--- 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.
In other words, you're against gay marriage.
