Gay Marriage Debate - Greeneville, TN

[KiMare]

veryvermilion wrote:

<quoted text>
"Is homophobia associated with homosexual arousal?"
Adams HE, Wright LW Jr, Lohr BA.
Department of Psychology, University of Georgia, Athens
Abstract
The authors investigated the role of homosexual arousal in exclusively heterosexual men who admitted negative affect toward homosexual individuals. Participants consisted of a group of homophobic men (n = 35) and a group of nonhomophobic men (n = 29); they were assigned to groups on the basis of their scores on the Index of Homophobia (W. W. Hudson & W. A. Ricketts, 1980). The men were exposed to sexually explicit erotic stimuli consisting of heterosexual, male homosexual, and lesbian videotapes, and changes in penile circumference were monitored. They also completed an Aggression Questionnaire (A. H. Buss & M. Perry, 1992). Both groups exhibited increases in penile circumference to the heterosexual and female homosexual videos. Only the homophobic men showed an increase in penile erection to male homosexual stimuli. The groups did not differ in aggression. Homophobia is apparently associated with homosexual arousal that the homophobic individual is either unaware of or denies.
----------
Sounds like someone I know on here...

You are still trying to embarrass me by calling me a closet homosexual?

That is the most shameful thing you can think of?

Too funny.

I'm a hermaphroditic genetic chimera. Literally a lesbian trapped in a straight man.

I'm here for you when you come out of the closet of denial.

Smile.

[KiMare]

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
I refer to it as the bitch slap of reality to the face of gay twirl idiocy. Did it sting AGAIN???
Do you have any direct rebuttal to the fundamental roots of marriage, a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior, or will you stick with the girly, "I don't want to talk about these things!"
Smile.

veryvermilion wrote:

<quoted text>
"How marriage has changed over centuries"
The Week Editorial Staff | June 1, 2012
When did people start marrying?
TWhat a wedded couple wishes to do in their marriage is entirely up to them.

1. Please tell me how anything you wrote relates to evolutionary mating behavior.

2. So every culture 4,000 years ago had 'kings', and everyone was a king? Seems to me, men married women. Nothing different from right now. Are there a variety of motives, not all love still? Of course. Nothing new there either.

3. The Church wasn't involved before, because Christianity didn't exist. Other religions did, and they were involved in the cross cultural, cross religious constraint of marriage.

4. Primitive cultures also have sophisticated marriage ceremonies.

5. Of course heterosexuals can procreate without marriage. To the serious harm of their own children. You are excusing that??? What a sick and perverted assertion!

6. Sorry queen, SCOTUS has always linked marriage and procreation;

"We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race."- Skinner v Oklahoma

"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival."- Loving v Virginia

"Our Court has not recognized a fundamental right to marry that departs in any respect from the right defined by the US Supreme Court in cases like Skinner which acknowledged that marriage is "fundamental to the very existence and survival of the [human] race" because it is the primary institution supporting procreation and child-rearing (316 US at 541; see also Zablocki, 434 US 374; Griswold, 381 US 479). The binary nature of marriage—its inclusion of one woman and one man—reflects the biological fact that human procreation cannot be accomplished without the genetic contribution of both a male and a female. Marriage creates a supportive environment for procreation to occur and the resulting offspring to be nurtured. Although plaintiffs suggest that the connection between procreation and marriage has become anachronistic because of scientific advances in assisted reproduction technology, the fact remains that the vast majority of children are conceived naturally through sexual contact between a woman and a man."- Hernandez v Robels

"It is an institution in the maintenance of which in its purity the public is deeply interested, for it is the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress. "- Maynard v Hill

Snicker.

[KiMare]

come on now wrote:

<quoted text>
Kinda reminds you of Brian G. He to puts the same old tired illogical word for word cut and past on his posts..... maybe the y are the same people?

Why don't you refute my 'illogical words'?

Come on now.

Smirk.

[Marengo Jon]

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>

I'm a hermaphroditic genetic chimera. Literally a lesbian trapped in a straight man..

Which medical exam has determined the presence of your internal lesbian? Does your wife enjoy dusty muffins?

[come on now]

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>
Why don't you refute my 'illogical words'?
Come on now.
Smirk.

I have many times... others have many times... yet you keep posting like you think that "if I post it enough it will be true."

[Marengo Jon]

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>
I'm a hermaphroditic genetic chimera. Literally a lesbian trapped in a straight man.

Which medical exam has determined the presence of your internal lesbian? Does your wife enjoy dusty muffins?

[KiMare]

Marengo Jon wrote:

<quoted text>
Which medical exam has determined the presence of your internal lesbian? Does your wife enjoy dusty muffins?

DNA determined gender.

Clearly we both like women.

No.

Keep it clean, we are talking about my wife and my best friend.

:-)

[KiMare]

come on now wrote:

<quoted text>
I have many times... others have many times... yet you keep posting like you think that "if I post it enough it will be true."

BS.

Lets take one subject. You choose.

Smile.

[veryvermilion]

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>
You are still trying to embarrass me by calling me a closet homosexual?
That is the most shameful thing you can think of?
Too funny.
I'm a hermaphroditic genetic chimera. Literally a lesbian trapped in a straight man.
I'm here for you when you come out of the closet of denial.
Smile.

I'm just saying that the rest of us will be here to support you when you finally realize why you get that "funny feeling down there" the next time you write another comment about hot, gay, man-on-man sex.

