Off Topic Messages

Fri Sep 23, 2005 5:17 pm

When I read some of the anti-gay posts here, it makes me feel proud of living in Holland.

Sat Sep 24, 2005 4:25 am

Denman wrote:When I read some of the anti-gay posts here, it makes me feel proud of living in Holland.

lots of anti gay feelings in usa

Sat Sep 24, 2005 1:49 pm

Now, you know me, I believe in fair's fair for everybody, regardless of whether they are gay, straight or what-not. But, and I hate to admit it really, I can't help feeling some deep reservations about the issue of gay marriages. I mean - what next? Animals? Brothers and sisters marrying because they "love" each other?

Why is it that gays want to get married? So they have the same rights as anyone else when it comes to a divorce? Great, you get married just so you can split with half the goods and add to the divorce statistics to boot.

It's difficult to know, for example, what's in it for Elton John when he "marries" his partner David Furnish in December. I can see the attraction for Mr. Furnish - get married and inherit all that loot when the old man croaks.

As I say, I just think a line has to be drawn somewhere, and that line should basically follow what is essentially human nature. Otherwise, I could soon be allowed to marry my cat (who is both male and a pet, thereby endorsing Gay and Animal Marriages) and adopt a hamster.

Sat Sep 24, 2005 2:53 pm

Exactly Stephen.

We'll have pet lovers fighting for the right to marry their pet's before long.

As far as i'm concerned GAY MARRIAGE should definitely be banned, along with GAY ADOPTION.

Sat Sep 24, 2005 4:27 pm

Stephen Butler wrote:Now, you know me, I believe in fair's fair for everybody, regardless of whether they are gay, straight or what-not. But, and I hate to admit it really, I can't help feeling some deep reservations about the issue of gay marriages. I mean - what next? Animals? Brothers and sisters marrying because they "love" each other?

Why is it that gays want to get married? So they have the same rights as anyone else when it comes to a divorce? Great, you get married just so you can split with half the goods and add to the divorce statistics to boot.

It's difficult to know, for example, what's in it for Elton John when he "marries" his partner David Furnish in December. I can see the attraction for Mr. Furnish - get married and inherit all that loot when the old man croaks.

As I say, I just think a line has to be drawn somewhere, and that line should basically follow what is essentially human nature. Otherwise, I could soon be allowed to marry my cat (who is both male and a pet, thereby endorsing Gay and Animal Marriages) and adopt a hamster.
You're comparing animals with humans.

Sat Sep 24, 2005 5:25 pm

Actually I think Stephen was making the reference to people finding attractions to Animals, and perhaps this would be next on the list.

Sat Sep 24, 2005 11:21 pm

DJC will wanna marry his goat next :lol:

He must be kiddin'....(pardon the pun)

Sun Sep 25, 2005 3:00 am

Denman wrote:You're comparing animals with humans.


Well spotted. But I think you get my point. Supposing, for example, I wanted to move to the US, but I have a natural tendency to drive on the left. Am I gonna spend the rest of my life campaigning for America to change its road laws to suit me? If you are a guest at someone's house, do you complain and refuse to go in if they ask you to take your shoes off because they've bought a new carpet?

Denman, don't say that I am comparing humans with carpets.

Sun Sep 25, 2005 7:16 am

Stephen Butler wrote:Now, you know me, I believe in fair's fair for everybody, regardless of whether they are gay, straight or what-not.

I've read your post and apparently you don't ;) so, on with the discussion then. :)

Stephen Butler wrote:I mean - what next? Animals? Brothers and sisters marrying because they "love" each other?.... I just think a line has to be drawn somewhere, and that line should basically follow what is essentially human nature. Otherwise, I could soon be allowed to marry my cat (who is both male and a pet, thereby endorsing Gay and Animal Marriages) and adopt a hamster.

While I'm sure it isn't intentional or mean-spirited, such arguments are thoughtless and demeaning. Marriage of a woman to a man cannot possibly lead to marriage between a woman and her ferret, or a woman and her brother, yet the marriage of a homosexual couple just might. :?: Because...homosexuality isn't really part of human nature? At least heterosexual-only marriage ensures that men won't molest children, copulate with horses and goats.... oh.... wait.....

At one time similar analogies were made about freeing slaves and giving women and blacks the right to vote. The comparison to animals should be a red flag in ones thought process IMO.

