Comments on: Gay Promiscuity by the Numbers

By: Nathan

Nathan — Tue, 09 Nov 2010 21:26:45 +0000

Okay Charles, now you’re just fucking with me.

By: Charles Anthony

Charles Anthony — Tue, 09 Nov 2010 18:00:30 +0000

Form your own church. Call it whatever you want. Do whatever you want there. Register the marriages you want. Duh. What could possibly make more sense????

The most popular church will get the most customers and will register the marriages that people want. It is not like they have to teach any hocus pocus stuff when they congregate.

Until you find a better answer, there is no better answer than getting rid of government.

By: Nathan

Nathan — Tue, 09 Nov 2010 14:40:49 +0000

Pull the string, and the doll says “Govt should get off our backs!”

So who would register marriages, Charles? Walmart? Pepsi?

Can’t be a law firm, because laws are part of the infrastructure of the state, means govt govt govt.

Churches only? That’s a real step forward. Why not let them run the education system, too?

Honestly: is there any other answer possible than “get rid of government”?

By: Charles Anthony

Charles Anthony — Tue, 09 Nov 2010 10:21:03 +0000

What a stupid debate.

Gay or straight is irrelevent. The only responsible way to discuss marriage is to get government out of the business of registering any type of marriage altogether.

By: Nathan

Nathan — Mon, 08 Nov 2010 23:41:45 +0000

Opposition to gay marriage is a lot like support for the Iraq Invasion – the arguments, once exposed to daylight, crumble pretty quickly, but the people making them just switch to a new one without acknowledging having done so.

Gay marriage will be a pan-North American and pan-European reality within a decade, and a global reality within a decade or two of that. What we are seeing from its opponents is the impotent snarling of a wounded, fearful animal. Fear is nothing to base a belief on.

By: Jonathan McLeod

Jonathan McLeod — Mon, 08 Nov 2010 20:34:29 +0000

Agreed, Nathan.

And even if 99% of gay men were too permiscuous for marriage (apologies for the poorly constructed phrase), what does that have to do with the 1% of gay men who aren’t?

By: Nathan

Nathan — Mon, 08 Nov 2010 18:51:42 +0000

It’s an interesting debate, sociologically – would a few decades of boring marriages tame them kerrazzee gays?? – but I think it misses a serious point: why do gays have to renounce their sluttishness before we straights can “let” them get married? There are many hetero couples in “open” relationships, the concept of “swinging” is not exactly a new one, and the percentage of guys who fuck around on their wives is a healthy one.

I also know some gay men in very happy long-term relationships (and marriages) who see the occasional bout of extramarital fucking as being a healthy thing overall. (I’ve met many straights who feel this way, too.)

So why is it up to the straights to decide when the gays “deserve” marriage? Since when are rights subject to moral tests?

To say they’ll just mess it up is pretty laughable given our own stewardship of the institution, yes?

By: Jonathan McLeod

Jonathan McLeod — Mon, 08 Nov 2010 17:03:25 +0000

I think suggesting that society can affect the way one expresses/lives out/experiences their sexual oientation is far different that suggesting that society can change the actual sexual orientation.

By: SG

SG — Mon, 08 Nov 2010 06:31:34 +0000

Gay rights supporters argue that homosexual orientation is nature, not nurture. But arguing that the institution of marriage would make gays more exclusive because of the normative pressure sort of means that nurture shapes homosexual behavior. If some social institution can make gays exclusive, can some other social institution make gays straight?