1 2 3 4 5 6 8 10 11 12 22 23
Topic: Two more states allow same sex marriage.
msharmony's photo
Sat 05/11/13 08:54 AM








The day they legalize gay sex in Wisconsin is the day its hunters turn in their rifles for a glass of cranberry juice.


What a ridiculous thing to say.

Gay sex does not have to be "legalized." As far as I know there are no laws against it, at least laws that can be enforced. If Wisconsin still has any laws against what people can do in private con-sensually, they need to come into this century.

And what does gay marriage have to do with cranberry juice? I'm confused.






Everything you've said is ridiculous. Now, I can talk about my great state....what we need and don't need. You don't have any right.


I don't have any right to do what?
Talk about Wisconsin?

I'm not really talking about Wisconsin in particular.

Any state that still has any laws against what two consenting adults can do in private needs to come into this century. You are the one who brought Wisconsin into the subject of this thread.

This thread is not about who you should be able to have sex with, its about SAME SEX MARRIAGE.



You are so territorial. laugh



You aren't very good at fallacies--strange since you use a list of them quite frequently. The topic is clearly about the goal of having every state cave in to others' views from different states. That is what is ridiculous. I vote in my state. You do not vote in my state. Get that through your head. Now, when you use words like "should" and "need", it leaves no room for any type of conceptualization whatsoever and everyone knows that's insane.

So, instead of *****-footing around like a little girl, why don't you just go ahead and proclaim that you're just as biased and bigoted as anyone. You want people to think one thing, to see one thing, to end all thought and submit. That's never going to happen no matter what laws there are. Sorry, but that's just pure fantasy.


People can think anything they want, no one is gonna say they can't, but what they CAN'T or at least SHOULDN'T be able to do is impact public policy and what a person can or can't do irrespective of them through those thoughts. No one should have a right to tell someone else how to live simply because they don't like it. That's where your right ends where theirs begin. It's really that simple. You don't have to like it, you don't have to agree with it, but unless there is proof of harm to you directly, you cannot tell them to stop it or force them to.

I don't agree with mainstream religion and churches, but I cannot tell you you can't be a part of them just because I disagree. We either live in a society where we ALL have rights or no one does, because once you allow one's to be taken away you open the door for yours to be taken as well. If we value our rights at all, we will protect them all not just the ones that suit us. Otherwise, we are asking for them to be removed completely.


I'm not sure you realize fully why people take stances and vote. They exercise their rights as well as voicing their opinions with their own greater life prospects and so forth in mind. Not doing so does not indicate any type of acquiescence. This is not a society, it is a culture of many different societies. To think the entire country is of common means for common ends is incorrect. In this particular neck of the woods, we feel that the greatest thing to be protected is the traditional family.... the single greatest. By popular vote, we banned same-sex marriage. Seen? Rights.


No one has true rights if someone else can take them away on a whim. Rights cannot be taken away, if they can be they are no longer rights.

This is the flaw in a democratic society, it only protects those with the votes, it doesn't protect everyone. It's like a sheep and 2 wolves deciding what's for dinner, the lone sheep loses out. That's not the America, not the world I prefer to live in. What a person can or cannot do in their private lives should never come down to a vote.

You even say it yourself, we are a culture of many different societies......why are we trying to force everyone to act according to one?



Belonging to or for the use of one particular person or group of people only.


: of, relating to, or affecting all the people or the whole area of a nation or state <public law>. b : of or relating to a government


guess which one is the definition of 'private'?

guess which one describes MARRIAGE,, which is related to GOVERNMENT,,,,?

Kleisto's photo
Sat 05/11/13 09:21 AM









The day they legalize gay sex in Wisconsin is the day its hunters turn in their rifles for a glass of cranberry juice.


What a ridiculous thing to say.

Gay sex does not have to be "legalized." As far as I know there are no laws against it, at least laws that can be enforced. If Wisconsin still has any laws against what people can do in private con-sensually, they need to come into this century.

And what does gay marriage have to do with cranberry juice? I'm confused.






Everything you've said is ridiculous. Now, I can talk about my great state....what we need and don't need. You don't have any right.


I don't have any right to do what?
Talk about Wisconsin?

I'm not really talking about Wisconsin in particular.

Any state that still has any laws against what two consenting adults can do in private needs to come into this century. You are the one who brought Wisconsin into the subject of this thread.

This thread is not about who you should be able to have sex with, its about SAME SEX MARRIAGE.