@ Non-human animals don't have legal standing to make contracts. Nothing about gay marriage impacts that likely-worldwide status.
@ There are already restrictions on consanguineous relationships, marital and non-marital. Same-sex marriage does not require a change to those restrictions.
@ The ability to propogate the species is not a condition for heterosexual marriage, so there is no 'essential nature' requirement being altered with same-sex marriage.
@ Homosexual marriage requires no change to the number of persons allowed in a single marriage contract, nor affects the 1-to-1 individual, reciprocal nature of spousal expections and rights.
@ Age of consent laws are unaffected by same-sex marriage.

Most people are right-handed too, so that is likely another aspect of essential human nature. Fortunately my mother, uncle and me had concerned teachers who hit us with rulers, tied our hands to a chair or desk or behind the back, and resisted passing us in class so that we would become 'normal'. Normal is good. Normal is fair. Particularly when our left-handedness was affecting so many other people.

Stephen Butler wrote:Why is it that gays want to get married?

Why is it that straights want to get married? What is your question or position? Homosexuals have different thought processes than heterosexuals, or different emotions and brain functions when it comes to love, desire, commitment, recognition, sharing? :?

Perhaps the only laws you have in the UK are about inheritance. In the US, 2004 research by the Congressional Budget Office found marital status is a factor in determining or receiving 1138 benefits, rights, and privileges. States add another 100 or more provisions.

The US hasn't had much of an outcry by heterosexuals to be rid of those 1200+ benefits, rights, and privileges.

Stephen Butler wrote:....what's in it for Elton John when he "marries" his partner David Furnish in December. I can see the attraction for Mr. Furnish - get married and inherit all that loot when the old man croaks.

Yes, I can see where Elton would be better off with, say, Anna Nicole Smith. It's unfortunate that Mr. Furnish got to him first. ;)

Stephen Butler wrote:....do you complain and refuse to go in if they ask you to take your shoes off because they've bought a new carpet?

Denman, don't say that I am comparing humans with carpets.

You aren't, so I won't say that either. Rather, you are saying that affirming a life partnership via marriage is equivalent to tracking dirt on a new carpet.

Eileen

Sun Sep 25, 2005 7:56 am

Eileen, I respect where you are coming from and sometimes agree
with you. However, I don't think those who oppose gay marriage
are necessarily knuckle-dragging bigots as sometimes portrayed by
supporters, probably for political effect more than anything genuine.

I don't pretend to have the best arguments on this but I do think
it's wrong to not think that the "Gay Marriage" movement is
going to open up a can of worms, from polygamy to various other
arrangements that will be even less savory to the general public
than gay marriage already is. Don't think it won't happen.

I can see the "equality" argument, but I can see why society still
wants to reward the notion of a mother and a father joined together
in marriage as the ideal. Sure, not all procreate, but most do
(and could if they chose, short of being a union of older people
or impotent, etc.).

Sure, it's not fair, but I think the jury is still out on whether this
can even be in the same sentence as slavery and other old societal ills.

On the big list of things to take care of, I think it's a huge distraction.

Even some gays seeking general acceptence and some legal rights think the "gay marriage" movement backfired.

Most Americans have grown more tolerant and accepting of gays in their midst. Asking for "gay marriage" in 2004 ensured another four
years of the Bush administration. When a Massachusetts court suddenly expanded the definition of marriage (well, that's what they did), they
pretty much ensured that Senator Kerry would lose a score of votes
just for being from such a liberal state.

Face it: America is more conservative socially by and large and is
not about to endorse this. If you are a Democrat who cares about other
things on the liberal agenda (health care insurance, good and more
equitable public schools, rights for workers, protecting social security, a strong domestic policy, etc.)
the push for gay marriage is a dead end. Ask for civil unions and hope for the best later in the 21st century. It just has very little of a broad base
and serves (whether fair or not) to strike at the "heart" of "the ideal"
of mom, grandma, apple pie, and other things that win elections.

I know that will sound cynical and certainly not answer philosopical
claims, but the reality is that it'll be an uphill battle to dislodge
the traditional definition of marriage. At the least the civil rights
movement was able to point out the hypocrisy of being a nation
built on equality and one in practice had slavery and later segregation.

It's harder to prove (or make a political point) that anyone has a "right" to something so long defined even before 1776. I wonder if it's worth
the trouble, to be frank and might there be a better, more relevant agenda for the homosexual community to pursue in the USA.

