Ireland votes on gay marriage - why should I care?

spudbynight said:
I disagree that it is sex.

The US Senate agrees with me.
Click to expand...

The Oxford English dictionary and UK law agrees with me, as I would imagine most people.

Quite simply it can't be masturbation due to the fact that it must be done by one person to themselves.

Sex is an act involving someone's genitals regardless of where that is - hence the derivative word sexual.

This isn't my definition, this is the dictionary's.
 
Burnsy2023 said:
The Oxford English dictionary and UK law agrees with me, as I would imagine most people.

Quite simply it can't be masturbation due to the fact that it must be done by one person to themselves.

Sex is an act involving someone's genitals regardless of where that is - hence the derivative word sexual.

This isn't my definition, this is the dictionary's.
Click to expand...

Then how did Bill Clinton get off?

(and also, what is mutual masturbation then if it must be done by one person to themselves)

Nah, you haven't convinced me.
 
asim18 said:
There's no such thing as homosexual sex and heterosexual sex.

Sexual intercourse is penis>vagina with the potential of creating offspring.

"Anal sex" is penis>anus to make semen, in other words, mutual masturbation. People don't have sex in someone's butt I'm afraid, it's just masturbation ie, purely to make them ejaculate, and not to create offspring.

Unless someone's aim of anal is honestly to have a child then they've deluded themselves into thinking they're having some sort of sex but they're really just getting masturbated.

There's no such thing as mouthsex, or handsex, so why would you think there are things such as analsex and homosex and "non-reproductive-sex"? It's only because an anus is the closest hole anatomically to the sexual-intercourse-enabling vagina and someone stuck it in there and called it sex because it's just a few inches away. Heck if someone's nose was in their crotch you could be sure some idiot would stick his knob in it and call it nasalsex.

Therefore if you're rubbing your todger on anything that isn't the inside of a vagina for the purposes of ejaculation, it's not really sex, it's masturbation.

The term "anal sex" and "homosexual sex" is just a perversion of the English language because I'm sure homosexuals obviously want to have sex too, and it goes hand in hand with the perverse nature of human sexuality.
Click to expand...
That would be great if you didn't take the term 'sex' to mean penetrative vaginal sex. It doesn't. That isn't what the word means. English isn't a dictatorial language, but even those who document the language with some authority do not narrow the definition of sex to be sexual intercourse between a man and a woman. Moreover, in the general usage that defines the English language 'sex' isn't used with such specific meaning. This is all irrelevant anyway, I was only re-using the language of another poster to precisely address his points, not because I go around using the terms 'heterosexual sex' or 'homosexual sex' in general parlance.
spudbynight said:
Disagree that your interpretation of what is factual is the only valid one.
Click to expand...
Considering we are debating the meaning of a word, the meaning that is not factual is starting to get a little philosophical. "Oh, I believe that the word car actually means something more like space shuttle".. "OK".
spudbynight said:
I disagree with using a dictionary as a definitive and complete source of knowledge.
Click to expand...
It's an authoritative listing of the meaning of words. It's not about knowledge, it's about understanding what words have evolved to mean in the language we communicate with. These meanings do change and there is no hard-and-fast rule set, but it's a real stretch to forward the idea that the term 'sex' exclusively means penetrative vaginal sex between a man and a woman.

This has all strayed wildly from the point that male homosexuality causes harm, which has been strongly argued against.
 
Last edited:
Man, those people at the OED, going round defining what words actually mean. Who let those suckers be in charge. I want my own detention of what sex means in line with my thinly field agenda.

Oh, hang on!

OhEsEcks said:
This thread and the comments within is the dumbest we've had in a while.
Click to expand...

Yeah and it's about two or three posters making the dumbest posts.
 
LOL Mouth sex! Where is Magnolia i hope he is reading this..

It needs a decent
Overclockers UK Forums > Life > General Discussion
> Ireland votes on gay marriage - Mouth Sex and the Oxford English dick and harry.
 
