Article

2004-02-14 Home Front: Culture Wars

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by GK 2004-02-14 12:49:49 AM|| || Front Page|| [3 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Way to go GK for your post. May I rant.

I love gay people. I love their sex! It's so liberating taint it! rubbing and humping, oh love bot.

Let me be purient for awhile. Marriage isn't about love. Never has been. Oh don't get me wrong, love is a blessing to marriage. I love my wife, usually, but if you knew the strain, she'd divorce me in a minute. "Your always reading Rantburg," she says. "Not always." I sez. "Smiegle loves the master."

But marriage isn't about love. It's about who's the father. Who's the father!

Okay, you say. Some people can't have kids, she's barren, he's impotent. Don't matter. If she ever gets pregnant, he's the father, unless he isn't. That makes her what? If he takes hold of the child, he's the father. Unless he bolts... Then she's a...?

If he fathers a child from some olive skined, 16 year old, while married to his woman, that makes him...?

Bastard kids are a curse on our society. They are blamless, but not the pricks and holes that produce them. Fatherless kids; shame on us. Shame on a society that allows men to stand tall, while turning their back on their progeny. Shame! Shame also on a woman who bares herself to some stud who punks her and leaves her as a bitch. And leaves his kids as bastards.

But I'll tell you this, marriage isn't about love. And it isn't about who your having sex with, loving or not.

Touching pee-pees,, even if in love, don't matter.

I once heard a Muslim lady defend the Islamic practice of four wifes for males. They were okay with it. They knew who the father was of their children. And thats what marrige is.

Posted by Lucky 2004-2-14 1:38:38 AM|| 2004-2-14 1:38:38 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 The state, whichever state, has absolutely no business issuing a marriage license to a gay couple.

Homosexuality is nothing more than exhibitionism. It is the display of a person's ego that they can go against convention and gladly engage in homosexual sexual activity. Homosexualty is therefore a behavior.

If homosexuals try to claim it is something they have a birth, then it is a birth defect and should be treated, but whether it is a birth defect or not, it is ultimately a behavior and therefore not an acceptable criteria for granting license to marry.

If homosexuals try to claim it is something that is in their family, then here is the perfect opportunity to help society by playing the genetic craps and try to sire with a woman a child to be raised as that child should be, with a man and a woman.

I know, I will see postings from pro gay folks from the left and right on this, but let me again state, that there is nothing that stops a homosexual from marrying someone of the opposite sex. Nothing even stops a homosexual from engaging in heterosexual behavior.

Gay folks have recently been throwing the old anti-interracial marriage laws at us to compare them to the current ban on gay marriage. Those laws forbade marriaged based upon criteria which neither party could change. You can't say that about homosexuality.

Gay marriage confers absolutely no benefit to society. It gives a right to couples who have no business being together in the first place a license to be together. It will be the first right granted simply because of behavior, and given the insanity of our currently laws and the tendency of judges to abdicate their own responsibility, someone will eventually argue (and are in fact arguing now in Kansas) that pederasty is not a crime if it occurs between an adult man and an underage boy.

Once more: The state, whichever state, has absolutely no business issuing a marriage license to a gay couple.

Posted by badanov 2004-2-14 3:26:52 AM|| [http://www.rkka.org] 2004-2-14 3:26:52 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 I think I understand why the gay community want gay marriage. They want to not get beat up just for being gay. However, I don't think that getting married, especially if it is enforced by the courts, is going to do it. It just sets you up for a backlash. You can't legislate people into liking you, or being accepting of your actions. That has to grow with time and understanding.

I think Lucky is right, the reason why marriage has come about has more to do with the threat bastard children present to society than the sex act that brought them about. It ain't got nothing to do with love, especially that emotional high one gets from being in love.

Homosexuality, we are told is not a "action", its an identity. But it is an identity based on an action. Like a ball player is identified by what he does, play ball. For the gay community to claim that it is something different, something genetic, well, take a look at badanov's post for why that is bad argument.

Posted by Ben 2004-2-14 4:22:51 AM|| 2004-2-14 4:22:51 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 Webster dictionary defines it as the state of being husband and wife; or, the legal union between a man and woman as husband and wife.