Sun Sep 25, 2005 2:14 pm

Gregory Nolan Jr. wrote:Eileen, I respect where you are coming from and sometimes agree with you.

Likewise kind sir. :)

Gregory Nolan Jr. wrote:I don't pretend to have the best arguments on this but I do think it's wrong to not think that the "Gay Marriage" movement is going to open up a can of worms, from polygamy to various other arrangements that will be even less savory to the general public than gay marriage already is. Don't think it won't happen.

Gay marriage and equivalent unions are legal in some countries and it hasn't happened. How long, in your opinion, does that situation need to exist before your argument can be laid to rest as the red herring our laws show it to be?

We live in a country where you can serve in the military at 18 but can't legally chug a beer until you're 21. I am confident we're capable of keeping "species" and "number of applicants" off the marriage license application.

For a country that keeps banging the Freedom and Human Rights drums we spend an awful lot of time as a follower where tolerance, fairness, equity, and common sense are concerned. This is only one of many such issues where America lags other nations. That characteristic US puritanism is IMO why you think "the jury is still out". It isn't and history will say so. Those pictures of people flocking to marry will be in the history books and students will be baffled over our fears and our cruelties large and small. Instead of the caption "Segregation forever!" there will be embarrassing quotes about marrying pets and the obituary of Matthew Shephard and shameful military discharge statistics and pictures of Elton John with his friend Ryan White and his husband David Furnish.

Gay rights is the civil rights issue of this time. And you're arguing that Rosa should stop demanding full access to the bus, kindly request the addition of rows 6-10 to her allotment, and appreciate the center 3 rows bestowed upon her last year. :oops:

THAT SAID.... Stephan and I were posting on a different topic really - much of your post is about political palatability and campaign strategy. I understand all of what you say there; I can and have argued that viewpoint as an intellectual exercise. However the real world contains people whose lives are being damaged by this every day - I can only support that Rosa be allowed to sit in all public rows of the bus.

A huge distraction? Yes, it's 1200+ benefits, rights, and privileges worth of distraction for those affected. Does it have to be a politicos #1 campaign issue? Of course not. It isn't even my #1 issue. There are many important issues - there always are. But none I should use as an excuse to tell my neighbor, "I only support 4 rights for you today. Check with me again next week, maybe you'll seem more important." None that alters my belief that our society is diminished by its prejudices.

It isn't about the 'agenda' of the 'homosexual community', that's what we always realize when we look back on these things. Calling the right to vote part of the 'agenda' of the 'women's community'.... it seems a ridiculous notion, does it not?

Gregory Nolan Jr. wrote:Most Americans have grown more tolerant and accepting of gays in their midst. Asking for "gay marriage" in 2004 ensured another four years of the Bush administration. When a Massachusetts court suddenly expanded the definition of marriage (well, that's what they did), they pretty much ensured that Senator Kerry would lose a score of votes just for being from such a liberal state.

"Most Americans have grown more tolerant and accepting of coloreds in their midst. Asking for "interracial marriage" in 19XX ensured another four years of the Blah administration. When a Massachusetts court suddenly expanded the definition of marriage (well, that's what they did), they pretty much ensured that Senator Whosits would lose a score of votes just for being from such a northern state."

Eileen

Re: Gay debate, not the intent of original post

Sun Sep 25, 2005 2:20 pm

scotch wrote:Let's see if the debate can be about whther or not this would occur, not the merits or negatives of actually having gay marriage as case law.

What was that? Can you hear me now?

Can you hear me now?

You're cutting out. What? Aren't you already married?

Can you hear me now?

<click>

Sun Sep 25, 2005 4:41 pm

Eileen wrote:Most people are right-handed too, so that is likely another aspect of essential human nature. Fortunately my mother, uncle and me had concerned teachers who hit us with rulers, tied our hands to a chair or desk or behind the back, and resisted passing us in class so that we would become 'normal'. Normal is good. Normal is fair. Particularly when our left-handedness was affecting so many other people.


This happened to my grandfather, mother, and it also happened to me.

It is clear you missed much of what I was trying to get across. This, I accept, is entirely my fault, as I clearly didn't get it across.

