I still think that Seattleblues is not a real person. I feel (s)he is being paid or something for this.

Goodness gracious, Seattleblues, Do you not read your own Bible? There are eight (8) types of marriage to be found amongst its pages.

·        Standard nuclear (Genesis 2:24) between two individuals.
·        Polygynous marriage (Genesis 4:19 is the first place you find it mentioned) one man is permitted multiple wives. The following is a shortened list of individuals in the Bible that had polygynous marriages: Lamech, Esau, Jacob, Gideon, Elkanah, David, Solomon, Rehaboam, and Herod the Great. God cannot be found expressing his displeasure at one man having multiple wives within the Bible, although it can be shown in 1 King 11:1-6 the there is displeasure that many of Solomon’s 700 royal wives were foreigners and worshiped foreign gods. But, isn’t disapproving of polygynous marriages.
·        Levirate marriage (Genesis 38: 6-10) from the Latin ‘levir’ meaning brother-in-law. A widow was required to marry her brother-in-law to produce an heir for her dead husband if he died before fathering a son.
·        A slave as a piece of property in a plural marriage (Genesis 16), Sarah gives her slave Hagar to Abraham as a substitute womb.
·        Concubine marriage (Genesis 22: 24) to a woman of lesser status, but not a slave or prisoner of war than “official wives”. A brief, but not exhaustive list include: Abraham, Nahor, Jacob, David, and Solomon.
·        A male soldier and a female prisoner of war (Numbers 38:1-18; Deuteronomy 21: 11-14) the woman was made to shave her head and allowed a period of morning before she was placed in a marriage.
·        A male rapist and his victim (Deuteronomy 21:11-14) provided she wasn’t engaged her rapist pays her father fifty shekels of silver and then marries her.
·        Male and female slaves (Exodus 21:4), a slave owner could assign a slave woman to become another slave’s wife. She remained the property of the slave owner though, and if her husband was freed she and their children could not go with him. If he wished to stay than the slave owner would pierce his ear as evidence of his permanent status as a slave to his owner.

Even if you agree that the Bible is falliable it still proves your argument wrong that "marriage is union between a man and a woman." I'd suggest you educate yourself on both Roman and Orthodox liturgies of same-sex unions in the church, but that would only further disprove your statement. I'm not inclined to believe that you want your statement challenged, because it is your justification for maintaining injustice, inequality, and second class citizenry. Please continue with your opinion, but just know that your argument that "marriage is a union between a man and a woman" doesn't stand up within your Bible or within church history.

Take care.

"It isn't a guy marrying his pet Great Dane."

Seattlebullshit! Who are these people who seek to marry their dogs? I challenge you to produce one. One web link that proves that this statement isn't a straw man.

103, Seattleblues' equating gay people to animals is an age old tactic. By making his enemy less human in his mind, he can justify his hate.

Seattleboob=LovesVile=Poe=.=all the trolliest trolls combined.

Whatever happened to that slog troll wiki, BTW?

@ 89, I ask you again to please spell out the harm to society you envision coming from making gay marriage legal. The Netherlands has allowed it for ten years now, and they haven't fallen into the sea. Well, no more than they already were. Belgium, Spain, Canada, and South Africa have all had it for five years or more. No chaos--at least, not that can be conceivably attributed to gay marriage.

You've already stated that your marriage will not be harmed.

You've made claims about the social construct of marriage that are demonstrably false.

All you have left is your argument that somehow, society will collapse if we allow gay marriage. But you've never once explained how. Or what that would look like.

@KimInPortland, No. 102: You are fucking awesome. I'm gonna be quoting you all over the internet...!

Hey, KING-5's picked up this story: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43490219.

If you thought All Access were inarticulate in writing, I can't wait to see the videotape.

Don't pick fights if you don't want to fight!

Wow. I think Kim @102 may have batted Seattleblues right out of the basket...

@88, I love how anarchy is "some things I don't agree with, happening in some places." the HORROR

Kim@102.