I agree w/the dictionary definition. If the homo community wants something a kin to a civil union under state auspices for fiscal concerns, taxes, etc. I'm indifferent to that, I'd leave that one up to each individual state to decide. I just don't want to see the term marriage applied to it as it clearly isn't. Also, marriage or matrimony applies to the state of being married w/emphasis on religous conotations.

It regards to bananov's post; I have an uncle who came out gay couple years back. He had been married to my aunt for 30+ years and had two children w/her. They've obviously since split. I believe it is some sort of birth defect or degenerative gene based on my discussions with the few gays I've known. Ben makes good point of them trying to be more mainstream, yet, most of us don't want it in our face so a backlash maybe inevitable. I personally don't want any serving openly in the military.

Posted by Jarhead 2004-2-14 7:10:07 AM|| 2004-2-14 7:10:07 AM|| Front Page Top

#5
Gay folks have recently been throwing the old anti-interracial marriage laws at us to compare them to the current ban on gay marriage.

It's a good analogy.

Posted by Mike Sylwester 2004-2-14 7:49:45 AM|| 2004-2-14 7:49:45 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 Jarhead

Marriage exists because society has an interest in having more and better educated children. Society has no interest in promoting forms of union who are inhernetly sterile and thus no reason to cope with the cost and tax exemptions linked to marriage. Gays can already live together if they want, but whatever the name if gays want to marry, not with my taxes.

Posted by JFM 2004-2-14 7:53:43 AM|| 2004-2-14 7:53:43 AM|| Front Page Top

#7 Now that this issue has been raised up, with the entertainment industry promoting it through shows that show homsexuality as normal or at least not stigmatizing behavior, and liberal news media by and large reporting in a favorable tone - I think that gay marrige will come to pass in my life time. The wall between what was taboo and acceptable has been breached severly - never to be put back up. I wonder which taboo is next to become "normal".

Posted by Anonymous 2004-2-14 8:07:07 AM|| 2004-2-14 8:07:07 AM|| Front Page Top

#8 I could care less what anybody does in their bedrooms. I have a problem though with homos trying to convert normal people to homosexuality. That's next, if they will be allowed to adopt children.

Posted by Rafael 2004-2-14 8:11:21 AM|| 2004-2-14 8:11:21 AM|| Front Page Top

#9 Hell of a rant Lucky.

Posted by Shipman 2004-2-14 8:41:55 AM|| 2004-2-14 8:41:55 AM|| Front Page Top

#10 Actually the state has no business sanctioning marriage in the first place. If you kept the state out of this, the row would not exist. This is another case of the state meddling in places it shouldn't belong.

Posted by Andrew Ian Dodge 2004-2-14 9:41:03 AM|| [http://www.andrewiandodge.com] 2004-2-14 9:41:03 AM|| Front Page Top

#11 Marriage as a government entity exists solely to promote the family unit, yes? So if gay people are raising families legally (thru adoption or spouym donors etc) then how can you exclude them from marriage? You'd have to exclude them from raising kids too.

Posted by Anonymous 2004-2-14 10:26:52 AM|| 2004-2-14 10:26:52 AM|| Front Page Top

#12 First, we must admit that homosexual behavior is abnormal. NORMAL sexual behavior for the human species is between a man and a woman. We do not need to sanction, much less promote, abnormal behavior. At the same time, unless it can be proved to cause harm to individuals or society, we have no right to ban it. Unfortunately, homosexual behavior has become damaging to our society by attacking the social, religious, and legal institution of marriage. Marriage, as an institution worthy of support, was instigated to assure care and nurturing of children. Sex is fun, but children are the promise of the future. Marriage provides a framework for optimum caring and nurturing of children, and the optimum promise of continuation of the human species. I cannot see how homosexual couples can truly provide the same level of caring and nurturing as a heterosexual couple. One critical point not mentioned about homosexual couples rearing children is the failure of such a relationship to provide a normal environment for sexual and social development of the children. You cannot get "normal" from an abnormal environment.

Homosexual behavior is considered a deadly sin by many of the major religions of the world (although you can hardly tell it by the behavior of some "church" officials). This is because it IS abnormal behavior, and is destructive of the values and mores of society, especially one based on religious values.

