 sj |
||
|
||
BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: GUEST,lox Date: 29 Jul 08 - 05:09 PM "I have two Tom cats and they won't even do it" I see ... "The denim jacket brigade came of age and took seats in government, it was the beginning of the end." Don't forget the leather trousers and little peaked caps. Not to mention the moustaches - and there I was worrying about beards! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: beardedbruce Date: 29 Jul 08 - 05:09 PM "Beards were okay back then because they were in fashion. We MUST not violate present day fashion mores, you see! That way lies madness!" If you think that, I want to hear you singing along with Hannah Montana.... Beards are ALWAYS in fashion. Some, not capable of the manliness needed to grow a respectable one have tried to inflict barbaric ritual mutilation upon the rest of use, but they are WRONG! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: GUEST,lox Date: 29 Jul 08 - 05:06 PM LH - don't encourage him ... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: GUEST,Joy Bringer Date: 29 Jul 08 - 05:06 PM Don. You require answers to the following questions. "In what way does the marriage of Paul and Philip have any effect whatsoever on Barbara's and my marriage?" Don it doesn't have any effect on your marriage. It has an effect on the fabric of society. If you wish to turn away and say, "I'm alright Jack sod off and leave every waif and stray to do what they want unchallenged" that is fine, just don't moan when your kids or grand kids lose all respect for everything you and your parents before you held dear. Don, we watch as drugs become acceptable in society, which is wrong.We see a younger generation with no work ethic. I grew up in a family environment were my father worked hard for every penny he had. No laying in bed until 12noon and leech off the social services which has also become acceptable as a profession these days. My mother cared for four children, we wanted for nothing. She taught music and worked in the evenings when my father returned home. We went to church every Sunday and we lived a clean life. The denim jacket brigade came of age and took seats in government, it was the beginning of the end. Your second question, "If gays spread disease as you say they do, would it not be better to encourage them to form committed, monogamous relationships?" Don, If you think condoning a unity of two perv's will stop or slow down the spread of Aids that is your view and your entitled to it. Sorry but nothing or no reason could ever see me condone two adult males having sex. This is vile perverted evil act. I have two Tom cats and they won't even do it. I am sorry if you don't share me views, but I will not change my opinion. I so wish it would go away, dirty semen seems to be doing natures work. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: GUEST,lox Date: 29 Jul 08 - 05:04 PM ... grooaaannnnnn ... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Little Hawk Date: 29 Jul 08 - 05:04 PM Pond scum wants to be respected too, you know! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Don Firth Date: 29 Jul 08 - 04:56 PM But those who engage in cellular division are little better than pond scum! Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Little Hawk Date: 29 Jul 08 - 04:44 PM Now...just a minute here! I happen to know that there are men in this town, plenty of 'em...who are nowhere near being sexually mature, yet they have been engaging busily in sex for years (if not for decades). There are some women like that here as well. Many have even had children. Whatcha gonna do about THAT, huh? Well? BB - I have no problem with Stonewall Jackson, Lincoln, Moses, and all those guys having beards. Beards were okay back then because they were in fashion. We MUST not violate present day fashion mores, you see! That way lies madness! Now if we were living in the 1860s, I'd be all in favor of beards, yes I would, and I would try to grow one, wretched as it is! If that failed I would purchase a false beard and wear it. But we are not living in the 1850s. Our present western culture heroes (such as George W. Bush and Maxwell Smart and Captain Picard) sport NO facial hair. Obama has no facial hair. Elmer Fudd has no facial hair. That should tell you something. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: GUEST,lox Date: 29 Jul 08 - 04:43 PM you and your shameless line drawing - disgusting! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Don Firth Date: 29 Jul 08 - 04:38 PM ". . . cellular division." Now, that's where I draw the line!!! Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: Amos Date: 29 Jul 08 - 04:34 PM IF they're not sexually mature, there is hardly anything to get off in the first place. Moot and null. Those angelem, now, they're somp'n else. Nothing sexier in the world than an angel overflowing with love, I reckon... A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages From: GUEST,lox Date: 29 Jul 08 - 04:34 PM Cellular division? Does that pertain to mobile phones? Textual intercourse perhaps? Are they homotextual? So gays can have babies after all! |
|
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. |
|
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: GUEST,lox Date: 29 Jul 08 - 04:27 PM I heard they can get anything off ... |
|
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: 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 - 04:24 PM precisely ... hence the scandal! |
|
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 - 04:19 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 - 04:09 PM Didn't know he had a beard, but he certainly does not shave. |
|
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: akenaton Date: 29 Jul 08 - 04:03 PM Great Stuff!! |
|
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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 03:30 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: 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: 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 - 03:19 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 11:43 AM The closet door is jammed ... |
|
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: 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: 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: 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. |