You are so territorial. laugh



You aren't very good at fallacies--strange since you use a list of them quite frequently. The topic is clearly about the goal of having every state cave in to others' views from different states. That is what is ridiculous. I vote in my state. You do not vote in my state. Get that through your head. Now, when you use words like "should" and "need", it leaves no room for any type of conceptualization whatsoever and everyone knows that's insane.

So, instead of *****-footing around like a little girl, why don't you just go ahead and proclaim that you're just as biased and bigoted as anyone. You want people to think one thing, to see one thing, to end all thought and submit. That's never going to happen no matter what laws there are. Sorry, but that's just pure fantasy.


People can think anything they want, no one is gonna say they can't, but what they CAN'T or at least SHOULDN'T be able to do is impact public policy and what a person can or can't do irrespective of them through those thoughts. No one should have a right to tell someone else how to live simply because they don't like it. That's where your right ends where theirs begin. It's really that simple. You don't have to like it, you don't have to agree with it, but unless there is proof of harm to you directly, you cannot tell them to stop it or force them to.

I don't agree with mainstream religion and churches, but I cannot tell you you can't be a part of them just because I disagree. We either live in a society where we ALL have rights or no one does, because once you allow one's to be taken away you open the door for yours to be taken as well. If we value our rights at all, we will protect them all not just the ones that suit us. Otherwise, we are asking for them to be removed completely.


I'm not sure you realize fully why people take stances and vote. They exercise their rights as well as voicing their opinions with their own greater life prospects and so forth in mind. Not doing so does not indicate any type of acquiescence. This is not a society, it is a culture of many different societies. To think the entire country is of common means for common ends is incorrect. In this particular neck of the woods, we feel that the greatest thing to be protected is the traditional family.... the single greatest. By popular vote, we banned same-sex marriage. Seen? Rights.


No one has true rights if someone else can take them away on a whim. Rights cannot be taken away, if they can be they are no longer rights.

This is the flaw in a democratic society, it only protects those with the votes, it doesn't protect everyone. It's like a sheep and 2 wolves deciding what's for dinner, the lone sheep loses out. That's not the America, not the world I prefer to live in. What a person can or cannot do in their private lives should never come down to a vote.

You even say it yourself, we are a culture of many different societies......why are we trying to force everyone to act according to one?



Belonging to or for the use of one particular person or group of people only.


: of, relating to, or affecting all the people or the whole area of a nation or state <public law>. b : of or relating to a government


guess which one is the definition of 'private'?

guess which one describes MARRIAGE,, which is related to GOVERNMENT,,,,?


who defines marriage this way though? It's man's doing......and you can spare me the rhetoric that says otherwise. To try and make something like that for one group only is discriminating.

msharmony's photo
Sat 05/11/13 09:25 AM










The day they legalize gay sex in Wisconsin is the day its hunters turn in their rifles for a glass of cranberry juice.


What a ridiculous thing to say.

Gay sex does not have to be "legalized." As far as I know there are no laws against it, at least laws that can be enforced. If Wisconsin still has any laws against what people can do in private con-sensually, they need to come into this century.

And what does gay marriage have to do with cranberry juice? I'm confused.






Everything you've said is ridiculous. Now, I can talk about my great state....what we need and don't need. You don't have any right.


I don't have any right to do what?
Talk about Wisconsin?

I'm not really talking about Wisconsin in particular.

Any state that still has any laws against what two consenting adults can do in private needs to come into this century. You are the one who brought Wisconsin into the subject of this thread.

This thread is not about who you should be able to have sex with, its about SAME SEX MARRIAGE.



You are so territorial. laugh



You aren't very good at fallacies--strange since you use a list of them quite frequently. The topic is clearly about the goal of having every state cave in to others' views from different states. That is what is ridiculous. I vote in my state. You do not vote in my state. Get that through your head. Now, when you use words like "should" and "need", it leaves no room for any type of conceptualization whatsoever and everyone knows that's insane.

So, instead of *****-footing around like a little girl, why don't you just go ahead and proclaim that you're just as biased and bigoted as anyone. You want people to think one thing, to see one thing, to end all thought and submit. That's never going to happen no matter what laws there are. Sorry, but that's just pure fantasy.