But what I increasingly find is that there is a gulf between those who genuinely try to respect all types of people and those who are "politically correct". This is why I do not view myself as what you Americans call a "liberal". I have some views that you might call liberal, for sure, but they are not borne out of adherence to a political ideology that I hold on to for dear life at all costs, they come from somewhere else, and I have some views that conservatives would agree with. Those who are obsessed with politics cannot understand this. Dr Carpenter proved this with his caring, compassioned response to GG's brave postings earlier in this thread.

I don't always agree with GG's way of putting things, but I see none of his bravery from you or anyone else on this thread. Forgive me if I did not follow up any of your links but I am a musician and am therefore not interested in getting bogged down in a quagmire of political statistics.

You seem to imply that I oppose homosexuality. I do not. I accept that there are those who prefer their own sex to the opposite, even after having seen Kylie Minogue in that underwear ad. But here is one of the key points of mine that was not clear enough for you. I asked why gays want to get married, which was meant to imply that it seems ridiculous that they are campaigning so much for marriage when the divorce statistics go up and up. So your question "why do straights want to get married?" was already implied by my question. Sorry if you missed it.

But I will make this quite plain: I do oppose gay marriages because I find the idea of two men or two women performing a religious or legal ceremony specifically designed to occur between a man and a woman to be a parody of the real thing.

It seems to be human nature to battle human nature. Over the last several thousand years we have fought against our natural instincts to have a code of practice for life so, in my own cynical way, I see no reason why, in the future, the balance of morality has shifted to such a degree that we don't wake up and say why shouldn't it be ok to marry our pets so that they have the same legal rights when it comes to a messy divorce? I look forward to this day, as there is a sheep in the English Lake District called Flossie (many on here will know that she and I exchange letters) who I want to leave everything to when I go.

Sun Sep 25, 2005 7:05 pm

Have a beer on me Stephen.

Image

The best beer in the world baaaa none. :lol:

Sun Sep 25, 2005 9:08 pm

I ran into an old friend the other day, and he told me he was emigrating.

When I asked him why, he explained:

"Well, I can remember when being openly gay was a criminal act for a man.

Then they made it legal for consenting adults in private.

Now they're talking of legal 'marriages' between gays.
"

So I asked him why he was emigrating.

He replied:

"I'm getting out before they make it compulsory !"

Mon Sep 26, 2005 12:57 am

Stephen Butler wrote:It is clear you missed much of what I was trying to get across. This, I accept, is entirely my fault, as I clearly didn't get it across.

Wow. I feel the same way reading your reply. :( Maybe cuz we're both lefties? Need a right-hander in there for full communication? ;) Seriously though, I agree, and wish we'd connected somehow. You know that I enjoy your writing. I don't think you oppose homosexuality and I'm quite regretful that my post was muddled on that point especially.

Eileen

Mon Sep 26, 2005 7:45 am

I again appreciate your response on this, Eileen, as I'm not totally dogmatic on this issue, as after all, quite a few smart people who I agee
with on some political issues support "gay marriage." I certainly have
no "hangups", but do draw the line.

As Mr. Butler tried to make clear with his easy-to-jump-on carpet analogy, there's something to be said for the notion that not all minorities will be protected forever and at all lengths. (Who says?)Rosa Parks is surely a hero, but
I still don't find the gay marriage saga quite as compellling. Millions of people (be they disabled, obese, "the wrong color," etc. ) live their lives
knowing that the law can change but they'll forever deal with garden
variety discrimination.

A good deal of that is sad, even wrong, but
I just don't buy into the notion that gays "have a right" to marry. To say this immediately raises the spectre that one is dealing with a dinosaur,
but I don't think the demise of the gay marriage movement in the USA
is some kind of indictment of the American people. Either that, or I'm
just more philosophically pessimistic. "You Can't Always Get What You
Want
," as the Stones sang. That may suck, but it's reality.

As for the red herring argument, in today's sue-happy culture, keep waiting. Some aggrieved Mormon who wants to sue for the right to marry his consenting four wives is surely waiting in the wings and as well as other unorthodox unions. I think it's naive to think that America won't summon up such tell-tale challengers. This is, after all, a country
where everyone walks around sure in their "rights" - no matter how bogus.

"Gay Marriage" just not a priority (even for quite a few homosexuals)
and frankly goes against the still church-going public and those who at least identify with being religious and are culturally-conservative. Europe has famously dispensed with such things supposedly,but for now, it's going
to be a hard-sale here in the US of A. And all this is against a backdrop of a nation that
had grown to become used to sitcoms and neighbors that showed and even celebrated "gay pride."

