Conservative Group Rants About Same-Sex Kiss At Macy’s Parade

[cytg111]

Oh, if the US elected an LGBT President, that would be priceless. Mind you, it'd also likely mean that the religious right's stranglehold on American politics had already been broken, so by that point the President kissing someone of the same sex could be a non-event!

In the current climate? Oh, you'd have to be careful. Fox News hosts can't see prominent people who aren't straight, white and Christian without breaking into hives.

Two things needs to happen

1. Pence out of the closet.
2. Mueller probe takes Trump down.

It could happen! I mean, I am sure there are tapes!

 

[Jaskalas]

Two people expressing affection for one another. How disgusting.

Perhaps Asian nations ban PDA because it makes people uncomfortable.

 

[whm1974]

Perhaps Asian nations ban PDA because it makes people uncomfortable.

Generally speaking the better looking the couple doing PDA the more they are allowed to do....

 

[SNC]

I was at a beer tasting yesterday where to women were kissing pretty much the entire time, I wasn't harmed one bit.

 

[woolfe9998]

The general objection to homosexuality is that it is perverted, which is to say an alteration or corruption of something from its original purpose.

Human sexuality's primary purpose is reproduction, just as the primary purpose of eating is nourishment. Both have pleasure as secondary purposes, and to put the secondary before the primary is, by definition, a perversion.

Therefore to simply state your opponent's argument then declare it bigotry doesnt really amount to anything other than insulting in lieu of refutal.

By that definition hetero sex which isn't done strictly for purposes of reproduction is every bit as "perverted." If you've ever had sex with a woman, for purposes of pleasure alone and with no intention of inducing conception, then you're a pervert. That would include even with your wife. You've said here that taking pleasure in it is OK if that is a secondary benefit of the act, but the "primary" purpose must be reproduction. That would rule out, for example, having sex with your wife when you know she isn't ovulating, because that would be for pleasure alone.

If that is their view of sex for pleasure, then they need to be consistent. A kiss alone is not necessarily sexual in nature, but if the theory is that a kiss can be sexually pleasurable in and of itself, and I agree it can be, then they need to condemn it wherever they see it in public, because obviously a kiss in public is extremely unlikely to lead to reproductive intercourse.

These people are condemning this because they don't like gays and lesbians. They don't have any justification for this . In this case, there isn't even a biblical prohibition because the Bible says nothing about relations between women. So who are they to decide for everyone else that sex for pleasure alone is bad, much less to apply the principle selectively to only one class of people who are doing it? For crying out loud, women are only fertile at most 7 days out of every month, and not at all after menopause. The vast majority of hetero sex which occurs in this world is done for pleasure and pleasure alone, where the participants know there is no chance of conception.

You're torturing logic and reality to justify the bigotry of others. Disgusting.

 

[Amused]

The general objection to homosexuality is that it is perverted, which is to say an alteration or corruption of something from its original purpose.

Human sexuality's primary purpose is reproduction, just as the primary purpose of eating is nourishment. Both have pleasure as secondary purposes, and to put the secondary before the primary is, by definition, a perversion.

Therefore to simply state your opponent's argument then declare it bigotry doesnt really amount to anything other than insulting in lieu of refutal.

So people having sex post menopause is a "perversion."

Dude, just stop. Seriously.

 

[cytg111]

The general objection to homosexuality is that it is perverted, which is to say an alteration or corruption of something from its original purpose.

Human sexuality's primary purpose is reproduction, just as the primary purpose of eating is nourishment. Both have pleasure as secondary purposes, and to put the secondary before the primary is, by definition, a perversion.

Therefore to simply state your opponent's argument then declare it bigotry doesnt really amount to anything other than insulting in lieu of refutal.

Are you American Taliban? Who is your tribe leader?

 

[jman19]

So people having sex post menopause is a "perversion."

Dude, just stop. Seriously.

Bigotry is ok if you believe in a magic man in the clouds.

Lol.

 

[Viper1j]

I'll take it one step further and say what one person does with his toaster in the privacy of his home is none of our business either. Heck, if he wants to marry it I say more power to him.

And then his computer said: "Not tonight Chris, I have a virus.."

https://nypost.com/2017/09/07/man-loves-his-macbook-so-much-he-decided-to-marry-it/

Man loves his MacBook so much, he decided to marry it

A deluded Alabama man who “married” his MacBook computer is suing state officials for refusing to recognize the nuptials.


Chris Sevier, who “married an object in New Mexico with female-like features,” said Blount County Probate Judge Chris Green “arbitrarily denied” his request for a new marriage license because Green found his relationship to be “morally repugnant,” according to his federal lawsuit.


The self-described “machinist” has filed multiple lawsuits involving his blushing computer bride, including one that sought to force a baker to make a wedding cake for the odd couple.


The cyber nut, a former attorney who lives Oneonta, filed his latest suit on behalf of a trio of polygamists who also want their marriage to each other recognized by the state of Alabama.


“The governor is overseeing laws that give benefits to homosexuals who are married but not machinists, zoophiles, and polygamists in violation of both the First and Fourteenth Amendments,” the suit said.


Sevier also accuses the Attorney General’s Office, which is named as a defendant, of giving “special treatment” to gays in the rambling, 46-page complaint first reported by AL.com.


Green told AL.com that he denied the plaintiffs’ marriage requests because they made them over the phone and not in person.


“I just said I wouldn’t do that in Blount County,” he said. “No way, no how.”


He also said state law doesn’t permit him to issue marriage licenses to polygamists – or people seeking to marry an “inanimate object.”


In 2014, Sevier said he married a pornography-laden machine after he began “preferring sex with my computer over sex with real women.”

 

[ivwshane]

The general objection to homosexuality is that it is perverted, which is to say an alteration or corruption of something from its original purpose.

