 sj |
||
|
||
BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Little Hawk Date: 29 Jul 08 - 12:43 AM Geez. ;-) Now you've got me curious too, Lansing. I thought I was being quite straightforward and not mysterious at all. A "tip-off" about what? What I meant in some of my earlier post(s) about society fearing male sexual aggression was simply this: Men are physically capable of raping people and some men sometimes do rape people, and everybody knows it. Therefore if there is any fear out there about sexual predation (and there is) that fear is generally concerned with what men may do, not with what women may do. Therefore I think that part of the fear out there of homosexual males is linked to that general fear that people have of male sexual predation, period. I don't see a lot of comparable fear out there about lesbians, and I think that's why. Women are not seen as potential sexual aggressors in a phsyical sense...men are. Now, do I think that most young boys spend much time being worried about being assaulted by an older man? Hell, no. :-) I doubt that it ever even crosses their minds. It never crossed mine when I was a youngster. I was thinking about girls, not worrying about older men. In fact, I think the only boys who ever worry about it at all are those to whom it has already happened. I have had no such unpleasant experience myself, but I do know a man of over 50 who got raped by an adult male, a complete stranger, when he was just a child, and it has really very badly messed up his entire life right to this day. No joke. That's just one person's experience, though. I don't mean to make some sort of political statement or point in recounting it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Richard Bridge Date: 29 Jul 08 - 03:34 AM Maybe "Guest from Sanity" could change his/her handle to "Holiday from Sanity"? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Barry Finn Date: 29 Jul 08 - 03:35 AM To the subject of fear in children of gay men or of men or of anybody because of their sexual affiliation. My daughter & son never should any of these types of fears that being discussed but then our backyard was boarded by a gay couple (men) who (one still lives here) over the past 20 yrs has been one of our best neighbors & the kids have know about their sexuality from the start. They have been close neighbors & have taken an active role in the kds lives as any long time neighbor would & could. They have also know that their Aunt is gay & has lived with the same woman since my wife & I met. So their realitionship is as old as our & we've been married 21 yrs. Our kids 2 Aunts have also raised a daughter whose getting married (to a man) next month. My Neice is a joy to both my wife, me & our kids. I've watched her grow into one of the best young adults I know, I'm so proud of her. She loves both the women who rasied her, she's very happy with herself & life & she brings that joy & happiness to whose ever around her & I'm so proud of my 2 sister-in-laws & the job they did raising her. They are/were better parents to their child than most "God Fearing" parents I've ever met. That's probably another reason why my kids grew up with out any of this "fear" I'm reading about here. I's also a fear that as a male I've never encountered (oreven heard about) as a youngster but in my neighborhood people were open about everyone's news & laundry. It was a poor area & we had all typs, bank robbers, junkies, hard workers, some church goes others came from hell but there was no fear. I feared no one except my on peers & we fought like cats & dogs. I can't remember any kid being hurt, black, white or Latino, by an adult. We did have the Cathloic Church & later in life I found out that some of my childhood friends were approched but nothing came of it, as I said it was a tough neighborhood & those approched had no problem iding what was happening & telling the priests to "fuck off" or they'd be getting a call from some of the fathers. So maybe exposure to the real side of life from an eary start & an exceptance of these facts IN life help in more ways than are credited. Now from one who I consider a righteous man. Me. I don't care how anyone performs their sex 2 men, 2 women or one of each on each other. I don't care what they use on each other, if it works for them "God Bless 'em". There are to many people in this world that aren't blessed with enjoying their own bodies & to many that can't enjoy the bodies of others. So if they find some ways that work for them, weither you or I like it or not, they should do just as they please (they are consenting adults after all), I shouldn't care cause I shouldn't be watching & neither should you! It shouldn't matter if you find it disgusting or not, it shouldn't matter if your Rabbi or Deacon likes to do it that way or if it disgustes them,mit should only matter if you'd like to try it & then that's no one's business either. If the laws in Calif. stay on the books I'll be very happy cause I'll be planning to be at my sisters-in-laws wedding, they just said that they'll be getting married if it does. Just think of it they've been together over 20 yrs & have raised a great child into adulthood (she'll be thrilled). They'll be able to feel as if they are equals in all eyes, to my wife & I. "As a married couple". Damn, as humans they deserve that, it's only civil that they