Posted by Old Patriot 2004-2-14 10:58:53 AM|| [http://users.codenet.net/mweather/default.htm] 2004-2-14 10:58:53 AM|| Front Page Top

#13 Bullshit, bullshit and even more bullshit.

The people who are attacking the institution of marriage are not gay people, but rather people like JFM and Old Patriot who reduced it to nothing other than child-caring, and even more so Lucky who reduced it to nothing other than "who's the father".

It's not gay people who are attacking the institution of marriage. It's *you* people who are constantly, CONSTANTLY attacking it. Definitely if I shared *your* attitudes about what marriage means, I'd never want to get married in a thousand years. Repeat what you just said to your own children and then just wait and see if *they* will ever wish to get married. Because you are making it sound as the vilest thing to have ever been invented by mankind, a petty thing that's not about love, and isn't about companionship, and it's about societal recognition of either, it's about being able to hump people without confusion about who's the father.

Marriage is good for rearing kids, yeah. But it's also good to have society recognize the lifelong bonds of companionship between two people who say they'll be taking care of each other in better or worse, in sickness or health, in richer or poor, till death does them apart.

And that has nothing to do with whether the couple is gay or straight.

And folk who've been supportive of "gay civil unions" but not "gay marriages", does that mean you won't consider as bigamist a man who has married a woman in a normal marriage, and at the same time has "civil union" with another man?

"Homosexual behavior is considered a deadly sin by many of the major religions of the world."

Yeah, well so is heresy, apostasy and disagreeing with the priesthood, for many of the major religions of the world. Which obviously means that we must make free speech illegal, since it's considered a sin.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-2-14 11:41:16 AM|| 2004-2-14 11:41:16 AM|| Front Page Top

#14 "and it's about societal recognition of either"

"and *isn't* about societal recognition of either", I meant.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-2-14 11:47:45 AM|| 2004-2-14 11:47:45 AM|| Front Page Top

#15 Marriage, as far as the government is concerned, has only to do with money: taxes, inheritance, financial incentives, etc., used to promote a societal end. Religion is only relevant in the way that religions want their beliefs represented by their government.

Posted by Anonymous 2004-2-14 11:58:03 AM|| 2004-2-14 11:58:03 AM|| Front Page Top

#16 I'm not convinced Aris. Mariage predates all the current religions. A man takes a wife she bares his children, It's a mariage. The tree has a new branch. Love isn't mariage.

Posted by Lucky 2004-2-14 12:44:17 PM|| 2004-2-14 12:44:17 PM|| Front Page Top

#17 I am gonna offend some people with this quip: Looks like Aris likes things Greek style...

Posted by Anonymous 2004-2-14 1:40:19 PM|| 2004-2-14 1:40:19 PM|| Front Page Top

#18 "Marriage, as far as the government is concerned, has only to do with money: taxes, inheritance, financial incentives, etc."

-I think that sums it up well. AFAIK there is nothing in the U.S. Constitution w/regards to marriage. Leads me to believe it is up to the individual states for regulation. If Mass wants to allow gay marriage/civil union but Ohio doesn't want to recognize it, then that's valid.

JFM, I respectfully disagree; I know heterosexual folks who get married w/no intentions of ever having children. Should they be precluded from matrimony or a state marriage license because they are not going to bear any fruit or adopt a child? Would you tell them not w/your taxes? Same goes for gays imo. Again, I respect that many of you on the site have religious reasons for disliking the concept of gay unions. In that regard, if churches don't condone it, fine, but remember, the separation of church and state leaves it to the state to decide if they want to allow it under government vice theocratic auspices.

Aris, I agree w/most of what you say in your post. Though, you lost me w/the bigamist comments at the ends. I guess technically a guy could marry a woman then have a civil union, but I'd think if any of our states allowed civil unions they may put a provision in there because of the fiscal/money/tax angle about another marriage or civil union being entered afterward by either party. Personally, I really don't care either way. I think most people who are gay were born that way, for some it may be a choice. Not sure overall, but I think we've got bigger fish to fry in the world then this issue.