A lot of things are "unfair" - war, genocide, lay-offs, etc. But I think there's a hubris in wanting to undo the institution of marriage. The "Civil union" concept at least attempts to acknowledge why society still ought
to privilege heterosexuality or at least encourage it. It's not like we
are seeing an anti-gay "Kristalnacht" (sp?) on the horizon. Folks clearly are just drawing the line. I may eat my words, but I just don't see it
on the horizon.

And as citizens and allies part of coalitions around a number of things, why not care about other more "bread and butter" domestic issues
of peace, good schools, safe streets, good jobs with full protection rights, a growing economy (whatever one's laundry list..), etc. I just don't see
how a true minority cause gets to highjack more relevant issues. By "relevent, I mean, by definition, less of a "special interest" cause but rather one with broad popular use and support. The things won in the past going back to FDR had the support of traditional working people of Catholic, Jewish and other faiths. Why must we write off such people today as "bigots"?

It's almost as if some Democrats are wishing for a President Jeb Bush (two terms) ...!

'Eyes on the Prize'...! The prize is not an indulgent "victory" of a minority that seeks to "educate" and "re-orient" the mainstream.
Maybe it is, but good luck! :shock:

I just don't see it as a "prejudice" on par with other more infamous
biases. Who ever told anyone that gays can marry? I'm not rich. Who do I sue? Isn't this classic entitlement thinking? Good luck, again, but I really don't see the urgency. To me, urgency deals with life and death, bread and butter issues. Pissing off voters who have sincere religious beliefs
("bigotry" to some) is a recipe of handing over the whole enchillada
to the Republicans- for generations- on culture alone.

Dems of the left-liberal persuasion would do well to leave their bastions of Cambridge, Mass., Berkeley, Cal., Madison, Wisc. or what have you (all fine places to visit, explore and study, I should say) -and visit and get to know the "fly-over" country that they so dismissively view as "backward."

Americans can smell elitism (sooner or later, anyway) and any attempt
to foist "gay marriage" on the public will be beaten back as such, especially if the court method is the preferred channel. Whether it's smart to form a coalition with those who are not on your side economically, etc., I wonder, given what else will be part of the equation. Stay tuned.
Last edited by Gregory Nolan Jr. on Mon Sep 26, 2005 7:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Mon Sep 26, 2005 12:27 pm

In the context of this argument and if these debates are now allowed, i think this article deserves another airing...it shouldn't have been locked in the first place when i posted it the first time


"Playboy and the (Homo) Sexual Revolution
By Henry Makow Ph.D.
November 9, 2001

What kind of man is this?

He is fastidious about his appearance, his home and his possessions. He wants as much sex as possible and chooses sexual partners mostly on the basis of appearance. He is self-absorbed and doesn't want emotional involvement or commitment. He thinks a woman would stifle him and children would be a burden.

Does this sound like gay behavior?

It is also the masculine ideal purveyed by Playboy magazine to men since the 1950's. At the End of Time, when they open the envelope labeled "What is the essence of manhood?" I suspect it will say: "Looking after women and children. Men act as God's agent by creating and supporting new life. The family is the cellular unit of human life." But in 1972, 3 out of 4 male college students got their ideas about masculinity from Playboy, at an incalculable price to themselves, women, children, and society.

The similarity between the Playboy and homosexual ideal is no coincidence. "The Kinsey Report" (1948) shaped current mainstream attitudes to sex. It championed unfettered sexual expression and became the manifesto of the counter-culture and sexual revolution. It inspired Hugh Hefner to start Playboy in 1953. Essentially it said that aberrant sexual behavior was so common as to be normal. Thanks to psychologist Dr. Judith Reisman, we now know that Alfred Kinsey and the "Kinsey Report" were frauds. Kinsey, a zoologist at the University of Indiana, pretended to be a Conservative family man. In fact, he was a child molester and homosexual pervert who seduced his male students and forced his wife and associates to perform in homemade pornographic films.