Human sexuality's primary purpose is reproduction, just as the primary purpose of eating is nourishment. Both have pleasure as secondary purposes, and to put the secondary before the primary is, by definition, a perversion.

Therefore to simply state your opponent's argument then declare it bigotry doesnt really amount to anything other than insulting in lieu of refutal.

Then by your own logic, these same groups should be just as outraged when straight people kiss and aren't engaged in the act of reproducing.


Speaking of perverted.

 

[cytg111]

The right question needs to be "Do I have the right to care?" and "Is this none of my fucking business?"

 

[Viper1j]

The right question needs to be "Do I have the right to care?" and "Is this none of my fucking business?"

Except that in today's political climate, it's all about "see something, say something."


At some point half this country turned into Gladys Kravitz from Bewitched.

 

[TheVrolok]

The general objection to homosexuality is that it is perverted, which is to say an alteration or corruption of something from its original purpose.

Human sexuality's primary purpose is reproduction, just as the primary purpose of eating is nourishment. Both have pleasure as secondary purposes, and to put the secondary before the primary is, by definition, a perversion.

Therefore to simply state your opponent's argument then declare it bigotry doesnt really amount to anything other than insulting in lieu of refutal.

To be frank, I find your lifestyle disgusting. I don't have a problem with your living it, but I would prefer not to hear about it nor see it. Keep your bizarre thinking to yourself, please.

 

[cytg111]

Except that in today's political climate, it's all about "see something, say something."


At some point half this country turned into Gladys Kravitz from Bewitched.

But I thought conservative values was all about individual freedom and by extension the right to bear arms? Or has that morphed conservatives into "The Right To Be Bigots" - in the age of Trump?

 

[Paratus]

The general objection to homosexuality is that it is perverted, which is to say an alteration or corruption of something from its original purpose.

Human sexuality's primary purpose is reproduction, just as the primary purpose of eating is nourishment. Both have pleasure as secondary purposes, and to put the secondary before the primary is, by definition, a perversion.

Therefore to simply state your opponent's argument then declare it bigotry doesnt really amount to anything other than insulting in lieu of refutal.

Ignoring IVF I would agree that all procreation started with sex but conversely procreation rarely results from sex. From personal experience 99.9% of the time it has not resulted in procreation.

Even if I limit the percentage to the times we were trying to conceive, it was actually possible to conceive, and it resulted in one of our children being born sex resulted in procreation only 16% of the time.

It has however been enjoyable 100% of the time.

So arguing that sex for pleasure is a peversion when it almost always is pleasurable vs procreation because procreation is the primary purpose yet happens infrequently to rarely doesn’t make any logical sense.

 

[Jaskalas]

The right question needs to be "Do I have the right to care?" and "Is this none of my fucking business?"

The underlying principle is the same as public indecency, AKA public nudity and/or sexual acts. The question is where we draw the line. Because for legal reasons there must be a definitive "can do" VS "cannot do" on the wide range of public displays of intimacy.

Note: Whatever it is, it should not be discriminatory.

 

[IronWing]

Public displays should be limited, unless there is a cover charge. Things are strange.

 

[cytg111]

The underlying principle is the same as public indecency, AKA public nudity and/or sexual acts. The question is where we draw the line. Because for legal reasons there must be a definitive "can do" VS "cannot do" on the wide range of public displays of intimacy.

Note: Whatever it is, it should not be discriminatory.

I mean if someone wants to walk down mainstreet naked, I really wouldnt care.. Sexual acts, that may be over the line for me.

 

[WelshBloke]

The general objection to homosexuality is that it is perverted, which is to say an alteration or corruption of something from its original purpose.

You called something a thing. You didnt say if the thing was negative or positive or why it was either of these things. You just called it a thing. You cant have an objection to something just because. Well you can but its best not to try to argue that point in public or make it a public policy.

Human sexuality's primary purpose is reproduction, just as the primary purpose of eating is nourishment. Both have pleasure as secondary purposes, and to put the secondary before the primary is, by definition, a perversion.

Human sexuality is definitely not primarily about reproduction any more. When people are using sexuality in ads are they linking their product to having babies or sexy people having a good time? Do people just have sex once every 9 months?

Therefore to simply state your opponent's argument then declare it bigotry doesnt really amount to anything other than insulting in lieu of refutal.

You haven't brought an argument. You called it perverted, gave a self serving definition of perverted then bottled on any deeper argument.

 

[Burpo]

More innocence broken..

 

[Victorian Gray]

More innocence broken..

That's not a kiss
This is a kiss

 

[Lanyap]

I was at a beer tasting yesterday where to women were kissing pretty much the entire time, I wasn't harmed one bit.

You weren’t blinded?

 

[fskimospy]

I always find it funny how people kissing in a parade is ‘promoting a political agenda’ but demanding people not kiss isn’t.

 

[fskimospy]

The general objection to homosexuality is that it is perverted, which is to say an alteration or corruption of something from its original purpose.

Human sexuality's primary purpose is reproduction, just as the primary purpose of eating is nourishment. Both have pleasure as secondary purposes, and to put the secondary before the primary is, by definition, a perversion.

Therefore to simply state your opponent's argument then declare it bigotry doesnt really amount to anything other than insulting in lieu of refutal.

Your argument fails when you declared the purpose of sex without evidence. It’s very clear that sex serves a large number of purposes from reproduction to social bonding to recreation, etc.

The people who argue that homosexuality is wrong because it perverts the purpose of sex are exposing their own ignorance and trend towards authoritarianism. They are invested in forcing other people to view sex the same way they do.

 

[sportage]

If THIS is all conservatives have to gripe about, they must think everything else is pretty damn terrific under their fuhrer Donald trump.