Posted by Jarhead 2004-2-14 2:38:40 PM|| 2004-2-14 2:38:40 PM|| Front Page Top

#19 1. It may become an issue in the presidential campaign.
As an election year issue it would undoubtably lead to acrimonious debate.

2.EPILOGUE:(See comments in original post.) Rorex issued six same-sex licenses in March 1975 before the Colorado Attorney General stepped in and ruled same-sex marriage illegal in Colorado, thus voiding the licenses which had been issued and annulling the marriages.

There are no reports whether Roz ever again applied for a license to marry his mare.
Thus, the question, âwhy canât an old cowboy marry his horse?â lingers on.

Posted by GK 2004-2-14 3:19:11 PM|| 2004-2-14 3:19:11 PM|| Front Page Top

#20 Jarhead

I know of a number of couples who got married with no intention of having children and then change their minds. I am also unwilling to have an interrogatory/medical examination: this is not North Korea.

A married couple who doesn't have child is not the same thing atht accepting a FORM of union.

Posted by JFM 2004-2-14 3:45:07 PM|| 2004-2-14 3:45:07 PM|| Front Page Top

#21 This isn't about love or commitment. It's about MONEY. Pure and simple. Access to health care benifits. The ability to feed at the public trough through tax deductions. Personally if they want to get married fine. Just so the devorces are jusst as acromonious as straight ones can be

Posted by Cheddarhead 2004-2-14 4:24:36 PM|| 2004-2-14 4:24:36 PM|| Front Page Top

#22 JFM, my brother married, never had children, never intended to, his wife is unable to anyhow. They are not interested in adoption. I, otoh, am married, had every intention to have kids, have one infant son to date and will probably have more later on. My marriage is no more meaningful in the eyes of the state then his. Except that I actually get more tax breaks due to my son. OTOH, my marriage probably means more to the Catholic church then theirs because of my wife and I bearing fruit, potential followers, more money in the collection plate, etc., though at this point I don't really give a shit about what the Catholic church thinks anymore.

Now, as for tax dollars, are not gays tax payers as well? I know my uncle makes a lot of money and pays his fair share of taxes. If he and some other dude want to have a union (a physically repulsive thought to me but I digress) and the state allows it, then there you go. They pay their share of taxes, maybe they want some form of societal recognition, who knows.

If an individual state, decides to allow gays to have a civil union or whatever they call it, then the state can decide their access to health benefits, tax exemptions etc. at the state level. More then likely I'd wager, gay civil unions in this country will be up for vote in referendums so the will of the people can decide it. Either way I don't think it's purely about money in their eyes, though I can't say for sure because I'm not really a big fan of gay anything much less talking about who they want to be husband and husband with.

Posted by Jarhead 2004-2-14 4:49:30 PM|| 2004-2-14 4:49:30 PM|| Front Page Top

#23 Lucky> Indeed marriage isn't about love. But it *is* about societal recognition of a new family unit.

And families *are* about mutual support and love. And yes about offspring too, but a family without offspring is still considered a family, if the "till death do them part" bit still applies.

Even in old times a man was still responsible to take care of his wife's well-being - and his wife responsible to take care of her husband's household. "Mutual support" see? Not just child-bearing.

Anonymous #17> I'm desperately straight, thank you very much. It's only idiots like you who think that you have be Jew in order not to be antisemetic or that you be gay in order not to be anti-gay.

Jarhead> For those people where it's a choice, I think the proper designation is "bisexual". :-)

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-2-14 6:01:38 PM|| 2004-2-14 6:01:38 PM|| Front Page Top

#24 Oh Aris, how romantic! *rapid eye blinks* You're so forceful, yet, yet there's a sweet gentleness in your strength... *rapid breathing* I... I... I think I... wanna puke! *rapid exit*

Lol. This is incrementalism at its best. Get 'em over the shock of / accustomed to /accepting of:
1. public homosexuality
2. public displays of homosexual affection
3. the idea of gay couples living together
4. that gay couples are just like Jim 'n Marge at the PTA
5. that gays can (and should!) raise children
6. whine and moan about not having the same legal benefits
7. work for legal status of civil union
8. work for legal status of marriage

What's the point: monetary advantages.
What comes next? WTF knows.
Benefits to society? I see none of significance.
Drawbacks? Legal institutionalization of genetic box canyon.