do. Barry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Jack Blandiver Date: 29 Jul 08 - 04:54 AM I make so secret that I find the thought of two men cuddling up in bed and then entering eachother enough to make me want to vomit. It is sick, unnatural and disgraceful. It might be argued that all human sexuality is unnatural by default, given that reproduction is merely the random by-product of sexual intercourse and rarely, if ever, the actual objective of the act itself, which is more to do with the passionate impulses by which the genital mechanisms are at their most effective, and indeed, persuasive. They say the clitoris is the only organ of the human body designed solely for pleasure. Well, pleasure is but part of the persuasion, by which means we are coerced into an act which may, or may not, result in procreation. Having established the causal link between sexual intercourse and pregnancy, the next thing we did was think about contraception, which takes its place as an essential aspect of most hetero-sexual behaviour despite it being entirely unnatural thus confirming the simple fact that human beings have sexual intercourse for reasons other than procreation. Procreation is an occult biological process over which, once instigated, we have no actual control other than termination. It follows, therefore, that the only thing that makes sexual intercourse somehow natural is the procreative aspect which, given the amount of times people fuck without issue, is a barely negligible aspect of human sexuality, the actual naturalness of which is the capacity for orgasm in a heightened state of arousal consequential on the presence of another person similarly, and mutually, aroused. The fact that this can and does happen in same-sex relationships is a fair indication of it's persuasive potency & the limitless enrichments by which we might experience same. Another indication is the location of the male G-spot, which is hardly positioned with respect to any sort of procreative procedure. If Christians really do believe that we were created in the image of God, then God put that pleasure spot up our asses for a reason - because he's got one too? If we go with evolution, then we must realise that biological naturalness is only given meaning by the cultural & cognitive unnaturalness that is all human culture. Biologically we are animals; cognitively however we are something else entirely, thus might we consider the alternatives and reep the rewards. As for homosexuality in animals, here's what Wiki has to say: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_animals |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Little Hawk Date: 29 Jul 08 - 09:52 AM "It might be argued that all human sexuality is unnatural by default" Ha! Well, I swan. ;-) Give over, man. It might also be argued that the moon is made of petrified yogurt and that musk oxen are the byproduct of a pre-Cambrian union between Madagaskar wombats and Fiji Islanders...but there are some arguments not really worth the time or effort spent in elucidating them with a few hundred artfully chosen words. (grin) Geez. But I gotta get you onside writing campaign speeches for the APP (American Primate Party), because you have a real gift for the gab. Yessir. I think you might be able to reduce even Amos to stupefied silence with that last post. Now, I have no objection to males privately seeking out one another's G-spots by shoving various appendages up their respective asses...why would I object to it if I don't have to do it myself or watch it being done? I find it disgusting in principle, yes...but I don't object to it. I find lots of things disgusting...watching NASCAR...getting drunk and disorderly on Budweiser...singing dreadful karaoke songs in a loud and off-key voice...wearing T-shirts that say "I Love EZ-Rock!"...Gangsta Rap music...graceless teenage girls with dayglo orange and green hair who wear jeans about 4 inches too low on their hips and stand around vacantly saying things like "I'm like...whatever..." The list goes on and on. We are all disgusted by a variety of things, right? My solution to these various things I find disgusting is not to participate in them myself. Simple, right? ;-) ********* "Biologically we are animals; cognitively however we are something else entirely, thus might we consider the alternatives and reep the rewards." I agree entirely with that. Human beings are fascinating creatures. They will do absolutely anything they can think of or imagine. This makes them both brilliant and extremely foolish, depending on what they choose to do with their fertile imaginations. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Little Hawk Date: 29 Jul 08 - 10:05 AM Another thought occurs to me. Pleasure is dandy, but it can't match love. I think that people's ceaseless search for the superficial rewards of transitory pleasures tends to lead them somewhat astray and they often lose themselves in the process. They forget why they're here. The search for pleasure doesn't satisfy their much deeper needs which have to do with the experience of love, not mere pleasure. People will die on behalf of a great love. They won't die to attain another dandy orgasm. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: GUEST,Joy Bringer Date: 29 Jul 08 - 10:06 AM The point is Little Hawk there is nothing private about it. It is pushed down our throats at every given opportunity that we must accept them. Let these people carry out their perversions behind closed doors and leave us alone. No the media is riddled with these pervs and the music industry too. They have Gay Pride rallies over here, I prefer to call them Sick Perv rallies. People going about their daily life are subjected to grown men rubbing up against eachother on floats and dressing and acting as females with false eyelashes and pink knickers. That is sick, that is perverted, that is public. Nothing private about any of it. I could never accept it as normal behaviour. I once watched the antics of a singer called Freddie Mercury and a television presenter called Kenny Everett on a tv chat show some years back. It was public perversion and it was televised. Thankfully it's not a problem now ! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Little Hawk Date: 29 Jul 08 - 10:30 AM Yeah, I understand exactly what bothers you about that, Joy Bringer...but here's the thing. Why do you give it your attention? See, I have no interest in the Gay Pride Parade...so I just ignore it. It doesn't bother me because I don't focus on it. I do something else instead. You have to consider just how much of your valuable time and attention you are going to give to the things you don't like...and there will always be plenty of things you don't like in this world. I detest commercial advertising. I mean I really absolutely HATE it. With a vengeance. Accordingly, I simply stopped watching all commercial TV back around 1985, and I only watch it now if I have a VERY specific and important reason to...and that's hardly ever. I don't listen to commercial radio for the same reason. I don't NEED to. I can get all the good music I want by simply playing CDs...and then I'm in control of what music I'm listening to, and I don't have to hear any advertising in between the songs. I can see videos I like by renting them. I can avoid the damn advertising they have now in the Cineplex by simply walking into the theatre 10 minutes after the official start time of the movie...by which time the noisy advertising is over and the real movie is about to begin. Now...I could spend my time getting furious about all the commercial advertising and ruining my own mood over it...or I could just as easily avoid most of it. I have chosen the latter course. No one has to go and watch the Gay Pride Parade. No one has to sit and listen to a TV or radio show that is going on and on about how great the gay lifestyle is. No one has to read an article about it. No one has to sit and watch Freddie Mercury or any other such personality if they don't want to. I mean...hell...there are plenty of other things one can choose to focus on, right? You follow me? This is the problem with having a chip on one's shoulder. The chip is like a live creature, a monkey on your back that keeps grabbing you by the ear and yelling, "Look! Look at this awful thing over here that you hate! I want you to focus on this awful thing, by God, and I want you to get REALLY upset about it, and then I want something DONE about it, and I am going to make your life and other people's lives hell until something IS done about it!!!!!!!!" That's not wise. It just messes up your day. It makes enemies too. Now the overly pushy gay rights advocates whom you are reacting to have such a chip on their shoulders, in my opinion. And you've got the mirror image of that chip on your shoulder as well. That's what I see happening...action-reaction-counter-reaction, back and forth.....the one constantly feeding the other. The monkeys are in cahoots. They need each other. If someone was to just decide to dump that monkey off his shoulder, then the angry waters would calm right down. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: GUEST,Joy Bringer Date: 29 Jul 08 - 10:47 AM You have spoken with more reason Little hawk than all the other members heaped together. I agree they should be ignored (the parade pasted my home, traffic stopped, street condoned off). I grew up in a time of moral correctness. Yes there were sick minded people around then, but they slipped around the backs of public toilets and local parks in the hours of darkness. Now the council has to almost provide them with shag buildings in public parks. We once had closet male pervs in our society, the closet doors were flung open and they were let out and the smokers of society now seem to occupy the closet ! Really if you want to sit down with your family and watch television why do we need to see pervs kissing and groping at 7.00pm in the evening ? There is a soap set in the Yorkshire Dales here and a couple of shirttail lifters prance about it promoting the illness. I no longer watch the programme, what I am saying is, why should people like me have to chance my way of life because some tv producer who is ill thinks I should be subjected to what his warped mind thinks is normal. Nature cleans up the problem, the medical profession and government suppress the real figures. