Comments on: Benefits of Gay Marriage

By: ltbugaf

ltbugaf — Wed, 23 May 2007 02:52:11 +0000

What's really too bad about that is that "happy" isn't really a very complete synonym for "gay." Gaiety is something different---something headier, lighter, more frivolous and more vivid. Like a Strauss waltz.

By: Mary Siever

Mary Siever — Wed, 23 May 2007 02:47:15 +0000

Garry

It's too bad very few people use the happy definition for gay anymore. Sigh.

By: garry

garry — Tue, 22 May 2007 22:15:29 +0000

I'm all in favor of gay marriage. I know my wife and i have a lot of fun and enjoyment in ours.

Now this same sex thing, is that some kind of antithesis of gay marriage as if sex is the same all the time, wouldn't that get kind of old?

By: bill

bill — Sat, 03 Jun 2006 02:19:41 +0000

The nightly news is just full of uplfting stories and then I found this site.

By: ltbugaf

ltbugaf — Sat, 03 Jun 2006 02:09:07 +0000

I’m encouraged by your uplifting viewing choices, Bill.

By: Kim Siever

Kim Siever — Sat, 03 Jun 2006 01:06:48 +0000

I am sure this hooker had done a tonne of data analysis on which to base her statement.

By: bill

bill — Fri, 02 Jun 2006 23:41:52 +0000

I remember watching a show about how hookers at descended on Utah and this hooker was talking and she said they (hookers) perform more oral sex in Utah than anywhere else. She said the reason for this was because the Church considered oral sex a form of heavy petty and the johns would not get exed if they were caught.

By: rick

rick — Fri, 02 Jun 2006 21:50:32 +0000

I don’t know, Steve.

“I did not have sexual relations with that woman…”

What exactly constitutes sex these days anyway?

By: Steve EM

Steve EM — Fri, 02 Jun 2006 20:34:36 +0000

For background, I have no beef with SSM. To each their own. But am I the only person who questions whether homosexual/lesbian “sex” is sex? I mean, we don’t refer to masturbation as autosexuality. Some we say same sex gratification rather than sex?

By: rick

rick — Fri, 02 Jun 2006 19:12:02 +0000

"Those who are inclined to monogamy and faithfulness already behave that way."

This may be true, but you'd be amazed at the added effort put into a relationship when there are legal ramifications, hetero or not.

One aspect not often touched on when dealing with same-sex marriage issues is that the availability of marriage as an options serves to delineate two very distinct groups. There are some people who feel more comfortable in a monogamous relationship and there are other who are more promiscuous, just as there are in the hetero community.

If people were to see just how many gay and lesbian couples are not the promiscuous stereotype of the homosexual, it would aid in their understanding of homosexual culture.

I understand the 'imprinting' argument given above, but given the fact that male, gay couples would be adopting, and lesbian couples would need to use in vitro - it's pretty clear that there would be screening processes in place to make sure that kids only went to decent homes and parents.

Parents who had made a decision to go through the arduous processes required to become parents in a same-sex relationship. In other words people dedicated to being parents.

If all of the hetero couple who can have kids, with none of the paperwork involved, were equally as dedicated the world would most decidedly be better off.

Given, no type of same-sex marriage fits in with the LDS plan of salvation, but does the church have to be so quick to completely disregard the 11th Article of Faith?