Rhode Island this year, one school district cancelled its father-daughter dance after the ACLU threatened to sue the district for gender discrimination. Only parent-child events, not father-daughter dances or mother-son ballgames, will be allowed.

And all this is happening before same-sex marriage is allowed. Imagine what will happen should same-sex marriage become the law of the land.

http://townhall.com/columnists/dennispra...riage/page/full

What constituted "poor taste"? You said he was more man, and I disputed that statement. How is that in "poor taste"? And how am I on a soapbox if I respond to something YOU wrote??

I certainly think people can disagree. It's what makes the world go around. What does bother me is that when people feel that anyone who disagrees with them is flat out wrong, yet I'm the one who doesn't respect the opinions of others? Really?

Since certain members think I must be Satan's bride, calling me "holier than thou" is ironic, no?

--This year Harvard University appointed its first permanent director of bisexual, gay, lesbian, transgender, and queer student life. The individual, Vanidy Bailey, has asked that he/she never be referred to as he or she, male or female. Harvard has agreed.

--In 2010 eHarmony, for years the country's largest online dating service, was sued for only matching men and women. Its lack of same-sex matchmaking meant that it violated anti-discrimination laws in some states. As a result, eHarmony was forced to begin a same-sex online service.

--Each year more and more American high schools elect girls as homecoming kings and boys as homecoming queens. Students have been taught to regard restricting kings to males or queens to females as (gender-based) discrimination.

--When you sign up for the new social networking site, Google Plus, you are asked to identify your gender. Three choices are offered: Male, Female, Other.

--Catholic Charities, which operates the oldest ongoing adoption services in America, has had to end its adoption work in Illinois, Massachusetts and Washington, DC because the governments there regard placing children with married man-woman couples before same-sex couples as discriminatory.

Increasingly, even the mother-father ideal is being shattered in this battle to render male-female distinction insignificant.

--The socialist French government has just announced that in the future no government issued document will be allowed to use the words "mother" or "father." Only the gender-neutral term "parent" will be acceptable in France.

--And in Rhode Island this year, one school district cancelled its father-daughter dance after the ACLU threatened to sue the district for gender discrimination. Only parent-child events, not father-daughter dances or mother-son ballgames, will be allowed.

And all this is happening before same-sex marriage is allowed. Imagine what will happen should same-sex marriage become the law of the land.

http://townhall.com/columnists/dennispra...riage/page/full

Something else? Like what? Why don't you move to Iran. They hate homos there.

Are you living in 2 dimensions? So I either become a homosexual zealot or move to Iran? No middle-ground?

No,the middle ground is to stop being the homophobic zealot you are, and mind your own business.

You don't know me, I barely posted in this thread, and I am a zealot? With such an attitude you will only create more homophobes (I am not one.... yet).

It's sick, and an example of how easy it is to brainwash mass amounts of people into supporting, even fighting for, a totally abnormal behavior.

I don't know you, but I know you posted an illogical dichotomy that reveals your point of view.

Excerpt from a Dennis Prager article where he hits the nail on the head yet again. He gives several examples of the kind of crap that comes with the pro-gay marriage stance many advocate here.

My point of view is that allowing gay marriage and giving homosexuals the same rights as heterosexuals should theoretically be perfectly enough for people if they REALLY are ONLY about equality. But I personally don't want the notion of gender be cancelled in my family, and many people think like me. Distinguishing between a mother and a father is NOT discrimination. Not every difference involves discrimination. If you want to force YOUR ideals in the families of OTHER people, what's the difference between a religious bigot and you?

I mean, what horrified me in this article isn't something about homosexuals, but that they seem to want the genders to DISAPPEAR, not just to enjoy the same rights.

Please define "abnormal behavior"