--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" <shempmcg...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" <raunchydog@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" <shempmcgurk@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" <raunchydog@> wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" <shempmcgurk@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > I'm for gay marriage, polygamous marriage, gay polygamous marriage, > > > > > bestiality marriage, and incest marriage in equal measure. > > > > > > > > > > Aren't you? > > > > > > > > This is the "box turtle argument." > > > > > > > > "Interpreting the statement literally: it is clear that legally > > > > recognizing gay marriage does not entail doing so for polygamy, > > > > incestuous marriage, or marrying animals; these are all separate > > > > propositions. The legal determination of what a marriage is can be > > > > specified so as to allow gay marriage but not extend to marrying a box > > > > turtle. In the same way that certain states have provisions in their > > > > constitutions defining marriage as "between a man and a woman," it > > > > could also be specified that marriage rights extend to same-sex couples > > > > but if one is really so worried about people marrying box turtles and > > > > the rest not to (1) more than two people; those who are (2) blood > > > > related; and (3) animals. > > > > > > > > The "box turtle" statement above is really making the case against gay > > > > marriage by not making the case: It is not telling you what is wrong > > > > with gay marriage, but rather saying that if you allow gay marriage > > > > then you will have to allow something else you might not like." > > > > > > > > Read more... > > > > http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/01/29/8452 > > > > http://tinyurl.com/brsdvm > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's one way of looking at it; another way is to say that those that > > > support gay marriage and not other kinds of marriage are hypocrites. > > > > > > > It's hypocritical to pose a question sarcastically equating a man marrying > > a box turtle with gay marriage, an absurd non sequitur argument, and > > pretend the high ground that you support all marriages equally when you > > don't. If someone wants to argue in favor of polygamy, that is a separate > > battle. > > > > I imagine Shemp, that you abhor gay marriage so much that the thought of it > > drives you nutty, triggering a flood of pornographic images of men having > > anal sex in your consciousness. > > > Actually, heterosexual anal sex is about as repusive as homosexual anal sex > is to me. > > What I don't like is hypocrisy. And that's what I liked about what Helms did > in the Senate. > > > > Are you so repulsed by gay marriage that you feel compelled to share your > > prurient interest with a link so that we can feel as repulsed as you? You > > have missed the point completely if you think that such images have > > anything to do with gay marriage. > > > > > Well, actually, the images have EVERYTHING to do with gay marriage (at least > MALE gay marriage) and there's no way of getting around it. There is no > penis/vagina penetration in gay marriage but there is penis/anus penetration > in many if not most male gay couplings. > > Look, some people find it abhorrent to look at hard core heterosexual porn; > my posting a link to hard core male gay porn has evoked a reaction that is, > shall we say, way out of proportion had I posted a link to the former. > > Why is that? >
Posting a pornography link on FFLife is inappropriate whether it is gay or not. The only reason you did it was to inflame the passions of bigots, like yourself. If folks enjoy pornography, that is their business and has nothing to do with the argument against gay marriage. So I suggest that you delete all your links to gay sex and focus your outrage on the depravity of this: http://tinyurl.com/lxb6mm http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxciMdQ8iq8&feature=fvw > > > > Focusing your argument against gay marriage on the ordinary living of > > everyday life that couples in a committed relationship share, rather than > > the drama of pornography, would be just too much to ask of a wingnut. > > Wingnuts need outrage. It feeds their limbic, reptilian brain responsible > > for perpetuating hatred, bigotry and the oppression of people in the world > > for religion, gender, color and sexual identity. Keep your outrage, fan the > > flames of it. Such an argument is weak in the face of honorable treatment > > of people. > > > > Actually, your obsession with an innocent posting of a link -- THAT'S ALL I > DID! -- is proving my point. > > Calling me names -- such as "wingnut" -- lessens your argument. > Well, Shemp, if Jesse Helms is your hero, I guess I'm not too off base suggesting you are a wingnut. Now that he's dead, it doesn't look like his bigotry against gays will prevail in Congress. http://tinyurl.com/nhh6ap http://www.q-notes.com/2745/lesbian-senator-votes-against-jesse-helms-resolution/ > The post was of a photograph of someone -- Lance Black -- who was part and > parcel of the gay marriage debate in a very big way (he reached over a > billion people in the Oscar telecast and specifically addressed the issue). > His appearance in hard core gay porn photos (and, according to the > PerezHilton site, alleged hard core videos) I think is a big issue...much > more so than Carrie Prejean, the Miss California woman who garnered -- and > still does! -- so much attention on the left who, like Lance Black, became > part of the debate precisely because of remarks about legalized gay marriage > in California. > > Prejean was pilloried and tarred-and-feathered for being "hypcritical" by > appearing topless. Yet Black participates in clearly unsafe sex -- actually > the MOST unsafe sex we can imagine -- and yet nary a word about him. And you > take ME to task as being a wingnut by merely supplying a link. > > Perhaps, raunchydog, you were critical of all the left-wing blogs that were > so negative about Prejean and snickering and linking to the photos of Prejean > (HuffingtonPost primary amongst them)? I don't know. > I don't agree with her but I support Prejean's right to her opinion. I don't believe she deserved sexist attacks from lefty bloggers. Demeaning women has become an abhorrent habit on the left that they adopted from long-standing rightwing vilification of Hillary, and continued during Hillary and Palin's campaigns.
