//Marriage will become something to be avoided because of association with homosexuals//

Maybe, but only by homophobes, and who cares about those dicks?

//Like it or not, anal sex is dirty//

How is this in any way relevant to a lesbian's right to marry her partner?

What you have presented there is an argument against anal sex, not an argument against SSM.

Not that it matters, because everyone has already voted anyway.

//Tetenus is another disease that lives in feces//

Possibly... I can't say I've ever heard of 'Tetenus'.

Tetanus, on the other hand, is non-contagious: you can't contract it from other people.

In the sixties, I read all I could find written by James Baldwin, a Black American (the term used then) writer, including his "Another Country" about a couple of gays (from memory). I was surprised to realise that male homosexuals practised face-to-face sex, much like (I presume) lesbians might. Nothing particularly dirty about that. But this is all a side-issue.

Marriage has mainly ben a form of insurance for women, who otherwise might have been left, in shame and destitution, to bring up some bloke's kid (or put it up for adoption) and try to get on with life. I suppose my own grandmother would have been treated that way, being raised in the work-house at Hull. No fun. Marriage was the widely-publicised commitment by the bloke to stick by the woman he was shagging, or about to, over the years when she was in a desperately dependent position, without effective birth control, or any other social or financial support.

From that point of view, I can understand the need in peasant societies for families to keep a close eye on the girls, keeping them busy inside, until they could be safely and very publicly handed over to another man - politically, handed over to another family. But that was then.

These days, woman's safety and security has been improved while birth control methods have also improved, and abortion legalised. So much of the very need for any marriage has been whittled away. A man and a woman can live together, have all the kids they want, all quite happily, without even thinking of getting married. More than half of my siblings have done that.

Marxists used to be dismissive of marriage. Gramscians, it seems, want to destroy the institution instead, and perhaps its practical purposes, and insist - 'Hey, here's a great stick to poke up their arses !' - that any two people can get married, not just a woman to a man. So what about polyamory ? Will they draw the line between homosexual 'marriage' and polyamory ? What are the odds ?

Joe

I don't want to buy into the 'dirty sex' issue. As far as I'm concerned members of the qwerty community can put their dicks and tongues wherever they like , just so long as I'm not in the vicinity.

But in regards to it being unsafe and unnatural I did find this interesting and something to monitor...
http://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2017/09/28/anal-cancer-new-gay-epidemic-media-wont-talk/

It ought to be noted that if it wasn't for the efforts and historically unprecedented successes of western medicine over the past few decades, HIV/AIDS would have already wiped out most of the homosexual community and left that lifestyle choice as something few would choose. Modern medicine makes promiscuous homosexual behaviour possible.

________________________________________________________________

AJ wrote of me ..."You're incredible."

I used to have a girlfriend who'd say that to me as well...although in a very different context.. :)

Her name was Anna. I wonder what the 'A' in 'AJ" stands for?

_________________________________________________________________

Re your error, bang on as much as you like. We both know what happened ie that you refuted my point based on faulty data, sought to salvage some pride by back-tracking and making new unsupported assertions, were exposed and have now spent who knows how long trying to hide it. No one cares and if they did they'd go back and check the various exchanges and see your errors all over again.

Mhaze,

I'm sure Anna said that to you many times, in that and other contexts, but especially in the heat of the moment :) And you relied with equal enthusiasm. Love is a wonderful thing, sometimes I think it's all there is, apart from life itself.

Cheers,

Joe

Found the time and bandwidth to dig yourself in even deeper I see, mhaze. I guess you can't fall much further, eh? If you're going down, I'm coming with you. Is that it?

<<... you refuted my point based on faulty data, sought to salvage some pride …>>

“Salvage some pride”? Yeah, right, because your evidence was so-o-o-o convincing, wasn't it?

Again you attempt to make it all sound so clumsy and embarrassing, yet I have nothing to be embarrassed about. In fact, I should be quite proud of myself, double-checking my source with minimal prompting from you like that. But we’ve already been through all this before, haven't we mhaze?

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7734#238220

Or do I need to copy and paste quotes again?

Is it any wonder you never seem to able to link back to previous discussions like that, let alone provide line by line quotes?

<<... making new unsupported assertions …>>

So now you're just going to assert that what I had said was unsupported? Do you have some evidence that my source was wrong, do you?

<<... and have now spent who knows how long trying to hide it.>>

Hide it? I've admitted to my minor slip up multiple times now. You just want to make it look like I'm floundering. That's always been the goal, hasn't it?

You're not a very honest person, are you mhaze?

TL,
Tetanus is a disease caused by a bacteria that is commonly found in feces of animals, including humans.

The more contact one has with feces the more likely the bacteria is able to enter a wound. Despite vacination, tetanus still kills some 60,000 annually. The relationship between Tetanus and fecal matter is well known.