YOU ROCK!

xoxoxo

I would join Kim In Portland's cult any day of the week.

@110 Unfortunately that would only be true if Seattleblues really believed what he spouts, which he doesn't. He's here to provoke, not to engage in rational debate. His claim that liberals are an existential threat to the United States and all his blather about barbarism sounds nice, but he's only interested in stirring people up.

If he really believed all that crap about the destruction of society he'd be too genuinely upset to use sarcasm and childish insults.

@114: Maybe, maybe not. Personally I think his driving motivation to comment here is that he just hates Dan Savage so much! Much in the same way I hate Former Stranger Staffer Inga Muscio, which is to say, irrationally. Hell, half the time Seattleblues doesn't even read the actual blog post before going off on Dan, even if Dan isn't the author.
I once saw him argue himself into supporting the decades long cover-up of pedophilia by the Catholic Church rather than give Dan credit for being outraged by it. See? Not rational.

Well done, Ms. Madrid. Well done.

Oh @115, why did you have to bring HER into this?

@114: Why are obvious trolls Seattleblues and whatsbeckgottadowithit so coddled?

I mean, they've never ever said anything insightful or thought-provoking in their posting careers. I'm sure there are constructive conservatrolls, but they just roll around in their own feces.

@102

And yet, not one of those is a man marrying a man, or woman marrying a woman. They're all heterosexual in nature. Know why? Because marriage is a word which inherently excludes homosexual pairings as it's been used nearly everywhere the concept exists.

Paint however thickly you like, the dislike or disdain of homosexuality is an enduring theme in nearly every culture, with a few notable exceptions like ancient Greece. While I don't think a person should be punished for the bad life choice of homosexuality at law, having made choices they must accept the social consequences.

@115

I hate what Little Danny Boy the Savage represents. He's far too contemptible to hate personally. That'd be like hating the actor who played McBeth for the role.

@114

Kudos for the screen name. And with that choice you shot your entire magazine of wit.

Oh well.

Dear S.B.:

Please inform the class of the exact date you chose to become a Heterosexual and adopted that particular lifestyle. As a follow-up, please inform us of the social consequences of making such a choice.

Oh, and it's "MACBETH" (because, like, he's fucking SCOTTISH, you know as in, "The SCOTTISH Play") you miserable ignoramus.

Seriously, please do everyone a really, really big favor and SYBFSBPH, 'k? thx.

SeattleBlues, I'm still waiting for your answer to my questions at 106. What harm do you envision coming from allowing gays to marry? Other countries do, and they haven't been consumed by flames.

Show your work.

@122

That hoary old chestnut again? Refuting this silly notion 10 times or 30 or 300 doesn't seem to stop you folks dragging it out to be knocked down again. Hmm.

Not being subject to a disease doesn't mean the disease doesn't exist for others. One individual not being subject to gambling addiction, or alchoholism or chemical addiction doesn't mean another individual who is doesn't make choices about these things.

Follow this like a laser, if you can. All that differentiates the gay man or lesbian from their fellow citizens is their choice of whom they have sex with. With the exception of rape how we indulge ourselves sexually is always a choice. I can be faithful to my wife or not, though I might feel temporary attraction to another woman or she to another man. Between us we can create the emotional intimacy that can turn physical intimacy from bodily desire into something sublime, or not.

And gay men or lesbians can choose to act on their predilections or not. For policy purposes, I don't place a value judgement on that choice. It's theirs to make. But it IS a choice.

Or the alternative- We none of us have control over our expressions of sexuality. A pedophile, a heterosexual or a one inclined to homosexuality are all the helpless victims of our inclinations. You may choose to believe that. I don't.

@123

To put it in less emotionally charged terms, the word 'gentleman' used to mean something anyone would understand clearly if they heard it used as a descriptor. It simply meant that a person lived on an income not derived from anything they did. They might be a heck of a nice person or a right bastard. It didn't matter to the definition.