People can think anything they want, no one is gonna say they can't, but what they CAN'T or at least SHOULDN'T be able to do is impact public policy and what a person can or can't do irrespective of them through those thoughts. No one should have a right to tell someone else how to live simply because they don't like it. That's where your right ends where theirs begin. It's really that simple. You don't have to like it, you don't have to agree with it, but unless there is proof of harm to you directly, you cannot tell them to stop it or force them to.

I don't agree with mainstream religion and churches, but I cannot tell you you can't be a part of them just because I disagree. We either live in a society where we ALL have rights or no one does, because once you allow one's to be taken away you open the door for yours to be taken as well. If we value our rights at all, we will protect them all not just the ones that suit us. Otherwise, we are asking for them to be removed completely.


I'm not sure you realize fully why people take stances and vote. They exercise their rights as well as voicing their opinions with their own greater life prospects and so forth in mind. Not doing so does not indicate any type of acquiescence. This is not a society, it is a culture of many different societies. To think the entire country is of common means for common ends is incorrect. In this particular neck of the woods, we feel that the greatest thing to be protected is the traditional family.... the single greatest. By popular vote, we banned same-sex marriage. Seen? Rights.


No one has true rights if someone else can take them away on a whim. Rights cannot be taken away, if they can be they are no longer rights.

This is the flaw in a democratic society, it only protects those with the votes, it doesn't protect everyone. It's like a sheep and 2 wolves deciding what's for dinner, the lone sheep loses out. That's not the America, not the world I prefer to live in. What a person can or cannot do in their private lives should never come down to a vote.

You even say it yourself, we are a culture of many different societies......why are we trying to force everyone to act according to one?



Belonging to or for the use of one particular person or group of people only.


: of, relating to, or affecting all the people or the whole area of a nation or state <public law>. b : of or relating to a government


guess which one is the definition of 'private'?

guess which one describes MARRIAGE,, which is related to GOVERNMENT,,,,?


who defines marriage this way though? It's man's doing......and you can spare me the rhetoric that says otherwise. To try and make something like that for one group only is discriminating.




its not for one group, it includes ALL PEOPLE

unless they dont fall under either male or female......


no photo
Sat 05/11/13 10:00 AM





The day they legalize gay sex in Wisconsin is the day its hunters turn in their rifles for a glass of cranberry juice.


What a ridiculous thing to say.

Gay sex does not have to be "legalized." As far as I know there are no laws against it, at least laws that can be enforced. If Wisconsin still has any laws against what people can do in private con-sensually, they need to come into this century.

And what does gay marriage have to do with cranberry juice? I'm confused.






Everything you've said is ridiculous. Now, I can talk about my great state....what we need and don't need. You don't have any right.


I don't have any right to do what?
Talk about Wisconsin?

I'm not really talking about Wisconsin in particular.

Any state that still has any laws against what two consenting adults can do in private needs to come into this century. You are the one who brought Wisconsin into the subject of this thread.

This thread is not about who you should be able to have sex with, its about SAME SEX MARRIAGE.



You are so territorial. laugh



You aren't very good at fallacies--strange since you use a list of them quite frequently. The topic is clearly about the goal of having every state cave in to others' views from different states. That is what is ridiculous. I vote in my state. You do not vote in my state. Get that through your head. Now, when you use words like "should" and "need", it leaves no room for any type of conceptualization whatsoever and everyone knows that's insane.

So, instead of *****-footing around like a little girl, why don't you just go ahead and proclaim that you're just as biased and bigoted as anyone. You want people to think one thing, to see one thing, to end all thought and submit. That's never going to happen no matter what laws there are. Sorry, but that's just pure fantasy.

If you haven't noticed, take a look at the crime rate for my great state, then go ahead and make with that sarcastic laugh emoticon thingy.


You're the one who doesn't even want gay people having sex, but you're calling someone else a bigot?

jessejames2's photo
Sat 05/11/13 01:29 PM

You even say it yourself, we are a culture of many different societies......why are we trying to force everyone to act according to one?


Don't ask me, ask the op. I mostly like my state. Why they would concern themselves with elsewhere is beyond me. Nose-stickers I guess.

jessejames2's photo
Sat 05/11/13 01:43 PM






The day they legalize gay sex in Wisconsin is the day its hunters turn in their rifles for a glass of cranberry juice.


What a ridiculous thing to say.

Gay sex does not have to be "legalized." As far as I know there are no laws against it, at least laws that can be enforced. If Wisconsin still has any laws against what people can do in private con-sensually, they need to come into this century.

