--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" <shempmcg...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" <shempmcgurk@> wrote: > > <snip> > > > I'm not saying I'm for or against gay marriage; what > > > I'm saying is if you hold it to be equal to > > > heterosexual marriage then you should treat gay porn > > > just as you would hetero porn...and if looking at it > > > shocks you, well then, good, you may have to rethink > > > your position. > > > > In other words, you're against gay marriage. > > > > What in heaven's name does being or not being > > shocked by porn have to do with supporting gay > > marriage?? > > > > Nobody's saying that if gays are allowed to get > > married, we all have to look at gay porn. Or, for > > that matter, even think about what gay people do > > in bed. > > > > Does being in favor of heterosexual marriage mean > > you have to look at heterosexual porn or think about > > what other heterosexuals do in bed? (Me, I'd rather > > *do* it than look at it.) > > > > If all you can think about when the topic of gay > > marriage comes up is what gays do in bed, you've got > > a *big* problem. > > > > And I seem to recall you have quite a fondness for > > watching lesbian love scenes. Are you suggesting > > lesbians should be allowed to get married but not > > gay men? > > > > > I'm not saying anyone should or shouldn't get married. > > What I'm saying is that we shouldn't have double standards. For gay > marriage? Then be for polygamy, gay polygamy, incest, bestiality, etc. >
hmmm... you put gay marriage into the same category as bestiality and incest? Is that because you see all as equally repulsive, or are you merely pointing out that they've been illegal? L.