Then the term began to take on connotations of manners or chivalry. Now it's a vague and practically useless term with little hard meaning at all. You can't use it for the purpose for which it was coined, and it's meaningless for any new purpose. Nor was the alteration even necessary. It isn't as though English lacked words like 'polite' or 'beneficent' or 'chivalrous' to express the concepts 'gentleman' has come to vaguely mean.

Marriage means a man and woman pledge themselves for life before the law to each other. It means something definite that everyone understands without recourse to a dictionary. It's a basic building block of any stable society. Altering it for the convenience of a choice based minority not only makes no sense, it threatens the society of which those building blocks are a major part.

Your examples are a few years old. Societal change doesn't work that way. A generation of people who relied on the government for their food and housing was needed for the next generation to consider it their due. And 5 years of 8 don't show meaningfully the effect of the destruction of marriage in the countries you cite.

Seattleblues, you are so intellectually dishonest. Kim's post show examples of how marriage has been redefined since biblical times. Your own choice of the lifestyle of biracial sexual behavior, and marriage was a huge redefinition of marriage, within the last few decades. Up until the sixties, marriage was a man and woman of the same race. Are you not capable of an honest answer that actually addresses the issues raised?

Seattleblues,

I've asked you this question before on a different thread and you didn't respond. I hope you'll respond now, so I can better understand where you're coming from.

I agree with what you've stated above, that gay people choose to have sex with each other, just as I choose to have sex with my husband. My question is, do you believe that homosexual desire is a choice? Do you think that gay people choose to be attracted to people of the same sex? Do you think they could just as easily choose to be attracted to people of the opposite sex?

If you do believe gays choose homosexual attraction, what do you think motivates them to choose it?

If you don't believe gays choose homosexual attraction, how would you suggest they deal with their desires? Do you think they should just adopt celibate lifestyles? Do you think they should feign attraction to people of the opposite sex in order to gain greater social acceptance?

I hope you'll answer because I'm very interested to know your opinion on this.

He asked you how you choose your attraction, Seatleblues. How do you choose to be attracted to your wife. That is the question you have been asked over and over, not how you keep your pants zipped. You keep skating around it. Why? Because you can't answer it. If you are intellectually honest that is. See you didn't choose to be attracted to your wife, you found yourself attracted to her. Sure you could have decided not to court her, but that choice would not change your attraction to her. While she may have numerous wonderful qualities your emotional commitment is still rooted in your attraction for her. So until you can explain how you chose to make yourself attracted to your wife, or any other woman that stimulates your senses and awakens your arousal response, then you must cease with insisting that others make conscious choices about attraction.

And, same-sex unions were actual nuptial ceremonies performed by the church in Christianized Europe. If you knew your church history, then you'd be educated on those Catholic and Orthodox liturgies.

SeattleBlues, you keep defining homosexual desire in terms of a disease model. It's like alcoholism--those people shouldn't drink. Or it's like heart disease--those people shouldn't eat fatty foods. Those behaviors are bad (according to you). But you haven't explained why those behaviors are bad--now speaking of homosexuality. Why can homosexuality (or homosexual attraction, we can use whichever terminology you like) not be more akin to left-handedness? Or having red hair? Or liking spicy foods?

Honestly, there aren't that many gay people who want to marry. Four percent of the population, tops. How can such a small group change such a huge institution such as marriage itself?

But really--what I really want to know--what I keep asking and you not answering--is this: What true, real harm to society do you see happening with gay marriage? I've seen you throw around terms like 'chaos' and 'anarchy'. Do you really think that letting gay folks get married will topple Western civilization?

@126 to 128

At the core of marriage has always been the notion that a man and woman come together before their notion of god or their community or state for a lifelong union, usually with child-rearing involved.

Miscegenation laws didn't alter this core, and over-turning them didn't either. The first was a mistake, the second a redress of the error.

I'm neither Orthodox nor Catholic. But I'll admit to not having gone into the history of either with any particular diligence. I've looked into both in a summary way, and that's about it.