I love it when gays say this is not a lifestyle choice, but is genetic, instead. Okay, remove all social stigmas and let all gays come out before they marry and father / bear children. Do this for 2 generations. And that's that, no more gays, for it is a genetic box canyon.

Wha? So it's a lifestyle choice, after all? Okay, so why should society treat your lifestyle with special care?

Hmmm. Y'know, those Sun City Naturists, the Happy Hedonists, the Black 'n Blue S/M Dungeonites, the Man/Boy Love Machine, the GreekGreek Club, the Salem Coven, the Kevorkian Final Exit Assn, and NORML also have lifestyle claims - shouldn't we consider their requests, too? Where does it end?

F**kin Duh.

I think I'll go back to being a biker, as I was about 35 yrs ago. I want special status for bikers. If I wanna ride without a helmet - but not pay more for my insurance - fix it. If I wanna chain my Harley to my bed to keep it from being stolen, you have to construct ramps in all apartment buildings. Hey, I live on the 47th Floor of the Prestonwood Towers. In fact, MegaBitch Panhead an' me, we wanna get married. Fix it up for me. It's my lifestyle. Thanx.

Posted by .com 2004-2-14 7:37:00 PM|| 2004-2-14 7:37:00 PM|| Front Page Top

#25 In fact, MegaBitch Panhead an' me, we wanna get married. Fix it up for me. It's my lifestyle. Thanx.
You can probably find a Harley Holy Man in Daytona in about 10 days who would tie the knot for yawl.

Posted by Shipman 2004-2-14 8:12:50 PM|| 2004-2-14 8:12:50 PM|| Front Page Top

#26 "Okay, so why should society treat your lifestyle with special care?"

It shouldn't. It shouldn't treat the homosexual lifestyle with special care. It should treat it with the exact same care it's treating the *heterosexual* lifestyle.

Now, tell me why do you think society should treat *your* lifestyle (aka heterosexuality) with special care.

---

"And that's that, no more gays, for it is a genetic box canyon."

You have a very simplistic view of genetics, I think. As for me, I don't give a damn about whether heterosexuality or homosexuality is genetic or a choice. Science seems to me to be heading towards the idea that it's a synthesis of the two, with both genetic and other factors playing a role in it -- the last I heard genetics may have more to do with male homosexuality, choice more to with female homosexuality. Or something like that.

But either way who cares? My argument about why gay marriages should be allowed is that I feel it would benefit both the individuals concerned and society at large.

The only ones it *wouldn't* benefit is Christian fundamentalists, who want everyone to conform to their own personal moral codes.

"Where does it end?"

At the place where something being allowed harms either society or one of the individuals concerned, *that's* where we stop.

None of you has ever cared to show *why* gay marriages would harm society so much. You know why you haven't shown that? Because you CAN'T show that.

Which means that all you want to do is have society pamper to your personal "lifestyle" while excluding the "lifestyles" of everyone else.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-2-14 8:57:13 PM|| 2004-2-14 8:57:13 PM|| Front Page Top

#27 Aris, you are the most determinedly disingenuous troll in RB. You appear to debate, but it isn't really debate. You merely select tidbits and talk them to death... your refutation attempts are flat, lame, and utter opinion.

Heterosexuality, in case you aren't totally out of touch with reality, propagates the species. That's rather special. No other combination of two sexes has any merit in nature. Your comment is disingenuous and insipid and intentionally misleading for it is a vapid social opinion, containing zero factual content meant to lead away from factual discussion. Didn't work.

If homosexuality is genetic, and my knowledge of genetics obviously exceeds yours by a wide margin, then it is indeed a box canyon. If a trait, in the form of a specific gene sequence, is not propagated, it is quickly lost from the gene pool. Get it? Simplisme.