And what does gay marriage have to do with cranberry juice? I'm confused.






Everything you've said is ridiculous. Now, I can talk about my great state....what we need and don't need. You don't have any right.


I don't have any right to do what?
Talk about Wisconsin?

I'm not really talking about Wisconsin in particular.

Any state that still has any laws against what two consenting adults can do in private needs to come into this century. You are the one who brought Wisconsin into the subject of this thread.

This thread is not about who you should be able to have sex with, its about SAME SEX MARRIAGE.



You are so territorial. laugh



You aren't very good at fallacies--strange since you use a list of them quite frequently. The topic is clearly about the goal of having every state cave in to others' views from different states. That is what is ridiculous. I vote in my state. You do not vote in my state. Get that through your head. Now, when you use words like "should" and "need", it leaves no room for any type of conceptualization whatsoever and everyone knows that's insane.

So, instead of *****-footing around like a little girl, why don't you just go ahead and proclaim that you're just as biased and bigoted as anyone. You want people to think one thing, to see one thing, to end all thought and submit. That's never going to happen no matter what laws there are. Sorry, but that's just pure fantasy.

If you haven't noticed, take a look at the crime rate for my great state, then go ahead and make with that sarcastic laugh emoticon thingy.


You're the one who doesn't even want gay people having sex, but you're calling someone else a bigot?


When in the world did I ever say that?

I didn't call her anything, she did.

All I'm tearing at is.... mind your own state. Do I go barking at the people of Maryland demanding this and that? No.

no photo
Sun 05/12/13 07:09 AM


You even say it yourself, we are a culture of many different societies......why are we trying to force everyone to act according to one?


Don't ask me, ask the op. I mostly like my state. Why they would concern themselves with elsewhere is beyond me. Nose-stickers I guess.


huh

no photo
Sun 05/12/13 07:46 AM







The day they legalize gay sex in Wisconsin is the day its hunters turn in their rifles for a glass of cranberry juice.


What a ridiculous thing to say.

Gay sex does not have to be "legalized." As far as I know there are no laws against it, at least laws that can be enforced. If Wisconsin still has any laws against what people can do in private con-sensually, they need to come into this century.

And what does gay marriage have to do with cranberry juice? I'm confused.






Everything you've said is ridiculous. Now, I can talk about my great state....what we need and don't need. You don't have any right.


I don't have any right to do what?
Talk about Wisconsin?

I'm not really talking about Wisconsin in particular.

Any state that still has any laws against what two consenting adults can do in private needs to come into this century. You are the one who brought Wisconsin into the subject of this thread.

This thread is not about who you should be able to have sex with, its about SAME SEX MARRIAGE.



You are so territorial. laugh



You aren't very good at fallacies--strange since you use a list of them quite frequently. The topic is clearly about the goal of having every state cave in to others' views from different states. That is what is ridiculous. I vote in my state. You do not vote in my state. Get that through your head. Now, when you use words like "should" and "need", it leaves no room for any type of conceptualization whatsoever and everyone knows that's insane.

So, instead of *****-footing around like a little girl, why don't you just go ahead and proclaim that you're just as biased and bigoted as anyone. You want people to think one thing, to see one thing, to end all thought and submit. That's never going to happen no matter what laws there are. Sorry, but that's just pure fantasy.

If you haven't noticed, take a look at the crime rate for my great state, then go ahead and make with that sarcastic laugh emoticon thingy.


You're the one who doesn't even want gay people having sex, but you're calling someone else a bigot?


When in the world did I ever say that?

I didn't call her anything, she did.

All I'm tearing at is.... mind your own state. Do I go barking at the people of Maryland demanding this and that? No.


Why would it bother you so much if gay people were allowed to marry in your state? How is that affecting your life?

mightymoe's photo
Sun 05/12/13 09:01 AM








The day they legalize gay sex in Wisconsin is the day its hunters turn in their rifles for a glass of cranberry juice.


What a ridiculous thing to say.

Gay sex does not have to be "legalized." As far as I know there are no laws against it, at least laws that can be enforced. If Wisconsin still has any laws against what people can do in private con-sensually, they need to come into this century.

And what does gay marriage have to do with cranberry juice? I'm confused.






Everything you've said is ridiculous. Now, I can talk about my great state....what we need and don't need. You don't have any right.


I don't have any right to do what?
Talk about Wisconsin?

I'm not really talking about Wisconsin in particular.