I don't pretend to tell anyone what to decide about the urges they feel. Feel an urge to be an architect? You'd be well advised to talk to architects about the real world impact of the decision, take some drafting courses to see if the urge is realistic, talk to the guidance counselor at the school to determine how you'd go about it and so on.

Feel an urge to sleep with other men or women? You'd be well advised to talk to people who've made that choice and how it impacted them, consider the impact on your faith or lack there-of, consider the implications in family and friends and employment and so on.

Whatever choice is made, the person choosing has an obligation to live with the results. They can work toward changing how others perceive that choice. They can invent terms like marriage equality and work toward that. They can pretend that they had no way of knowing how the choice would affect them, and seek sympathy on that account. But none of these are gauranteed. If the person can't handle the effects of their choice, they'd better make other choices. If they consider the rewards to overweigh the costs, they'd better choose homosexual behavior.

Either way it isn't my business. What becomes other peoples business is when having chosen a person wants to change others around them to fit their choice. At that point, I can and will reject that claim on my indulgence.

S.B. you are so full of shit it's a wonder your toilet doesn't explode every time you sit on it. At least MY "hoary old chestnut" has a basis in historical context and empirical observation, whereas your are simply the fetid delusions of someone desperately clinging to their increasingly irrelevant prejudices. You haven't knocked anything down, because if you had, if any argument you've made on this subject to-date had any value, this debate would have been over a long time ago.

And speaking of "hoary old chestnuts" now you're trotting out the old "same-sex attraction is analogous to a disease" canard, as if "teh gay" were something you could catch, like influenza or typhoid. Yet, even you seem willing to concede the only thing that differentiates same-sex from different-sex attraction is the object of the attraction; in all other respects they are exactly the same. But all other things being equal, you keep insisting your heterosexual attraction to your wife is proper and normal, while someone else's attraction to their same-sex partner is deviant and not worthy of the same sorts of legal and social protections you enjoy. What selfish, self-absorbed arrogance! And even after it's been pointed out to you on numerous occasions how your own relationship, one you tenaciously insist is "normal", would have been considered just as deviant and morally repugnant to a majority of your fellow citizens only a few decades ago! But, noooooo, it's all etched in stone - nothing ever changes - and you are living proof of this, yes?

You exhibit the typical privileged person's mentality that, if someone else gains something, even if it's something they should have by right, then you automatically LOSE something in exchange. But, what exactly do YOU LOSE if gay people are allowed to marry? What right or privilege you currently enjoy is diminished one iota if they are granted the exact same - not different, not superior, just exactly the same - rights and privileges? The only thing I can possibly think of is the privilege of exclusivity; you seem to be driven by the fear that someone else will share something you already have - not anything they're taking away from you - but that you feel compelled to hoard nonetheless. I believe the word for that is "greed". You're a greedy, avaricious little miser who would deny others a portion of a treasure that you yourself do not possess.

And I suppose it's fruitless to point out that YOU YOURSELF have been patently unable to control the expression of YOUR sexuality; but you insist others MUST (and nice try with the classic "gays can't control their sexual behavior and are therefore equivalent to pederasts" fallacy) control theirs, because - why exactly? It makes you uncomfortable? You don't want to have to explain it to your children? Well, here's a News Flash my friend: NOBODY FUCKING CARES about you're sexual neuroses, they're your problem, not anybody else's, and you have no right to demand everyone else cater to your insecurities about what two adult human beings do in private, because it's none of your fucking business. Which brings your circular logic back to it's tail-consuming head, namely: "gays are incapable of controlling their sexual desires, therefore, we must forbid them from entering into the legal state of matrimony - an expression of long-term fidelity and commitment - because they are incapable of such behavior," to which I again say: YOU AR FULL OF SHIT.

And it doesn't matter if same-sex marriage has been legalized in the modern world for two or five or fifty years, because you wouldn't recognize its validity no matter how many decades pass to disprove your assertions. A century wouldn't be long enough for someone like you.

