Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So conservatives are sexually repressed in your view because they don't engage in gay sex or sex with animals and children? Or do you think that there are no gay conservatives? Is that what you actually think? And you are the enlightened one? lol
So conservatives are sexually repressed in your view because they don't engage in gay sex or sex with animals and children? Or do you think that there are no gay conservatives? Is that what you actually think? And you are the enlightened one? lol
You're sexually repressed because you do not recognize adult, consensual sexual relations for what they are, and instead view anything that deviates from heterosexual, married, missionary-in-the-dark-through-a-hole-in-the-sheet sex as a slippery slope to the most bizarre combinations and perversities that would make Caligula blush.
People with mature takes on sexuality do not concern themselves with gay sex acts. This is a well known phenomena. Those comfortable with their own sexuality in particular, and sexuality in general, are less likely to harbor ill thoughts or "problems" with homosexuality.
Gay social conservatives who think like you are confused and self-loathing. Which is part of the reason they are social conservatives in the first place. But I digress.
But plurality, or insest relationships aren't such a slippery slope. Can't descriminate against two people in love who just so happen to be related, or feel like they need more than one wife or husband.
Actually it is a slippery slope. You are saying that if gays get married then next up is polygamy or incest.
I dare you to debate SSM without slippery slope arguments.
A logical person looks at SSM and says "what bad could this cause?" Then they look at Polygamy and ask the same question, and incestual relationships and ask the same question.
If nothing bad is likely to come from it, you know other than making some people uncomfortable, then there really isn't an issue.
SSM: no real issue.
Polygamy: Not really sure that there would be an issue there.
Incest: could result in damaged offspring. Probably not a good idea.
In the meantime, the point still remains that Polygamy & Incest & SSM are totally different issues, thus have no baring on one another.
Obviously I was smart to keep it to one sentence although you still don't seem to understand I was following up on the OP's linked comment. Maybe I should stick to one word and you folks can figure it out? Na.
Now you know everything about me? LOL All I said is watch some loon will try and marry a goat soon and liberals will cheer. My prediction will be correct. The rest of your mad rantings are that of a complete and utter lunatic.
I know more than I care to.
Half of you are unoriginal caricatures to begin with, so.....
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.