Any state that still has any laws against what two consenting adults can do in private needs to come into this century. You are the one who brought Wisconsin into the subject of this thread.

This thread is not about who you should be able to have sex with, its about SAME SEX MARRIAGE.



You are so territorial. laugh



You aren't very good at fallacies--strange since you use a list of them quite frequently. The topic is clearly about the goal of having every state cave in to others' views from different states. That is what is ridiculous. I vote in my state. You do not vote in my state. Get that through your head. Now, when you use words like "should" and "need", it leaves no room for any type of conceptualization whatsoever and everyone knows that's insane.

So, instead of *****-footing around like a little girl, why don't you just go ahead and proclaim that you're just as biased and bigoted as anyone. You want people to think one thing, to see one thing, to end all thought and submit. That's never going to happen no matter what laws there are. Sorry, but that's just pure fantasy.

If you haven't noticed, take a look at the crime rate for my great state, then go ahead and make with that sarcastic laugh emoticon thingy.


You're the one who doesn't even want gay people having sex, but you're calling someone else a bigot?


When in the world did I ever say that?

I didn't call her anything, she did.

All I'm tearing at is.... mind your own state. Do I go barking at the people of Maryland demanding this and that? No.


Why would it bother you so much if gay people were allowed to marry in your state? How is that affecting your life?



and why do care what the people in Wisconsin do? you should worry about your own state, and then the gay's there can have all the butt sex they want... maybe people in Wisconsin don't feel the same way you do about gay butt sex...

willing2's photo
Sun 05/12/13 09:32 AM
The homosexers are wanting to wedge themselves into being designated a protected species.
Kids need protected from them.

HappyBun's photo
Sun 05/12/13 09:34 AM
P









The day they legalize gay sex in Wisconsin is the day its hunters turn in their rifles for a glass of cranberry juice.


What a ridiculous thing to say.

Gay sex does not have to be "legalized." As far as I know there are no laws against it, at least laws that can be enforced. If Wisconsin still has any laws against what people can do in private con-sensually, they need to come into this century.

And what does gay marriage have to do with cranberry juice? I'm confused.






Everything you've said is ridiculous. Now, I can talk about my great state....what we need and don't need. You don't have any right.


I don't have any right to do what?
Talk about Wisconsin?

I'm not really talking about Wisconsin in particular.

Any state that still has any laws against what two consenting adults can do in private needs to come into this century. You are the one who brought Wisconsin into the subject of this thread.

This thread is not about who you should be able to have sex with, its about SAME SEX MARRIAGE.



You are so territorial. laugh



You aren't very good at fallacies--strange since you use a list of them quite frequently. The topic is clearly about the goal of having every state cave in to others' views from different states. That is what is ridiculous. I vote in my state. You do not vote in my state. Get that through your head. Now, when you use words like "should" and "need", it leaves no room for any type of conceptualization whatsoever and everyone knows that's insane.

So, instead of *****-footing around like a little girl, why don't you just go ahead and proclaim that you're just as biased and bigoted as anyone. You want people to think one thing, to see one thing, to end all thought and submit. That's never going to happen no matter what laws there are. Sorry, but that's just pure fantasy.

If you haven't noticed, take a look at the crime rate for my great state, then go ahead and make with that sarcastic laugh emoticon thingy.


You're the one who doesn't even want gay people having sex, but you're calling someone else a bigot?


When in the world did I ever say that?

I didn't call her anything, she did.

All I'm tearing at is.... mind your own state. Do I go barking at the people of Maryland demanding this and that? No.


Why would it bother you so much if gay people were allowed to marry in your state? How is that affecting your life?



and why do care what the people in Wisconsin do? you should worry about your own state, and then the gay's there can have all the butt sex they want... maybe people in Wisconsin don't feel the same way you do about gay butt sex...
"GAY BUTT SEX" Shades of Homophobia

msharmony's photo
Sun 05/12/13 09:39 AM
please use the proper terminology,,,,

sodomy

HappyBun's photo
Sun 05/12/13 09:50 AM

please use the proper terminology,,,,

sodomy
Is that addressed to me?

msharmony's photo
Sun 05/12/13 09:56 AM


please use the proper terminology,,,,

sodomy
Is that addressed to me?



it was addressed to anyone discussing sodomy,,,in this thread

mightymoe's photo
Sun 05/12/13 10:07 AM

P









The day they legalize gay sex in Wisconsin is the day its hunters turn in their rifles for a glass of cranberry juice.