But, you are right about one thing: there is a choice involved. And those who are gay and lesbian, and those of us who aren't, but who recognize their inherent value and worth to society as our friends, family members, colleagues, and fellow human beings are MAKING that choice right now. WE CHOOSE to accept the principal that they have the irrefutable right to CHOOSE the person with whom they wish to share their lives, to CHOOSE to express that commitment in a public manner, to have their CHOICE recognized by legal authority, and to enjoy all the same rights and privileges afforded to any other couple, regardless of sexual orientation, who similarly CHOOSES to make such a commitment.

WE choose, NOT you. And we CHOOSE, because it's the RIGHT CHOICE.

Learn to live with it S.B. Because THAT is the ONLY CHOICE you have in the matter.

Everyone here will have to forgive SeattleBlues, he has basically implied that he was victimized at some point and uses this place as a means to feel better, it really doesn't go beyond that and pity is the best you can offer =)

@131

Want to talk about historical or empirical evidence?

The human body was designed or evolved or both with sex as a means of reproduction. I can see you missed a bit in the 8th grade, but male and female genitalia are compatible, male/male or female/female are not.

As an example I could use the hood of my truck to haul sheetrock, or the roof of the cab. Theoretically with modifications and a lot of work, it could fulfill the function. But why would I do this? The truck has 38 square feet of open space exactly for this kind of job. I don't have to work at it, or play a lot of idiotic games to make it work. I don't have to alter it or ignore the basic design of the vehicle. It's just what the damn thing was made for.

That we're emotionally and physically capable of also deriving a great deal of pleasure from sex is wonderful. That it can help build a bond of intimacy between two people in love is likewise something for which I'm very grateful. But while this augments, it doesn't alter, the basic point and purpose of sex.

Reality only sucks if everything you believe works to ignore it. Must be a bear to be a liberal, what with all the cognitive dissonance.

Dearest Seattleblues,

Those documents and liturgies were Pre-Reformation. So, it doesn't matter if you aren't Catholic or Othodox, it is early church history which makes it Christianity's history. Your responses tonight have been intellectually dishonest. It is a shame. You might find more respect if you could be honest. The social relationship you embrace has been altered in the past, amongst other cultures and even in Europe was not always limited to unions between men and women, or only between one man and one women. It has evolved to permit you to marry the person who you found yourself attracted to and you therefore chose. Next time say that you have an unchanging position that LGBT people are less deserving of being treated as equals. We see through your justifications and they fall to pieces, you don't have an argument. Own your bigotry, sir. Own it.

@132

You're mistaken. I am the sum of the choices I make. The good and bad of those things is mine to enjoy or learn from, not a result of victimization. The whole game of blaming others for my problems is a liberal thing, not a rational activity such as a conservative would engage in.

And, apparently when you were patting yourself on the back for passing 8th grade science, you missed the whole lecture on what many called intersex individuals. Reproduction is not the main reason for sex, it's bonding. You have sex with your wife to bond.

Like I said, just own your bigotry and stop presenting yourself as someone who has a actual argument. You just keep moving goal posts. It's sad.

Good night and good bye.

@134

Intellectual dishonesty AND bigotry?

I justify my choices using reason or some approximation of it. Occasionally, I bend reason to expedience or self justification. That's called being human. What I don't do is ask others to bear the costs of those choices, so I'm okay with that, though I work on it. Now if only the 'gays as preferred citizen' movement would do the same....

Bigotry? Nope. I have prejudices and blindnesses in judgement the same as any other person. But I don't hate gays. I don't think that they're lesser human beings than I. I don't think they merit worse treatment personally or under the law. I don't fear them.

I do ask that they own their choices. I do ask that having chosen they accept the negative and postives that arise from it. I do ask that they don't impose those consequences on others.

Seattle Blues,

Thanks for answering my question this time. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to have conceded that nobody chooses homosexual attraction, but merely experiences it involuntarily in the same way I, a straight woman, experience sexual attraction toward men.