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Amos Date: 29 Jul 08 - 10:51 AM Well, the like or dislike of popular promotion of sexualitty is an individual thing--I too dislike it, whether it is hetero or homo-based, although I will say the gays do it with more style by far than the heteros. But generally, I agree, JB, that public dramatization of sex is off-putting and boring. But the issue of the civic rights of individuals to marry whom they please has absolutely nothing to do with this. People keep bringing up their provate abhorrences and disgusts and stomach churns about male homosexuality in particular. Apparently lesbianism does not quite offend people at the deep gut level quite as much as its male coutnerpart. But who gives a flake of moondust? Your appetite for or antipathy toward genders, sexual practices, or breakfast cereal has NOTHING to do with the topic of this thread. You who are continuously bent out of shape about sexuality need to get above the fray long enough to notice that the question is much simpler. The legal and civil rights of individuals to marry the individual of their choice should be equal to all citizens under the law. Yes? or No? Your revulsions or appetitites are your private business and have no relationship to this critical core question. YEt time and again, this thread gets parlayed into a hatred-of-homos-thread or some such. Why is the central question so readily being avoided? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Little Hawk Date: 29 Jul 08 - 10:59 AM Hmmm. Well, I think we've pretty well covered all the bases here by now, Amos. At this point people are just talking about whatever they still want to talk about. I ignored this thread for a long time. I may go back to ignoring it again, I guess. We'll see. ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: GUEST,lox Date: 29 Jul 08 - 11:06 AM I must commend the descriptive detail of the perversity by which your imagination is so fixated. It is really quite vivid and highly developed. This reminds me of an issue of the Sun newspaper I opened a few years back which featured a scathing article about paedophiles, right next to which was a large photo of charlotte church wearing a skimpy bikini (then 15), taken by paparazzi as she holidayed in some exotic location. Britain loves to titillate itself with scandal and taboo and finds release by frothing at the mouth. I can't say that images of men kissing men particularly keep me awake at night. And you certainly won't find me picketing the house of a paediatrician due to my ignorance of the English language. Froth froth ... uh ... uh ... it's disgusting ... oh yeah ... perverse ... ... that's it baby ... let me go into more detail ... ... I'm writing a letter ... ... whew ... think I'll have a cigarette now ... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: GUEST,Joy Bringer Date: 29 Jul 08 - 11:06 AM Fine, Do I agree with same - sex marriages ? No I do not. I think the word marriage for pervs is wrong in the first place. Call it a Filth Duo and myself more people could accept it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Ebbie Date: 29 Jul 08 - 11:16 AM Why do I keep being reminded of "a naughty, nasty boy"? (Those not in America might not get this allusion.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Jack Blandiver Date: 29 Jul 08 - 11:32 AM I think it was Sun Ra who said that the greatest evil known to humanity is righteousness. Righteousness is about that point when ones subjective convictions become so fucked up that they interfere with ones ability to tolerate the subjective convictions of others, or else appreciate their right to experience life as they see fit without being told that what they're doing isn't normal. Normal is an observable consensus of behaviour, not a benchmark for all behaviour; abnormality in these terms is only a matter of widening the remit for normality, which has absolutely no objective value whatsoever. If we are disgusted by anything, such as the things in Little Hawk's list, then that tells us more about ourselves than it does any of the things we're disgusted with. In short we have no right be disgusted with anything or anyone short of those whose acts are criminal and inhumane. Homosexuality isn't criminal; neither is it inhumane. That we see more of it in the media is simply because it is a part of life & of culture as a whole, and if people can't openly celebrate their individual uniqueness with pride, then it's a poor world in which we live. Our solution to things we find disgusting is to get over ourselves; to accept and respect, to get a life and live it without troubling over what others may or may not be getting up to. The problem of disgust is with the disgusted, because without the disgusted nothing would be disgusting. Absolutely anything has the capacity to be disgusting, but only to those who are suitably fucked up, such as the righteous, and the religious, who in their quest for the moral certainty and the life hereafter are missing out on the chances of their life in the here & now. You are, after all, a long time dead. Love is fair enough, if a little ephemeral, a little abstract, a little too conceptual, whereas mere pleasure is a physical corporeal aspect of life. Love might heighten ones appreciation of pleasure; but alcohol and heroin can do much the same thing, and might be cheaper in the long run and less upsetting than when the love of your life runs off with someone else. If one can find a partner with whom one wishes to be faithful in mutual perpetuity, then fair enough - if not, then I very much doubt celibacy is much of an option. Of course this applies equally to homosexual as well as heterosexual relationships, so