It's possible it could pop up in extremely small numbers through a one-off burp of mutation. But consistently and in the same form? No. That's not genetic, son, that's socialization combined with individual choice. Accept it socially, and it recurs. Do you understand the process of mutation? Can you expound upon why, genetically speaking, this particular "mutation" would recur when it is, by the very lifestyle it chooses, being bred out of the population pool? Common sense dictates that it can't and it isn't -- because it is, at least, 99% lifestyle choice. I'm not a geneticist, so I can't address the last 1% containing genetic tendencies or predispositions, but you've demonstrated you can't even add or subtract much smaller simple integers, so I'll pass on any response you might have.

Your post hangs on this sentence:
"I feel it would benefit both the individuals concerned and society at large."

I'm not a Christian, much less a Fundamentalist. I'm an atheist who requires the application of the scientific method and repeatable results before I accept something as fact. You live in your own opinion pool, sans facts, and often sans logic.

Posted by .com 2004-2-14 9:51:12 PM|| 2004-2-14 9:51:12 PM|| Front Page Top

#28 Well put, .com. Thanks for the additional arguments over and above the purely moral ones. I guess the gay community really is intellectually dishonest about this entire debate. It will cost them dearly, as it should.

Posted by badanov 2004-2-14 10:39:54 PM|| [http://www.rkka.org] 2004-2-14 10:39:54 PM|| Front Page Top

#29 "Heterosexuality, in case you aren't totally out of touch with reality, propagates the species. That's rather special."

This is just a nitpick but, heterosexual *sex* propagates the species (artificial insemination too, btw), not the desire for heterosexual sex which is what "heterosexuality" is, whether genetically or environmentally-instilled.

We know full well that there's often been sex without true sexual attraction, just for the purpose of childbearing. As ofcourse the Church had in past times recommended.

Your comment is disingenuous and insipid and intentionally misleading for it is a vapid social opinion, containing zero factual content meant to lead away from factual discussion

My, my commentary is so horrible as that, eh? While your troll-like insults and stuff like "oh, you are romantic and strong yet gentle" and that anonymous coward's implication that I must also be gay since I'm defending them, those stuff aren't insipid and they aren't striving to stifle discussion, right?

Can you expound upon why, genetically speaking, this particular "mutation" would recur when it is, by the very lifestyle it chooses, being bred out of the population pool.

Since I already said that I don't care whether it's genetic or societal, why should I care to try and explain such a thing?

But I'll mention a couple possible explanations, a bit down the line.

Common sense dictates that it can't and it isn't

And yet in the case of identical twins, raised in separate households, if one of them is gay, the other has a 50% chance of being gay too, as studies have revealed --- a percentage which may actually be greater if some people are still "in the closet". That's much beyond the societal average, indicating a very strong genetical connection to homosexuality, wouldn't you say?

As for why homosexuality wouldn't breed itself out, I'm no biologist but I can think of several reasons -- if for example male homosexuality passed itself down through female genetic lines, and female homosexuality passed itself down through male genetic line.

Or, for another possible reason, the fact that for thousands of years there existed societies where people *had* to marry to produce heirs regardless of whether they'd prefer to do so or not. Romans and ancient Greeks could easily satisfy their male-male desires on the boy- and man-servants, and still have wives to produce their heirs.

A third reason could be ofcourse that homosexuality/heterosexuality may be a spectrum. A combination of genes makes you 70% attracted to guys and 30% attracted to gals. So you enter some gay relationships, but it's the gal that ends up hooking you, and you pass down some of the genes to the next generation, to your children who may have a smaller or larger disposition towards homosexuality or heterosexuality.

Or a combination of all of the above.

In short: your kind of "common sense" is always used to justify laziness of thinking, or plain stupidity.

"I feel it would benefit both the individuals concerned and society at large."

Well, it's quite *obvious* that it would benefit the individuals concerned, and none of you has bothered to deny it. They want to marry because they feel it would indeed benefit them. That's quite obvious.

At this point it's *you* who have to prove that society would be harmed. The burden of proof lies on you, as you are the ones claiming that the law should discriminate, *against* the wishes of the people concerned. Not on me.

But I do feel it would help society. Can I *prove* it would help it? It seems to me that society is helped and made more cohesive and peaceful when it doesn't discriminate between the non-harmful choices (or genetic disposition, whichever of the two it is) of its members, thus accepting them in her midst and forestalling strife.