Progress!

Speaking personally, the reason I don't have any problem with gay people having sex with each other -- or wanting to get married, or wanting to adopt kids, or just existing in general -- is because I realize that it bears no impact on my life. I'm from Ontario, Canada where gay marriage has been legal for over 8 years now, and I can honestly tell you that the ability of gay people to get married hasn't affected me at all.

Take your example of someone feeling the urge to become an architect and acting on that urge. I have no desire to become an architect, but I would never stand in the way of someone who did or look down on that person for feeling that urge, because it doesn't affect me. I'd just say more power to them.

So from my perspective, I have a very difficult time relating to -- or feeling patience with -- anyone who takes the existence of gay people so personally as to be offended by it, or feel that gay people should be denied rights that straight people have. I'm happy with my own life, therefore, unless someone is hurting someone else, it doesn't matter to me how they live.

Does any of this sound unreasonable to you?

@74...Gay people comparing their effort to win special citizen status to the very real civil rights challenges faced or being faced by minorities who didn't choose their status isn't just wrong. It's highly insulting to all those who actually must struggle to be viewed as equal citizens having made no choices. The sole difference between a gay or lesbian and the surrounding population is a behavioral choice THEY made.

@89...I understand that the dimunition of morals and standards of conduct to the point of anarchy is the goal of the left, but you needn't be so obvious about it.

How cruel of Godess to strike this blockhead BOTH a bigot and a fool. Tough way to go through life. Notwithstanding his prodigious protestations, the evidence of his idiocy is overwhelming/

Hey SB...there's always Sharia Law. THAT ought to work for you.

Again, I call bullshit S.B. You obviously missed the part of YOUR 8th Grade Biology wherein it should have been noted that literally thousands of species, more than 1,500 observed to-date - all of which procreate via sexual reproduction - exhibit homosexual and bi-sexual behavior, including primates and other mammalian species possessing reproductive organs similar to homo sapiens. Such behaviors, far from being deviant or "unnatural" (whatever that means), serve useful, beneficial functions for those species; if they didn't they would have disappeared through natural selection generations ago.

So, "compatibility" really isn't the issue, as even you note in your own self-contradictory summation above. Just because male and female genitalia are "compatible" for procreation doesn't invalidate the fact that they can be used for other, entirely non-procreative purposes as well. Your assertion that, "Tab A fits into Slot B, therefore the sole purpose of Tab A is to fit into Slot b" isn't born out by empirical observation; if it were, we wouldn't see the myriad of non-Tab A-to-Slot B behaviors we do. Reproduction is simply one of a variety of functions for which our so-called "sexual organs" have proven aptly suited: for example, they are also used to excrete waste from the body, as well as to produce hormones necessary for maintaining metabolic processes; neither of which have any significant bearing on reproduction. In other words, you're assertion that "the naughty bits are ONLY for making babies" is patently false - unless you happen to use some other organ entirely with which to piss or to manufacture testosterone.

And when one is confronted with the fact that Tab A has uses that don't in any way shape or form relate to its "compatibility" with Slot B, well, then it's really not much of a stretch to envision how Tab A might just as easily fit into Aperture C or Opening D, either of which are just as "compatible" to accepting Tab A. Sometimes a paper towel tube is used to hold paper towels; sometimes it's used as a telescope; and sometimes its used as a sword. One crucial ability that elevates us above almost all other species is our ability to adapt objects seemingly created for one purpose and reuse them for entirely unrelated purposes not imagined by the original inventor. Your mind-set is the kind despises innovation, because you can't fathom why anyone would possibly want to use anything for any purpose other than that to which it is originally assigned. That's your problem in a nut-shell: no imagination.

And seriously, if the best analogy you can dredge up is to equate sex with hauling sheet-rock of all things, then I think you've got far more pressing issues with which you should be dealing - ask your wife to explain.