is perhaps a little off topic. Normal, like natural, isn't necessarily A Good Thing; cancer is natural, dog shit & hernias likewise; idiosyncrasy isn't normal by definition, neither is genius. Rules are defined by their exceptions; and being exceptional is not being normal, and yet humanity continues to crave consensus and normalcy, everyone running headlong for the lowest possible common denominator simply to fit in. Like the slogan you see on t-shirts: you laugh at me because I'm different, I laugh at you because you're all the same. Maybe we are all sub-normal; maybe it's only the exceptional ones who are truly normal, living life to the full whilst the rest of us look on from our respective puddles, begrudging them the potential we have failed to realise by simply being normal. Is it any surprise to find many people of genius are also homosexual? I think, perhaps not. The only thing that matters here is humanity; being alive, being proud of our uniqueness, being what we are, doing what we do, and striving to live in such a way that facilitates others to do that too, whatever their orifice of choice might be, or whether or not they like having sex with other men or other women. This should not be open to debate; no one should be allowed to express opinions on what other people are, or what other people do; no one is entitled to be disgusted with anyone else, for therein lies the truly disgusting, born as it is from our capacity to believe that what is right for us is right for everyone, which is clearly, and self-evidently, and most certainly not the case. Sedayne |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Amos Date: 29 Jul 08 - 11:42 AM Sedayne speaketh with great wisdom. BoJ, your heart, it seems, is quite curdled with your disgust and hatred and inflamed with fire against perverts and filth. But it might do you some good to examine why it is your heart keeps bringing up these things to resist so mightily. You interject these fiery labels -- filth and perversity serem to be your favorites -- into a question of civil rights. Despite the evidence that affinity for the same sex is a biological, not a psychosomatic syndrome, you feel it is sufficient grounds to deny the equal civil rights under the law tot hose afflicted with it. Is there any important way inwhich you are different, on this issue, from a tobacco-spitting gumless inflamed, racist Klan-supporting red-necked bigot? The similarities are quite striking: you both spew undifferentiated hatred toward a group that is different in minor biological details from your own. You both base a great deal of rancour and venom on unreason and fear, and justify your hatred with invective rather than particular facts of the matter. And you both seem to feel justified in passing righteous condemnation down onto the heads of your fellow humans. You both act with great disgust in the face of God's own creation and the natural variety of life displayed before you, as though you were particularly at odds with both God and nature. What is it that drives you to these extremes? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: GUEST,lox Date: 29 Jul 08 - 11:43 AM The closet door is jammed ... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: GUEST,Joy Bringer Date: 29 Jul 08 - 12:09 PM As responsible adults and parents we have been given a very precious task to show our children the correct course to take in life. That is a privileged role. What kind of parent would I be if I allowed my child to watch a television programme in which some animal gave another man a beef injection ? There is enough warped people in the world to protect your children from without permitting them space in your living room. Take the music industry, it seems no one seems to care that Amy Winehouse and Pete Doherty are killing themselves with drugs. Why not jail them to protect them from themselves ? I know this is a thread drift, but it is another example of evil ruining young lives and society promoting it through acceptance, a man adding an extension to another man's spine is probably the most disgusting act I can imagine. Men's annal's are not for pleasure. Same sex relationships are twisted, evil and wrong. Rattle away eachother in private, stop promoting it to children. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: GUEST,lox Date: 29 Jul 08 - 12:17 PM "a television programme in which some animal gave another man a beef injection" Another man? There there - I'm sure there's plenty more beef injections in the ... er ... sea ... (?!?) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: TheSnail Date: 29 Jul 08 - 12:32 PM GUEST,Joy Bringer a man adding an extension to another man's spine is probably the most disgusting act I can imagine. Oh, go on. I'm sure you could do better if you tried. You certsinly seem to put a lot of time into thinking about things that disgust you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: curmudgeon Date: 29 Jul 08 - 12:32 PM Why does this "person" remind me so much of Martin Gibson? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Amos Date: 29 Jul 08 - 12:49 PM Q: Should same-sex pairs of people have the same civil rights under the law as other people? A: Same-sex is perverted/ Q: Should same-sex pairs of people have the same civil rights under the law as other people A: It's unnaturall!! Why should I allow my childrent os ee dirty pictures? Q: Should same-sex pairs of people have the same civil rights under the law as other people? A: The very idea of make homosexual is disgusting and despicable and twisted and hateful; and evil and wicked and the spawn of Satan and also quite bad. Q: Should same-sex pairs of people have the same civil rights under the law as other people? A: I don't think there should be such a thing as homosexuality. Especially among MEN!!! Yuck!!! Ick!!! Q: Should same-sex pairs of people have the same civil rights under the law as other people? A: Why should the church bless such a thing when it is against God and forbidden in the Bible???? Q: Should same-sex pairs of people have the same civil rights under the law as other people? A: Same sex coupling is the most horrible thing I can imagine, I think about it allt he time it is so disgusting. Icky poo!!! Q: Should same-sex pairs of people have the same civil rights under the law as other people? A: You are a pinko fag-loving commie bastard hippy. Q: Should same-sex pairs of people have the same civil rights under the law as other people? ...Let me know if anyone feels they have an answer to the question as asked.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Jack Blandiver Date: 29 Jul 08 - 12:53 PM Men's annal's are not for pleasure. Nothing could be further from the truth, hence the male G-spot being located where it is. See http://allwomenstalk.com/finding-the-male-g-spot/ for further info. This is God's Holy Work, creating Man in his Own Image, anal G-spot and all, thus allowing for the potential & desirability of anal penetration by virtue of a) proximity and b) the potential for mutually climatic pleasure. Talking of which, there's a choice piece of graphic anal sex & orgasm in the Song of Songs, Chapter 5, Verse 4. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: GUEST,lox Date: 29 Jul 08 - 12:55 PM Or even ... Q: Should same-sex pairs of people have the same civil rights under the law as other people? A: I'm too repressed to be gay and happy so why should anyone else be allowed to. Thank you for bringing the joy. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Don Firth Date: 29 Jul 08 - 02:13 PM Well, having read the latest posts, I see that this thread is in good hands. Sedayne, Little Hawk, and Amos have spoken a great deal of reason, as have a few others. Joy Bringer, Like Little Hawk, I get highly irritated by television commercials. This is why I regard the "Mute" button on my television's remote control one of the truly great inventions of Mankind. I use the "Mute" button, and avoid the aggravation. Perhaps you need a "Mute" button on a number of the aspects of Life. You seem obsessed with the anatomical details of anal intercourse and apparently take a fierce pleasure in describing them in some detail, then telling us how "sickening" and "disgusting" you find them. But a perusal of a book entitled The Joy of Gay Sex will reveal that your imagined repertoire of what gays get up to is grossly limited. The annual Gay Pride Parade passes a few blocks from where I live. I watched it once, and for the most part, it was just a parade. I found a few features somewhat bizarre, such as "Dykes on Bikes" with their fleet of rumbling Harleys (but it was mainly their manner of dress—or lack thereof: creatively designed leathers), and a fair number of cross-dressers who had a most imaginative sense of fashion. But I got the idea, and once was enough. I was not "disgusted" by the parade. If anything, I was amused by much of it. But—I was also aware that this was an attempt by the gay community in this area to call attention to the civil rights issue. And when the Mayor and the Police Chief—neither of whom are gay—participated in the parade, this went a long way toward adding pressure on legislators to grant those civil rights. I am happily married—to a marvelous woman—and I have no interest whatsoever in any kind of sexual relationship with another male. I don't find it the idea "disgusting" or "sickening." I do find the idea distasteful, but not for "sanitary" or "health" reasons. It is simply that I am not interested. Joy Bringer, you have not answered two questions I have asked you repeatedly, so I will ask them yet again: In what way does the marriage of Paul and Philip have any effect whatsoever on Barbara's and my marriage?I would like answers to these questions, if you, indeed, have answers. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Wesley S Date: 29 Jul 08 - 02:41 PM Good grief Don - why should we care if he has an answer or not? As Jefferson Airplane said once in a song "It doesn't mean shit to a tree". Eventually he will have to join the 21st Century. Until then his opinion matters not in the "Great Scheme of Things" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: beardedbruce Date: 29 Jul 08 - 03:03 PM As a conservative, let me state that IF the government is using the term "Marriage" for *GOVERNMENT* use, such as tax status, there cannot be ANY use of the religious-defined limited meaning attached- ALL versions of marriage, including multiple husbands or wives ( or do Moslims NOT count as married, if they have more than one spouse?), gay, or whatever. The problem is that, once the GOVERNEMENT has used the term, it should NOT be limited to any one religious group's definition ( A violation of the Bill of Rights). IF