What a ridiculous thing to say.

Gay sex does not have to be "legalized." As far as I know there are no laws against it, at least laws that can be enforced. If Wisconsin still has any laws against what people can do in private con-sensually, they need to come into this century.

And what does gay marriage have to do with cranberry juice? I'm confused.






Everything you've said is ridiculous. Now, I can talk about my great state....what we need and don't need. You don't have any right.


I don't have any right to do what?
Talk about Wisconsin?

I'm not really talking about Wisconsin in particular.

Any state that still has any laws against what two consenting adults can do in private needs to come into this century. You are the one who brought Wisconsin into the subject of this thread.

This thread is not about who you should be able to have sex with, its about SAME SEX MARRIAGE.



You are so territorial. laugh



You aren't very good at fallacies--strange since you use a list of them quite frequently. The topic is clearly about the goal of having every state cave in to others' views from different states. That is what is ridiculous. I vote in my state. You do not vote in my state. Get that through your head. Now, when you use words like "should" and "need", it leaves no room for any type of conceptualization whatsoever and everyone knows that's insane.

So, instead of *****-footing around like a little girl, why don't you just go ahead and proclaim that you're just as biased and bigoted as anyone. You want people to think one thing, to see one thing, to end all thought and submit. That's never going to happen no matter what laws there are. Sorry, but that's just pure fantasy.

If you haven't noticed, take a look at the crime rate for my great state, then go ahead and make with that sarcastic laugh emoticon thingy.


You're the one who doesn't even want gay people having sex, but you're calling someone else a bigot?


When in the world did I ever say that?

I didn't call her anything, she did.

All I'm tearing at is.... mind your own state. Do I go barking at the people of Maryland demanding this and that? No.


Why would it bother you so much if gay people were allowed to marry in your state? How is that affecting your life?



and why do care what the people in Wisconsin do? you should worry about your own state, and then the gay's there can have all the butt sex they want... maybe people in Wisconsin don't feel the same way you do about gay butt sex...
"GAY BUTT SEX" Shades of Homophobia


and your point is?

mightymoe's photo
Sun 05/12/13 10:09 AM

please use the proper terminology,,,,

sodomy

it is what it is... i'm not PC .... sodomy, gay butt sex, whatever, it's still immoral and disgusting to me... and nobody has the right to tell me i HAVE to accept it...

msharmony's photo
Sun 05/12/13 10:09 AM
..those who oppose sodomy are somehow afraid of something,,,

never quite figured that term out myself,,,

HappyBun's photo
Sun 05/12/13 10:16 AM



please use the proper terminology,,,,

sodomy
Is that addressed to me?



it was addressed to anyone discussing sodomy,,,in this thread
Heterosexual Anal Sex in the Bible
We should take careful note. What reasons are there for suggesting that the admonitions in all of these scriptures apply only to homosexual acts of anal intercourse, and not heterosexual acts too?
Arguably, in none of these scriptures refering to sodomy does the Bible specify that it's referring to homosexual sex specifically. Indeed, to presume that these references apply to only homosexual men would be reading into scripture. Consequently, we should presume that the prohibition of anal sex in the Bible applies equally to heterosexual married couples.


I don't normally like copy and paste but this is what I was getting at. Anal sex is not confined to gay men.

msharmony's photo
Sun 05/12/13 10:19 AM




please use the proper terminology,,,,

sodomy
Is that addressed to me?



it was addressed to anyone discussing sodomy,,,in this thread
Heterosexual Anal Sex in the Bible
We should take careful note. What reasons are there for suggesting that the admonitions in all of these scriptures apply only to homosexual acts of anal intercourse, and not heterosexual acts too?
Arguably, in none of these scriptures refering to sodomy does the Bible specify that it's referring to homosexual sex specifically. Indeed, to presume that these references apply to only homosexual men would be reading into scripture. Consequently, we should presume that the prohibition of anal sex in the Bible applies equally to heterosexual married couples.


I don't normally like copy and paste but this is what I was getting at. Anal sex is not confined to gay men.



thats true, its only predominately an activity of msm

but its not exclusive to that activity

HappyBun's photo
Sun 05/12/13 10:23 AM

..those who oppose sodomy are somehow afraid of something,,,

never quite figured that term out myself,,,
Could we for the sake of argument use sodomy/anal sex as one and the same.

1 2 3 4 5 6 8 10 11 12 22 23