The Sexual Fetish of Gay Marriage Opponents

  • metta

    Posts: 39089

    Mar 23, 2013 4:25 AM GMT
    The Sexual Fetish of Gay Marriage Opponents

    Defenders of DOMA and Proposition 8 say marriage isn’t about love or parenting. It’s about coitus.

    http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2013/03/gay_marriage_and_sex_why_do_defenders_of_doma_and_prop_8_worship_coitus.html
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 23, 2013 4:28 AM GMT
    With that argument, women who are unable to bear children, and men who "shoot blanks" should not be allowed to marry.
  • LJay

    Posts: 11612

    Mar 23, 2013 4:50 AM GMT
    Put a cope and mitre on the dude!

    It sounds like the Roman Catholic teaching that sex should lead to procreation.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 23, 2013 9:49 AM GMT
    We help subsidize the breeders. Fuck that. icon_evil.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 23, 2013 11:08 PM GMT
    metta8 saidThe Sexual Fetish of Gay Marriage Opponents

    Defenders of DOMA and Proposition 8 say marriage isn’t about love or parenting. It’s about coitus.

    http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2013/03/gay_marriage_and_sex_why_do_defenders_of_doma_and_prop_8_worship_coitus.html


    As usual, all arguments against gay marriage are based on illogical thinking, narrow religious doctrine or an uncritical acceptance of "tradition"--none of which, in theory, should influence the courts.

    This argument isn't any different. Essentially, it goes like this: heterosexual coitus is the only way children can be conceived; however, gay sex cannot do the same; therefore, gay marriage is unacceptable. However, in reality, not all heterosexual coitus leads to or can lead to children, so the premise is flawed and the conclusion nonsensical. Further, if heterosexual coitus that can result in children was of supreme importance, states would prohibit all infertile individuals from marrying, including anyone who is too old to conceive children. But, of course, no state does so and no state ever will.

    So, what pathetic argument is next?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 23, 2013 11:35 PM GMT
    That's all they've got?

    Why don't they just tell us to shut up?
  • TroyAthlete

    Posts: 4269

    Mar 23, 2013 11:37 PM GMT
    Homophobes and the house gays who enable them are stupid. *shrug*
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 24, 2013 12:04 AM GMT
    There must be a pony in here somewhere!
  • winwin

    Posts: 264

    Mar 24, 2013 1:14 AM GMT
    Why are they always so obsessed with sex acts, especially gay sex when they want to argue? I don't get that.
  • Whipmagic

    Posts: 1481

    Mar 24, 2013 1:40 AM GMT
    I believe there is something to this argument that marriage has been historically about guaranteed access to pussy. Most historic analysis of the institution focuses on economic issues, but that's more relevant for couples who have considerable family assets. Marriage did very little for the less affluent man, except guaranteed sex whenever he wanted it, in exchange for providing a modicum of economic security to the woman. To make this contract enforceable, it was for the longest time perfectly legal for him to rape his wife if she wasn't willing. Then the women's liberation movement changed this, and new justifications for marriage were needed. That's when they came up with all the 'responsible procreation' stuff, as a replacement for the licence to rape. So for straight men, marriage has always really been about pussy, and hardly anything else. And that's why they're so afraid of gay marriage - it moves the institution even further away from a pussy-providing mechanism than ever, as we demonstrate that marriage can be just as meaningful without it.