BackFire
Blood. It's nature's lube
Not entirely for the sake of reproduction..but the possibility of reproduction exists between heterosexual couples. It does not exist between same sex couples.
Again, this is irrelevant to the ACTUAL meaning of marriage. However, Homosexuals can have offsprings, they can adopt, they can artificially inseminate, and so fourth. They jsut can't have children between the two of them by simply having sex with one another.
Well it depends on how you define the terminology.."expression of love."
I wouldn't categorize anal sex, cunnilingus, or mutual masterbation as "expressions of love." I'd categorize them as "sexual acts."Homosexuality by its very definition..is not defined by emotions..but rather, it's defined by "sexual attraction." But you are correct about one thing, one can indeed express love for their fellow man, without engaging in any sexual behavior with him.
That's fine, but again, that's nothing more then you're opinion, one that is based on your subjective morals/religious belief. These acts can be a form of expressing love for gay people. Just because homosexuality isn't defined by love or emotion doesn't mean that love and emotion doesn't exist in homosexual relationships, Heterosexuality also isn't defined by "love", but a sexual attraction, another similarity between the two. Also, as you semi-alluded to, Homosexuals often express love without ever penetrating.
No assumptions on my part friend. Humans can not reproduce from engaging in sexual acts with animals. Thus this behavior is done for the purpose of "sexual gratification"...or "recreation" as I put it in my previous post. Bestiality often occurs between men and other male animals. I'll let you judge what type of sexual acts are performed during such unions.
This whole thing is an assumption, you're assuming that most of the time it's between a male animal and a male person. Where is the cold hard data to support this. This seems like another "whob only" observation that doesn't actually exist outside of your mind/opinion. I never said bestiality NEVER involves anal penetration, simply that I don't believe it to be often, as you claim.
Depends on how one defines "consent." In nature..many animals actually "couple", which is defined by many as being the animal equivalent to human marriage. Elephants, certain types of birds, and various other mammals are obvious examples of such behaviors. One could indeed make a reasonable argument..equating animal "coupling" to human behavior, and an animal's ability to to consent to such a "lifetime" union such as marriage.
One could, but it wouldn't be according to this countries and many other countries necessary consent. Also, they have to comprehend marriage as an institution, understand the consequences and such, which can't be done.
True. But the possibility of producing offspring between such a union does exist.
Which again, has nothing to do with this countries definition of marriage.
Not necessarily. In many cultures, marriage does indeed give the implication that the two individuals enaging in such a union need to be able to procreate. This need for procreation, has helped establish legal concepts such as inheritance, social class, etc.
Since when are we talking about any culture other than ours? Again, in the modern worlds definition of marriage, procreation has nothing to do with it.
Truth be told..I feel the same way about the views yourself and many others. The fact that you all liken certain explicit sexual behaviors as representing "love" is appalling..and just another overall example of the general decline of "common sense" and "human decency" in today's world.
You know, there's more to expressing love then just penis/vaginal intercourse, there are more ways to express love then what is the norm. And homosexuals can do all of them except vaginal penetration. They do express love to one another, and their love can be just a valid and strong as anyone elses. This is why I believe they should be allowed to be married.
Anal sex/oral sex/and masterbation..are the only sexual acts that "homosexuals" can engage in. These sexual acts do indeed provide a higher risk of one spreading and contracting STD's. There are no clear biological or social benefits equated with one engaging is such acts.
Not true at all. Anal sex is the only sex act mentioned that has a higher probability of STD's then vaginal sex. Oral sex is significantly safer then vaginal sex, and masterbation offers almost no risk at all. So now only people who's sex can offer biological or social benefits should be allowed to get married? The majority of straight marriages offer no benefit, but it's still allowed. And again, marriage is about more then sex, their love offers the same self benefit as any other persons love.
No bigotry. Just truth. But sadly..the truth often times hurts. Same sex unions do not offer the possibility of offspring. You can debate this point all you wish, but this basic truth will remain the same.
Depends how you define "offspring". They can artificially inseminate, they can adopt, they have sex with a willing female. They just can't have children between themselves. But again, this is irrelevent to the actual meaning of marriage in this country.
More foolishness on your part BF. "Coupling" is indeed a natural behavior in the animal kingdom. As is producing offspring for the sake of the survival of a species. Of course all of this depends really on whether or not you all want to compare human and animal behaviors..and thus far..I'm not sure if you all really want to do that. Thus far most of what I've heard is just back and forth arguments..likening human to animal behavior when it assists in supporting some selfish perverted purpose.
Yes, coupling exists in nature, never denied that. But they don't force themselves to be with a single animal for their entire lives, they don't engage in a cermemony, and most of the time the coupling doesn't last nearly as long as the commitment of marriage is supposed to last. Also, again, procreation is a moot point here, one that I never even mentioned.
I'd like to know what is selfish about not standing in the way of two people who love eachother and who want to marry. As you and many others are doing. What's more selfish?