In a free society it's up to *you* to show why homosexual marriage harms society more than say, celibacy, or a childless marriage, does. Because you are already forced to use a doubtful societal "drawback" in order to discriminate among the members of your community.

And I'd like it very much if you didn't address me in the most and most contemptuous of ways and then, in your next post, try to say that I'm not actually debating. I've "debated" in this thread more than any other person here has, and certainly far more than *you* have.

You sick fuck, and stuff. :-)

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-2-14 11:12:21 PM|| 2004-2-14 11:12:21 PM|| Front Page Top

#30 As a sidenote: In this matter atleast Islam is somewhat more honest, as it demands that *everyone* marry in order to procreate, therefore Islam can say in consistency that procreation is a sacred duty which homosexuality hinders.

On the other hand Christianity contains the celibate priesthood, in which case we already have choices that contradict procreation being regarded as blessed.

Ofcourse Paul said it quite clearly that it'd be best if *nobody* got married, everyone remaining celibate, and he only offered marriage as a second-best choice for those who don't feel they can contain their sexual urges.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-2-14 11:24:10 PM|| 2004-2-14 11:24:10 PM|| Front Page Top

#31 And badanov, if you found any arguments in .com's posts, please share them to me. Because I only found mockery there and insults, besides the utterly obvious and irrelevant (heterosexual sex produces children -- wow, I never knew. And if the begetting of children was required for marriage he might even have had a point).

And ofcourse that rage of his that *anyone* would dare dispute the status quo opinion in this forum concerning homosexuality. I'm still expecting arguments about why society would be so horribly harmed if homosexual marriages were legalized, and biological arguments that befit a kindergarten and equally easily collapse.

But for some people here "Person that strongly disagrees with them"="Troll"

I've never trolled a single time in my life, .com. It's your bigotry that makes you sees a troll where you should have simply seen an opinionated opponent.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-2-14 11:39:03 PM|| 2004-2-14 11:39:03 PM|| Front Page Top

#32 Aris, please. Marriage has a history. It wasn't a part of the founding fathers, the kaballa, Hamarabi's code, Islamic, catholic, fundamentalists christian dogma. Marriage is about who's the father. I'm a father. My sons have a solid foundation on their branch of the tree. Notice I didn't ask you to pray Aris.

My sister-in-law divorced her previously divorced husband, after she played mommy to his kids, for four years. His Ex went off whoring for all I know but she walked on her kids.

After my Sisinlaw divorced she decided it was better to go ahead and become what she felt was what she was. Homosexual. She went through a number of lovers until she came accros the woman of her dreams. Sold her house in So Cal and went off, I kid you not, to their own private Idaho.

It was her intention to milk her brothers spode and impregnate her (seriously conflicted) lover with his spode. The family all acted like, hey whatever, love is so important, The most important and Nita loves her.

Well today they can't stand the look of each other. If these flakey people could have had their way then a child would have had to pay the price of their idiocy.

I talked to my bro-inlaw while this was going down. I told him it's his spode. Is he ready to take any responsibility for the child. Hell, he can barely take responsibility for himself.

Love, friendship, homeboys, comradery, dependance, what have you. That is not marriage.
Marriage is about A man becoming a father and a woman becoming the mother of HIS child. Whether it's his spode or not and whether they are in love or not. Note also I havn't said people shouldn't do whoever they want to do. (although I do think communties have the right to say "Not here")

So Aris, my question. What is marriage to you?

Posted by Lucky 2004-2-15 12:12:25 AM|| 2004-2-15 12:12:25 AM|| Front Page Top

#33 Aris, you've made the point numerous times that you don't care about genetics - and I spent a bit on the topic to firm up the very high probability that genetics is not at the root of homosexuality due to its inherent consequences. I would love to see links to studies to the contrary, such easy cannon fodder.

That brings us back to lifestyle - and your statement that lifestyle choices are all equal - er, at least you say heterosexuality and homosexuality are...

Then comes your little maneuver where you try to maintain the fiction that they are equal, that the procreation aspect of heterosexuality does not render it more important. LOL, what a stupid thing to say! No matter what manipulation and dissembling arguments you may pose, the simple fact is that humans reproduce only in the heterosexual aspect. No other form of sexual union or manipulation results in human offspring - thus they have no value in nature.