But, keep trying to dance around the fact that you're an utterly unrepentant bigot who would deny other human beings rights you covetously hold as your exclusive claim. You won't be able to grasp them in your grubby little paws for much longer, so enjoy it while you can.

Reality only sucks if everything you believe works to ignore it. Must be a bear to be a liberal, what with all the cognitive dissonance.

Seattleblues, don't use terms like "cognitive dissonance" if you don't know what they mean. After all, you're the person who chides others for using childish insults and poorly thought-out reasoning and then uses childish insults and considers "it's this way because I say so" to be a valid argument.

Still it's nice of you to actually stick around and pretend to engage in debate for a change, even if you keep ignoring Kim. You can't refute anybody else's arguments but at least you demonstrate enough decency to not insult her directly.

You say that pleasure augments but doesn't change "the basic point and purpose of sex."

So for you it all comes down to reproduction. Again. Because you don't have any other argument. So where is the section on marriage forms that requires couples to procreate?

SB, you *still* haven't answered why you think gay marriage will lead to chaos, anarchy, and the decline/fall of Western civilization. How it would happen, what that would look like.

You keep saying the same things, and they keep not making any sense. Except when they are completely false.

Ah, after lostinaseaofblue, AKA SeattleBlues, stopped trolling the comment threads at Goldy's old site, horsesass, I forgot how fun it can be to occasionally watch as he has his rhetorical ass handed to him time after time. I haven't forgotten how tiresome it becomes, however. Good job all you happy sloggers! You have delivered an exceptionally fine rhetorical ass kicking here. Here's a link to all the drivel he posted @ horsesass. As you can see, if you care to look through it all, it is the same troll. Add "house in Italy" to the search for quick affirmation.
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22lostin…

Ahhhhh....my old buddy "lostinhisownasshole".

Good to see some things don't change.

Oh, Seattleblues, you so crayzee. You don't even see how this statement:

I hate what Little Danny Boy the Savage represents. He's far too contemptible to hate personally

Just proves my point that you harbor an irrational hatred of Dan Savage.

I love it when you do that.

It's like that time I posted that I was waiting for you to declare that American women were selfish or what ever and that's why you married a woman from overseas. And I guessed right, because BAM, not but a scant few minutes later, there you were explaining how American women didn't care enough about family and that's why you married a woman from Ethiopia.

I won Internet Wingnut Bingo that day thanks to you.

And I see we can add Shakespeare to the list of things you know nothing about! Fabulous! Please continue to embarrass yourself for our entertainment.
Oh, and as I told Judah, when moving your goal posts in an argument, remember to lift with you legs, not your back so as not to do yourself an injury.

Too late @147, I think he herniated his brain somewhere along the line...

@148: Maybe he could squirt some IcyHot into his ears, to alleviate the problem? Oh, and I do apologize for invoking the name of Muscio.

All is forgiven @149. I had my own unfortunate encounter with her years ago, and it still causes an acid-reflux like feeling of revulsion.

And personally, I'd go for the eyes when administering the IcyHot to S.B.; seems more biblical somehow...

@133: If sex was designed only for purposes of reproduction, why is it so pleasurable for us humans? For many animals, sex is not particularly enjoyable; for some, such as cats, it's downright painful at times. Why would humans and their close relatives (highly social and highly sexual creatures) derive such pleasure from sex if it did not also serve some additional function, aiding in socialization and helping build interpersonal bonds? Want some more? I'll give you some more.
Kissing is just as unnatural as homosex.
You heard me right: kissing. The mouth evolved from gill arches originally as a means of grasping prey, and evolved further, in the case of our ancestral forms, into a place where mechanical and preliminary chemical digestion would take place. There is no biological reason to mash your mouth up against someone else's mouth, and it can even lead to the spread of diseases! (The mouth, remember, is the dirtiest human orifice, bacterially speaking.)
You've kissed your wife on the lips, no? You might as well have had a cock up your ass, for all your talk of what is or isn't biologically natural.
You better sit your ass down and pay attention while we bio majors are in the thread.