there is a problem with this, use a different term for your religiously limited/defined marriage ("union of two church members of opposite sexes but appropriate ages who intend to remain together for life") I do not see how ANY allowed form of marriage can be considered a threat to any other. If I like vanilla ice cream, and you like chocolate, how does my getting vanilla endanger your getting chocolate? And if someone else likes strawberry, so what? THEY HAVE THAT RIGHT. I think the ritual cannibalism of Christianity is far more discusting than the acts between any two ( or more) individuals, but that does NOT give me the right to prevent anyone else from having that religion. Nor from getting the government tax breaks that religious donations get, nor the taxx exemption that religious property gets ( examples of government use of religion in the tax laws: They MUST apply to all religions, not just the ones that one agrees with.) Just MY opinion. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: GUEST,Neil D Date: 29 Jul 08 - 03:03 PM We have gay relatives on both sides of our family including my wife's nephew whom we both love dearly. I remember several years ago when his own Grandfather "relented" and said that he and his friend could come to the family's annual Christmas Eve party, but they would have to use plastic utensils. And no, he wasn't making a bad joke either. I could see quite well the pain this caused a fine young man. Now I would never ask a moderator to close ANY thread including this one, but for the record, I do consider most of Joy Bringer's remarks to be a personal attack...on my family! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Don Firth Date: 29 Jul 08 - 03:06 PM I know, Wesley, I know. But I'm just pointing up, not just to other folks on the thread, but to "Joy Bringer" as well, the fact that there are no reasonable answers to these questions. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: beardedbruce Date: 29 Jul 08 - 03:19 PM oops: IF there is a problem with this, use a different term for your religiously limited/defined marriage ("union of two church members of opposite sexes but appropriate ages who intend to remain together for life and who are allowed physical interaction, prohibited to those not certified in this state by the proper authorities, with the allowable outcome of possible reproduction") |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: akenaton Date: 29 Jul 08 - 03:22 PM My God!! The minute you children are left alone for one minute you start to twist the discussion. No body said that homosexuals should be deprived of their civil rights for fuck sake. They can and should be able to go through a civil ceremony whenever they wish, providing it is lawful in that state or country. The discussion, for the fuckin' hundredth time, was about the re-definition of marriage and the effect of that re-definition on committed religious people. You're all a bunch of cheats!...Ake |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: beardedbruce Date: 29 Jul 08 - 03:25 PM "the effect of that re-definition on committed religious people." WHAT effect? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: beardedbruce Date: 29 Jul 08 - 03:30 PM There has been NO attempt to change the religiously limited/defined marriage ("union of two church members of opposite sexes but appropriate ages who intend to remain together for life and who are allowed physical interaction, prohibited to those not certified in this state by the proper authorities, with the allowable outcome of possible reproduction") ONLY the term as used by the government- (union of any two individuals who for tax purposes and rights of access and responsibility are considered to have a "civil union" , including by default those with religious marriages BUT also including those who have contracted by whatever menas to be in such a union) So tell me how the MARRIAGE(Government) definition has ANY effect on the people who have entered into the MARRIAGE(Religious) state? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Little Hawk Date: 29 Jul 08 - 03:33 PM Aw hell....this thread is too much fun. ;-) I can't stay away. Ahem! Isane Beard? Have you considered getting help for your beard problem? If a beard becomes seriously mentally unhinged, it's not the end, you know. There is psychotherapy out there for beards which have lost their bearings, become dangerous, and devolved into wild, unmanageable hairballs that are a menace to society. I urge you to consult a professional beard therapist at once. A few years of highly priced analysis will probably get you back on an even keel. If that fails, however, there's still...the RAZOR! I tried growing a beard once. It came in all patchy. Dreadful! Then it started voicing opinions that I and many others found unacceptable. Soon it was endorsing public nudity and hamster-baiting! Well, I resorted to the final measure. I shaved the damn thing off. It's never troubled me since, though it keeps trying to creep back insidiously every night, but I always catch that sneaky little attempt and nip it in the bud in the morning. In the meantime....tune in for the next installment of "My attitude toward gays in society is much better, more enlightened, and far more wholesome than yours is or ever will be!", the most popular dramatic series on Mudcat prime time. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: beardedbruce Date: 29 Jul 08 - 03:38 PM LH, YOU may choose to take a knife to your secondary sexual charateristics, but some of us would not. YOU are advocating a course of action that is not thought well of. 8-{E |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Amos Date: 29 Jul 08 - 03:40 PM Ake: The point has been repeated ten times in this thread that it is NOT about the redefinition of any religious ceremony, church mandate, sacred script, ritual, or special dance steps. It is about the legal, civil definition of marriage. The word, as you have plainly noticed, has two distinct meanings as BB has pointed out. Read the darn thread. You're waving your arms about a paper tiger. NOONE CARES ABOUT THE SANCTIONS OF ANY CHURCH IN THIS MATTER PRO OR CON. This is purely the legal right to be considered a legal spouse. Got it? That's what the _state_ calls "marriage". In this sense it is a purely secular label of a civic state to which two people are entitled by legal and business conventions. What one or another temple, clique, congregation, enclave, church, cathedral or prayer circle calls it is nobody's concern but theirs. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: akenaton Date: 29 Jul 08 - 03:42 PM He-he-he well said BB and LH....:0) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Little Hawk Date: 29 Jul 08 - 03:46 PM Is that so, BB??? Well! I figured from your name that you were one of those barbaric bearded types who swaggers around like a latter day Viking marauder, intimidating decent cleanshaven people with your bristling mass of unsanitary facial foliage. Fie, sir! Fie! ;-) Does Superman have a beard? No! Did the Lone Ranger have a beard? No! Does Batman have a beard? No! Did Dudley Doright have facial hair? No! But what about Snidely Whiplash and Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein? Hmmmm? I rest my case. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: beardedbruce Date: 29 Jul 08 - 03:53 PM And what about Moses. Grant, Lee, Stonewall Jackson, and the Smith Brothers? Superman, being what he is, CANNOT grow a beard ( 1. how would he ever cut it?- What would be strong enough? 2. Given discussions of Superman's sexual maturity, the eviodence is that he seems to still be pre-pubescent) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: akenaton Date: 29 Jul 08 - 04:03 PM Great Stuff!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Don Firth Date: 29 Jul 08 - 04:05 PM . . . Chongo Chimp. . . ? Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: beardedbruce Date: 29 Jul 08 - 04:09 PM Didn't know he had a beard, but he certainly does not shave. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: GUEST,lox Date: 29 Jul 08 - 04:19 PM Nothing disgusts me more than filthy unashamed beard growth. Can't you just stay indoors and grow a furtive beard and enjoy it in the privacy of your own home? And what's wrong with shaving it off when you come out (ahem) ... Don't you realise that growing a beard undermines shaving for the rest of us healthy moral folk? I mean deliberately allowing ones hair follicles to manufacture cells and sprout forth like cherubim and seraphim at a roman orgy ... pant ... pant ... Excuse me ... back in 5 ... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: beardedbruce Date: 29 Jul 08 - 04:22 PM "like cherubim and seraphim at a roman orgy " What Are Cherubim and Seraphim? Cherubim and seraphim are winged creatures that appear in Scripture and make their most memorable appearances in the visions of Ezekiel (1:4-28, 10:3-22), Isaiah (6:2-6), and John (Rev 4:7). Although not specifically called angels, cherubim and seraphim are revealed as living creatures or heavenly beings whose primary purpose is to worship God at His throne. Hardly to be seen at orgies... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: GUEST,lox Date: 29 Jul 08 - 04:24 PM precisely ... hence the scandal! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: beardedbruce Date: 29 Jul 08 - 04:25 PM When would they find the time? It's not like they get Sundays off, you know... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: GUEST,lox Date: 29 Jul 08 - 04:26 PM At least they didn't grow beards though! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: GUEST,lox Date: 29 Jul 08 - 04:27 PM I heard they can get anything off ... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Amos Date: 29 Jul 08 - 04:29 PM "President George W. Bush says, "In our free society, people have the right to choose how they live their lives." So why are our government and the Religious Right: censoring Comedy Central, the internet, HBO, and your public library? giving taxpayers' money directly to religious institutions? legislating "good moral values"? eliminating strip clubs, swing clubs, and adult bookstores across the country? limiting your access to contraception? brainwashing your kids that God hates premarital sex, and that it ruins lives? ..." Book review for "America's War on Sex" can be found here. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: beardedbruce Date: 29 Jul 08 - 04:30 PM They were NOT sexually mature- I guess they reproduce by cellular division. But those of us WITH secondary sexual characteristics object to being told to cut them off for the pleasure of some perverted few that appear to dislike them. |