Last edited:
Thompson_NCL said:
No. Gay 'marriage' is a prime example of a decadent civilization; one which has lost touch with basic morality. The idea that homosexual relationships are equal to heterosexual relationships is patently absurd.

Can two gay men love one another comparably to a heterosexual couple? Perhaps. But love is not the purpose of marriage. Reproduction is the purpose of marriage. Reproduction is why the state gets involved in marriage.

Once you start diluting the purpose of one of civilizations most important institutions, you are opening the flood-gates to further dilution. It is inevitable. How long is it until we see people pushing for polygamy to be legalised? Or what about incestual marriages?

A civilization which has lost touch with the fundamentals of civilized behaviour is doomed. You can already see the structural weakness that runs through the West. Its only going to get worse in the decades that come.
Click to expand...
Are you serious or trolling?.

You have made every single cliche & logically flawed argument on the subject I can think of.

1. Reproduction is the purpose of marriage.

Subjective, this is an objective matter. Where do infertile people fit into this, or those not wishing to have children.

2. You wade into the wonderful world of the 'slippery slope' with your second argument, then proceed to fallaciously compare gay marriage to incest (an activity which is illegal due to the increased propensity of abuse/power abuse & genetic abnormalities).
 
Tosno said:
Tefal, a what if question if you may. If you found out you were made from rape, would you wish you were aborted?
Click to expand...

if my mother hadn't wanted me and it would have put her through terrible trauma then sure.

From what i'm aware of though there was a miscarriage before me and another after me so I'm a tenacious little ******* i doubt abortion would have taken :p


not like i'd have even been aware of it as a little ball of cells.

I assume of course you and spudy are both against the morning after pill too?
 
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/p...age-try-harder-on-animal-rights-10275857.html

Hope the people of Ireland haven't got too used to that smug feeling of self-righteousness:

Morrissey has congratulated the people of Ireland for legalising in gay marriage – but warned they are still not in the 21st century due to animal cruelty.
Click to expand...

This neatly illustrates my point, Morrissey didn't feel the need to stick his two penneth in for the umpteen other countries that have legalised gay marriage (including the UK except NornIron), so why make Ireland such a big deal?
 
elmarko said:
1. Reproduction is the purpose of marriage.

Subjective, this is an objective matter. Where do infertile people fit into this, or those not wishing to have children.
Click to expand...

Its an objective fact that marriage was created for the purpose of reproduction. Specifically, to ensure the husbands wealth was passed on to legitimate heirs. This is why adultery was forbidden in most societies, because marriage was about the exclusivity of reproductive rights.

Love was barely even a consideration in marriage for thousands of years. If it occurred, fine, but its primary function was the production of legitimate children.

If some kids take a tyre and make a tyre swing, it doesn't change the purpose of tyres.

2. You wade into the wonderful world of the 'slippery slope' with your second argument, then proceed to fallaciously compare gay marriage to incest (an activity which is illegal due to the increased propensity of abuse/power abuse & genetic abnormalities).
Click to expand...

They are comparable, in that both are traditionally regarded as deviant behaviour. In other respects, they are not comparable. But I was highlighting the former.

Incests moral prohibition has nothing to do with power dynamics, and everything to do with the genetic consequences; which are somewhat moot in the age of contraception. And if you read the thread, you'll have already seen LegendOfMart arguing in favour of legalising incest. So...uh.. you were saying?
 
You have a VERY Christian / Muslim view on marriage Thompson_NCL So i must assume you are a very religious person. That would help explain your strict viewpoint at least?

If so its worth respecting but i think you are in a minority in the 21st century.


Western ideal of marriage involves a relationship of love, friendship, or companionship, marriage historically functioned primarily as an economic and political unit used to create kinship bonds, control inheritance, and share resources and labor. Indeed, some ancients and medievals discouraged ‘excessive’ love in marriage. The ‘love revolution’ in marriage dates popularly to the 18th century (Coontz 2006, Part 3)
Click to expand...

I think that is more inline with how i see marriage.

from

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/marriage/

an interesting read - i've only skimmed it, so far.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom