North Carolina passes same-sex marriage ban

[mikey_the_redneck]

Originally Posted by HPLovecraft

A man that feels they need to dominate over a woman in bed in order to be manly is anything but.

....I'll help you out here.

Take a trip down to your local book store. Go to the womens pornography section (where they keep the romance novels).

Open a few of them and notice that the male lead character is dominant rather then submissive 99.9% of the time. Hint - it's a major part of what ignites female attraction.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

There are only 14 kids in that picture:

I always thought about having enough kids to have a band, it never dawned on me to have enough to have an orchestra!

[mikey_the_redneck]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

Lol. So are heterosexuals... Slut, whore and back alley sally at not names for homosexuals. Well they could be, but that's not where I was going with this

I wouldn't say that sluts are fit for marriage though, ............would you?

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

....I'll help you out here.

Take a trip down to your local book store. Go to the womens pornography section (where they keep the romance novels).

Open a few of them and notice that the male lead character is dominant rather then submissive 99.9% of the time. Hint - it's a major part of what ignites female attraction.

I had no idea you were an expert on the content of romance novels!

How many years have you been reading this type of fiction before you could confidently conclude that "99.9%" involve dominant male and submissive female characters?

[mikey_the_redneck]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

My wife and I voluntarily chose not to procreate and raise children. Do you think our marriage should be invalidated?

Not necessarily.

I just don't see the purpose in it.

[saskflames69]

They marry their cousins for Christs sake. I disapprove of this hardcore redneckery.

[Coys1882]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

Hint - it's a major part of what ignites female attraction.

That's probably what a lot of rapists believe.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

Not necessarily.

I just don't see the purpose in it.

I'll lay it out for you in plain, simple, easy-to-understand terms: my wife and I wish to spend the rest of our lives with each other in a loving, committed marriage. How does having children (or not) give our marriage a purpose?

[mikey_the_redneck]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

So then you are 100% in favour of banning people who are sterile, too old to have children, or those who don't intend to have children, from getting married?

Good question. Perhaps the definition of marriage needs to be modified along the lines of ability to reproduce.
Maybe there is a solution in there that works for everybody.

[HPLovecraft]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

....I'll help you out here.

Take a trip down to your local book store. Go to the womens pornography section (where they keep the romance novels).

Open a few of them and notice that the male lead character is dominant rather then submissive 99.9% of the time. Hint - it's a major part of what ignites female attraction.

Lol, let me guess, you've read the Moral Animal and now believe yourself to be an expert on evolutionary psych?

You said that not dominating in bed makes a man less "manly." I said feeling you need to dominate a woman in bed in order to feel manly makes you anything but. That has nothing to do with what a female partner seeks in a sexual relationship, and everything to do with a the psyche of the male partner.

I hope you're not going to run away from this thread, too? Feel free to make some more riveting points on what sells to the female demographic that reads romance novels.

[CaramonLS]

Hey guys, slow down on responding to Mikey and let some others get in on the action. He is tossing up some real softballs (pun intended?) today. He's about one Banjo away from reaching full stereotype status right now.

Sometimes I wonder if he is just trolling us or is actually serious. He is probably going to come out one day and tell us he is a human rights advocate or something.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

Good question. Perhaps the definition of marriage needs to be modified along the lines of ability to reproduce.
Maybe there is a solution in there that works for everybody.

As a person who follows a libertarian like Paul, how can you want the government to control deeply personal choices like who they marry? I feel a little bit like you feel that way because no one else here does.

[mikey_the_redneck]

Originally Posted by HPLovecraft

Lol, let me guess, you've read the Moral Animal and now believe yourself to be an expert on evolutionary psych?

You said that not dominating in bed makes a man less "manly." I said feeling you need to dominate a woman in bed in order to feel manly makes you anything but. That has nothing to do with what a female partner seeks in a sexual relationship, and everything to do with a the psyche of the male partner.

I hope you're not going to run away from this thread, too? Feel free to make some more riveting points on what sells to the female demographic that reads romance novels.

Run away?

Look, ...you are nothing to run away from. I simply did not want to have a discussion with you in that other thread about the "long march" of the cultural marxists.

I have never heard of "Moral Animal". Out of curiosity though, I have picked up the odd romance novel sitting on the gf's coffee table just to see what is inside. Dominance is not about the man "feeling manly". It is not about controlling or abusing anyone. It is about what makes both the man and the woman happy and satisfied.

[Thor]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

Good question. Perhaps the definition of marriage needs to be modified along the lines of ability to reproduce.
Maybe there is a solution in there that works for everybody.

Wow lol.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

Good question. Perhaps the definition of marriage needs to be modified along the lines of ability to reproduce.

My wife and I have the ability to reproduce, but not the desire. Again, I ask if you would wish to see our marriage invalidated because it doesn't conform to your notion that it's an institution that exists solely for child-raising?

Maybe there is a solution in there that works for everybody.

Sure: any pair of consenting adults has the right to marry. It works for everybody: heterosexual couples who want children, heterosexual couples who don't want (or can't have) children, homosexual couples who want children, and homsexual couples who don't want children. Perfect!

[valo403]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

Run away?

Look, ...you are nothing to run away from. I simply did not want to have a discussion with you in that other thread about the "long march" of the cultural marxists.

I have never heard of "Moral Animal". Out of curiosity though, I have picked up the odd romance novel sitting on the gf's coffee table just to see what is inside. Dominance is not about the man "feeling manly". It is not about controlling or abusing anyone. It is about what makes both the man and the woman happy and satisfied.

It's not people you run away from, it's facts.

Want Mikey to exit a thread, present him with cold hard facts to counter his position. He'll take off faster than Wiley Coyote on his rocket powered roller skates.

[mikey_the_redneck]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

As a person who follows a libertarian like Paul, how can you want the government to control deeply personal choices like who they marry? I feel a little bit like you feel that way because no one else here does.

I was just tossing some ideas around. It's too bad the gay marriage debate has been so divisive.

Ron Paul says the government should stay out of the marriage industry.....and I agree with him.

Except the pro gay marriage supporters want the government to make people accept and recognize homosexual relationships through legislation, and I don't think that is right either.

Yeah ......I've never been one to conform.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

Of course not.

Homosexuals are famous for being promiscuous.

Sorry, but this was asked earlier, but might have been missed:

CAN YOU PLEASE PROVIDE A LINK TO THE STUDY SUPPORTING THIS STATEMENT?

Thanks.

[Flabbibulin]

Obama responds to NC situation:

http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/09/politi...html?hpt=hp_t1

[HPLovecraft]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

Run away?

Look, ...you are nothing to run away from. I simply did not want to have a discussion with you in that other thread about the "long march" of the cultural marxists.

I have never heard of "Moral Animal". Out of curiosity though, I have picked up the odd romance novel sitting on the gf's coffee table just to see what is inside. Dominance is not about the man "feeling manly". It is not about controlling or abusing anyone. It is about what makes both the man and the woman happy and satisfied.

You make it a habit of running away from threads you post in when you're unable to defend your deeply misinformed beliefs. You've admitted as much in an old thread when you were called out on it before. In turn, I wasn't referring to the last thread in which you couldn't defend in the least what you kept claiming, even when you were specifically asked multiple times to show evidence of it; instead, I was referring to just about every single discussion you take part in on CP when you do the exact same thing. And, as in your regular fashion, you will skirt and avoid the multiple requests to show evidence for your claim gay people are sexually promiscuous, just as you always do.