And this is where my first post comes back into play. Heterosexuality, the sexual relationship which produces offspring is the a priori social "lifestyle". This was obvious to people living in fucking caves, Aris. Only self-righteous self-absorbed social engineering wannabees have the time and luxury to conclude it is debatable.

*ALL* other relationships / lifestyles / means of getting *off* / rendering *fulfillment* / whatEVER fall into a "choice" basket in the second tier. Homosexuality is no more "valid" nor important than S&M or Nudism or worshipping chocolate. It's just a lifestyle with no inherent value, as with all of the others in the basket. None supercedes the others.

ONLY heterosexuality has any actual inherent value and importance.

Posted by .com 2004-2-15 1:05:45 AM|| 2004-2-15 1:05:45 AM|| Front Page Top

#34 Hey Dot. Your up late/early. I get a hoot out of your prose. Clear thought, no smoke.

Posted by Lucky 2004-2-15 1:25:29 AM|| 2004-2-15 1:25:29 AM|| Front Page Top

#35 Hey, Lucky - it's a little late here in LV - we're in the Pacific Zone, so not quite too late.

Only Aris would have the arrogance to try to argue that the two are equivalent - anyone else would be shamed by the obvious silliness of such a position. Hey, I'm done though - I should've kept my promise to myself never to waste another word on him / it/ she / whatever. Total waste of time!

Keep up the good fight, if you're inclined. Lol - I'm turing Ignore Mode back on - and leaving it there!

Grins, Bro - see you tomorrow.

Posted by .com 2004-2-15 2:19:36 AM|| 2004-2-15 2:19:36 AM|| Front Page Top

#36 Lucky> "What is marriage to you?"

Haven't I answered already? The societal recognition of two adults desiring to form a new family unit, superceding their former biological ties to their previous families, making each other their next-of-kin.

After that, your question becomes "what does family mean to you". In which case you must find the common element between your sister and your father and your wife, which is hopefully, in healthy families, that you can depend on them in time of need, and that society can depend on them to have some authority over you in cases where you are incapacitated and can't offer opinion.

As for your sob-story about your sister-in-law, the best way to combat the flakeyness of some people's attitude towards marriage and divorce is to stop people marrying if they've already divorced more than once. (Once is a human mistake, twice a pattern)

"Marriage is about who's the father."

Yeah, that's why Abraham divorced Sarah when he discovered she was barren, right?

"No matter what manipulation and dissembling arguments you may pose, the simple fact is that humans reproduce only in the heterosexual aspect."

And no matter what manipulation and insults all you people thrust on me, the fact remains that marriage was *never* solely about procreation. The obligations mentioned in the Marital vows have always been foremost about mutual support. Want us to go down the laundry list and see how far down we'll find procreation listed?

You make an unsupported assertion that marriage is solely about "who's the father". That assertion pleases you, but it remains what I already called it: unsupported. It's unsupported by law and custom both.

.com> You've already revealed your highly insulting attitude -- and you've refused to apologize for calling me a troll. If you want proof of my sayings, google up "twins homosexuality". The percentages I mentioned are real, and show clear proof to the connection between homosexuality and genetics. Deal.

But you are dishonest and a fanatic, and so you'll keep on insulting me without even a glance at all the evidence that proves you wrong. And definitely without an apology.

So screw you -- I have no more things to say to you, you asshole and bastard. Not unless you deign to explain to me why you seem to respect Celebacy and other childless unions so much more than homosexuality.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-2-15 8:55:39 AM|| 2004-2-15 8:55:39 AM|| Front Page Top

11:24 JFM
08:55 Aris Katsaris
07:34 B
07:33 B
07:27 B
07:25 B
07:21 B
07:17 B
07:14 B
02:19 .com
02:18 Ed Becerra
01:25 Lucky
01:15 Lucky
01:05 .com
00:12 Lucky
00:03 ThroatWorblermango
23:39 Aris Katsaris
23:36 Ricky bin Ricardo (Abu Babaloo)
23:31 Pappy
23:28 Pappy
23:27 Steve White
23:26 Steve White
23:24 Aris Katsaris
23:23 Steve White