[veryvermilion]

KiMare wrote:

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
I refer to it as the bitch slap of reality to the face of gay twirl idiocy. Did it sting AGAIN???
Do you have any direct rebuttal to the fundamental roots of marriage, a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior, or will you stick with the girly, "I don't want to talk about these things!"
Smile.
<quoted text>
1. Please tell me how anything you wrote relates to evolutionary mating behavior.
2. So every culture 4,000 years ago had 'kings', and everyone was a king? Seems to me, men married women. Nothing different from right now. Are there a variety of motives, not all love still? Of course. Nothing new there either.
3. The Church wasn't involved before, because Christianity didn't exist. Other religions did, and they were involved in the cross cultural, cross religious constraint of marriage.
4. Primitive cultures also have sophisticated marriage ceremonies.
5. Of course heterosexuals can procreate without marriage. To the serious harm of their own children. You are excusing that??? What a sick and perverted assertion!
6. Sorry queen, SCOTUS has always linked marriage and procreation;
"We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race."- Skinner v Oklahoma
"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival."- Loving v Virginia
"Our Court has not recognized a fundamental right to marry that departs in any respect from the right defined by the US Supreme Court in cases like Skinner which acknowledged that marriage is "fundamental to the very existence and survival of the [human] race" because it is the primary institution supporting procreation and child-rearing (316 US at 541; see also Zablocki, 434 US 374; Griswold, 381 US 479). The binary nature of marriage—its inclusion of one woman and one man—reflects the biological fact that human procreation cannot be accomplished without the genetic contribution of both a male and a female. Marriage creates a supportive environment for procreation to occur and the resulting offspring to be nurtured. Although plaintiffs suggest that the connection between procreation and marriage has become anachronistic because of scientific advances in assisted reproduction technology, the fact remains that the vast majority of children are conceived naturally through sexual contact between a woman and a man."- Hernandez v Robels
"It is an institution in the maintenance of which in its purity the public is deeply interested, for it is the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress. "- Maynard v Hill
Snicker.

Show me one single law that mandates married people must be able to and have the intention to produce children.

[KiMare]

veryvermilion wrote:

<quoted text>
I'm just saying that the rest of us will be here to support you when you finally realize why you get that "funny feeling down there" the next time you write another comment about hot, gay, man-on-man sex.

I think the doctor would call it a sphincter muscle charlie horse.

Snicker.

[veryvermilion]

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>
DNA determined gender.
Clearly we both like women.
No.
Keep it clean, we are talking about my wife and my best friend.
:-)

Why should anyone extend any courtesies to you? You've never hesitated to spread lies and say disgusting things about other people.

[KiMare]

veryvermilion wrote:

<quoted text>
Show me one single law that mandates married people must be able to and have the intention to produce children.

Nice slimy shift.

That is the most silly, idiotic, stupid statement I've ever heard. Why would a law 'mandate' procreation? Are you serious?

Even a child EXPECTS marriage to be about procreation;

Ava and Nicholas
sitting in a tree:
K-I-S-S-I-N-G
First comes love,
then comes marriage,
then comes baby
in a baby carriage!

Getting desperate there, aren't you vv???

Snicker, smile.

[Marengo Jon]

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>
DNA determined gender.
Clearly we both like women.
No.
Keep it clean, we are talking about my wife and my best friend.
:-)

If your wife loves you for who you are, she should be more than comfortable playing with your mangina. Are you afraid that she might leave you for another woman?

[Marengo Jon]

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>
Nice slimy shift.
.

No, he didn't shift gears, but you attempted to.

There is no requirement, at any local, state, or federal level, that procreation is a requirement of married couples.

[KiMare]

Marengo Jon wrote:

<quoted text>
If your wife loves you for who you are, she should be more than comfortable playing with your mangina. Are you afraid that she might leave you for another woman?

She'd rather play with other things.

Not at all.

Any other questions?

Smile.

[KiMare]

Marengo Jon wrote:

<quoted text>
No, he didn't shift gears, but you attempted to.
There is no requirement, at any local, state, or federal level, that procreation is a requirement of married couples.

And why would that be necessary?

I can't believe I have to ask this question...

Snicker.

[veryvermilion]

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>
Nice slimy shift.
That is the most silly, idiotic, stupid statement I've ever heard. Why would a law 'mandate' procreation? Are you serious?
Even a child EXPECTS marriage to be about procreation;
Ava and Nicholas
sitting in a tree:
K-I-S-S-I-N-G
First comes love,
then comes marriage,
then comes baby
in a baby carriage!
Getting desperate there, aren't you vv???
Snicker, smile.

You keep insisting that the reason we have marriage is for procreation, yet there isn't a law on the books in any U.S. jurisdiction that mandates that a married couple must produce children.

In fact, many couples have children outside of wedlock and it's perfectly legal.

So you can't withhold marriage from same-sex partners simply because we don't frequently procreate.

And keep in mind, that gay and lesbian parents are raising four percent of all adopted children in the United States and an estimated 6 to 14 million children have gay or lesbian biological children.

Despite what you may think, LGBT people have kids. Just because we are attracted to people of our gender doesn't mean the plumbing doesn't work.

[Marengo Jon]

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>
And why would that be necessary?
I can't believe I have to ask this question...
Snicker.

I can't believe that you have to ask either, but you're terribly uniformed, Mangina Man.

The reason that procreation isn't required of married couples is because marriage is a civil commitment between two consenting adults and not a contract to squeeze out litters of pups.

[Marengo Jon]

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>
DNA determined gender.
Clearly we both like women.

:-)

So, DNA determines your lady parts, but which medical exam has confirmed your inner lesbian personality of which you speak? Would that be a confirmation of schizophrenia, perhaps?

Please do share, given that you're the individual with not one, not two, but 3 letters from friends (who you bribed) confirming your sanity.