Miss California?

[anriana]

I've always thought the aversion to buttsex went something like this: "omg a guy being penetrated? But that's for women. What if someone is thinking about penetrating me? Oh and santorums. Ewww."

[Boozy]

It's not like "buttsex" is the whole of a gay man's sexual identity. Just as vaginal intercourse is not the whole of a straight person's sexual identity. Our sexual preference is expressed in all sorts of ways in a relationship....the most important of which is the sex of the person with whom we form meaningful and intimate partnerships.

After all, if a straight couple stops having sex, they are still straight. They can still be in love and have a strong relationship. And that relationship is still contingent upon one being male and one being female, because they are not wired to form romantic attachments with those of the same sex.

Sexual identity has so very little to do with what hole you prefer. It is about who we are as people.

[AFPheonix]

There's some of the same risks associated with P in the V as there is in P in the B. Maybe not to the same extent since the vagina can at least self lubricate and has some skeletal muscle surrounding it, but there is still the risk of tearing and prolapse and whatnot.

[blas87]

There's some risks involved with buttsex too, although it can really relieve a bad case of constipation....

[Nyoibo]

I know there are health risks involved in vaginal sex, but I honestly couldn't tell you what they are

Pregnancy?

*runs and hides*

[smileyeagle1021]

Frankly, I'd like to know why everyone's so fixated on buttsex

I at least have the excuse that I'd like to have some
Honest opinion, I think most people who are so fixated on anal intercourse are people who secretly (or not so secretly) want to have it. I have no interest in vaginal sex (obviously) so really don't fixate on it. I know there are health risks involved in vaginal sex, but I honestly couldn't tell you what they are, because I honestly don't care... it's not something I'm ever going to participate in.

[Nyoibo]

And who says lesbians can't have teh buttsecks either?

[JuniorMintz]

Frankly, I'd like to know why everyone's so fixated on buttsex (as I so delicately put it ) in this argument. I know just as many nice lesbo's who would like the right to marry as I do gay men!

In all sincerity though, I think "Why do you have two mommies?" is a hell of a lot less awkward of a question than "Why do you have a daddy and four mommies?". How can one be more comfortable with the idea of polygamous unions than homosexual ones?

[Nyoibo]

Or the stories of people marrying for citizenship and all that other stuff.

That's how my dad got his green card.

[DesignFox]

<snip> The percentage of the US population that has divorced is massive, and given that homosexuals aren't allowed to marry, ya can't blame them for that statistic.

*giggle* I like that.

I don't see why two loving adults of the same gender couldn't raise a perfectly healthy, happy family...

I mean, until it's more common, I guess the other kids in school might wonder why a kid has two dads or two moms...but I don't see that being a life shattering issue for a kid to deal with. It's no different than the kid whose parents are divorced, who may have had a parent die, the kid who was raised by grandparents, or siblings... or the kid who got made fun of for being "fat" or "weird" or whatever...

If all of the US population wants to split hairs than I suggest we call the religious ceremony a "marriage" and the legal aspect of it all a "civil union" no matter who the consenting adults are. Then churches can marry whoever they feel like, and everyone can have the same legal status and rights under the definition of a civil union.

Or, fuck it all. No one has any legal rights. Throw it all out. Then who in the hell cares whether you're married or not? There is no insurance benefit. There is no tax benefit. You're all on your own as individuals. Better get used to it!

Hmm guess the above makes it tough to raise children- especially since someone's probably gonna have to be home for a little while- at least a few months until the little ones are old enough to attend day care...and at least in the US, you can't get medical coverage unless you get it through your employer (or happen to be independently wealthy- and there's yet another argument)

Quite a problem we have here, eh?

The only reason I can see people nay-saying gay marriage is that they are afraid of the idea that two guys or gals who aren't necessarily a couple, could then go and get "married" to get their tax and insurance benefits. But that is total bunk because I'm willing to bet there are a fair few straight couples who have done just that and then parted ways when they didn't need each other, anymore. Or the stories of people marrying for citizenship and all that other stuff.

Nothing will change. In my opinion, things will be better, because two loving consenting adults should be allowed to be legally and spiritually joined. What on earth is so terrible about that concept?

[smileyeagle1021]

I'd like to be the one to point out, several people I knew in high school have since gone on to be arrested for drug posession, larceny, and petty violence. Those people all have one thing in common, they grew up with both a father and a mother, biological parents.
Some of the most well adjusted people I know were raised by single parents or even *gasp* two people of the same gender. I know I'm not perfect and I have my problems, but I was raised by two women, my mother and her mother and I'd say I turned out OK. And yes, I think if it had been my mother and her girlfriend (which would be absurd because my mother is straight, but just for argument) I don't think it would be any different.

Now, that's not to say that all heterosexual couples will raise disfunctional children and all same sex couples will raise perfect children, but it proves a point that probably all things considered, the parent's genitalia is one of the least important factors in whether or not they will be good parents.

And RUbystars, hate to burst your bubble, but it isn't the government's job to determine what is ideal. The government's job is solely to protect the rights of its citizens. Ig you can show me the consitutional amendment that says "the government shall protect the 'traditional' family" then I'll cede the argument.,.. otherwise I'm pretty sure the 14th amendment has some pretty strong wording about all citizens being equal in the eyes of the law. For that matter I can pull 1st Amendment out on this one too, by the government denying gay marriage rights, they are denying my church the right to perform marriages as they see fit... they are interfering with our first amendment rights to free exercise.

[Nyoibo]

The problem with that is it's not an example of a healthy marriage, only 63% of American children grow up with both biological parents, 43.7% of custodial mothers and 56.2% of custodial fathers were either separated or divorced. The percentage of the US population that has divorced is massive, and given that homosexuals aren't allowed to marry, ya can't blame them for that statistic.

[linguist]

and you think that a homosexual couple isn't capable of raising children? some of the most healthy, happy, well-adjusted, and productive members of society i know are the result of upbringing by same-sex couples. these are people that are open and accepting of everyone, that give back to society at every possible opportunity, and it has nothing to do with having a 'mother' and 'father.' it has everything to do with having a family that loves them unconditionally and raised them to believe that that they had a duty to give back and to be accepting, even though some portions of society view their parents as something unnatural and wrong.

[Rubystars]

Why do you think it would be unhealthy for society to allow gay marriage?

Well feel free to disagree with me (I know you already do ). I think society should be built around family units that consist of a mother, father, and their biological or adopted children, and maybe some extended family such as grandparents if they need support. This allows the children to see how a healthy marriage works and sets an example for them to follow. Other situations can work of course. Sometimes it can't be helped, such as single motherhood or fathers whose wife has died. I do think that the ideal situation is for a family unit though. I think men and woman are meant for one another, to support each other in a family situation, and to raise children together if they decide to have them.

Each family unit could be a building block that forms the society as a whole. I think if more families were nuclear, and stable, that society as a whole would benefit because kids would experience things like seeing how a healthy married couple communicates.

It's true that not all straight couples are normal either, but that's another issue.

[AFPheonix]

I know what you mean about different cultures but I still feel that man and woman marriage is the ideal standard to go by and that it's the best way to go about things for a healthy society. I don't have as much of a problem with polygamy (one man and a few women) as I do with homosexuality because at least that's straight. I do think it's better if it's just one man and one woman though.

Why do you think it would be unhealthy for society to allow gay marriage?