Kinsey's agenda, in Reisman's words, was "to supplant what he saw as a narrow procreational Judeo Christian era with a promiscuous "anything goes" bi/gay pedophile paradise." (Crafting Gay Children: An Inquiry, p.4) More than 25% of his sample were prostitutes and prison inmates including many sex offenders. Kinsey, who died prematurely of disease associated with excessive masturbation, said 10 per cent of American men were gay when, in fact, only two per cent were. Kinsey and his team of pedophiles abused 2,000 infants and children to prove that they have legitimate sexual needs. Reisman concludes: "America's growing libidinous pathologies...taught in schools...and reflected in our fine and popular arts, the press, law and public policylargely mirror the documented sexual psychopathologies of the Kinsey team itself." (Kinsey: Crimes and Consequences)

Hugh Hefner said the Kinsey Report "produced a tremendous sexual awakening, largely because of media attention...I really view Kinsey as the beginning. Certainly the book was very important to me." With messianic fervor, Playboy took its message of sexual freedom to the American male who, in the 1950's and 1960's, still consecrated sex for marriage. But the freedom was illusory. Playboy's aim, the aim of all pornographers, was to hook men on the glossy fantasy. To do this, they had to prevent them from finding true satisfaction in marriage. In Reisman's words, "Playboy was the first national magazine to exploit college men's fears of women and family commitment. Playboy offered itself as a reliable, comforting substitute for monogamous heterosexual love." (Soft Porn Plays Hardball, p 47)

Thus "sworn enemies," Playboy and feminists, found common ground in hatred of healthy heterosexuality expressed in the nuclear family. As a result of the (homo)sexual revolution, society now suffers from epidemics of family breakdown, pornography, impotence, child sexual abuse, sadosexual violence, teen pregnancy, a cocktail of STD's and, of course, AIDS. The birthrate has plummeted by 60% since 1960 and is now below replacement level. But we must not stand in the way of social progress.

Homosexuality is a developmental disorder caused when a male child fails to bond with his father. Psychologist Richard Cohen, in "Coming Out Straight: Understanding and Healing Homosexuality" (2000) argues persuasively that, by having sex with men, the adult gay is trying to compensate for father-love denied in adolescence. Cohen was a homosexual himself and is now married with three children. He attributes lesbianism to a woman's reaction to being rebuffed or abused by her father. He has cured hundreds of homosexuals, but is under constant attack for undermining the gay political agenda, (i.e. redefining societal norms.)

Psychiatrist Jeffrey Satinover has pointed to another cause of homosexuality. A 1990 survey of 1000 gays shows that an older or more powerful partner physically assaulted 37% of them before the age of 19. (Homosexuality and American Public Life, 1999, p.24). In addition, according to Anne Moir in "Why Men Don't Iron," some men may be "born gay" due to fetal hormone imbalances. They seem to be a minority in a minority.

For many decades, gays were told that they were "sick" and cruelly persecuted. Their solution: convince the world that, in fact, it is heterosexuals who are sick. In 1973, they bullied the American Psychological Association into proclaiming homosexuality normal. Together with feminists (who believe heterosexuality is inherently oppressive) gays began to dismantle all heterosexual institutions: masculinity, femininity, marriage, the family, the boy scouts, sports, the military, the education system and our Judeo-Christian heritage.

Using their position in the media, gays and their liberal supporters now largely dictate our cultural sensibility. They are responsible for the childish obsession with pornographic sex that pervades television, music videos and the Internet. This state of arrested human development is characteristic of homosexuals who have difficulty forming fulfilling long-term relationships. With straight women acting like men and vice-versa, we have become like them.

Gay liberation manuals talk about "normalizing" their sexuality and "de-sensitizing" straights by flaunting it. I was livid when I took my 10-year-old son to see Adam Sandler's Billy Madison and heard one teenage male youth in the film casually ask another: "Would you rather bone Pamela Anderson or a young Jack Nicholson?" Last week, on TV's "Will and Grace," Jack who is gay dons an apron that says "Kiss the cook" pretending he thought the second "o" was a "c". Just as Communists once conned do-gooders to think radicalism was chic, gays define trendy for gullible liberals today.

Gay and feminist activists think traditional morality was invented to perpetuate an unjust status quo. In fact, morality is the accumulated wisdom of mankind regarding what is healthy and ultimately fulfilling. Perversion is deviation from what is healthy. Heterosexual morality places sex in the context of love and/or marriage because it "humanizes" the sexual appetite. It ensures that the most profound and intimate physical act between two people expresses a commensurate emotional-spiritual bond. This is the only way sex can be truly satisfying for both men and women. It is also healthy for society because it provides for the natural and necessary outcome of love, children.

With Hugh Hefner's help, Alfred Kinsey detached sex from love and procreation. He reduced it to another physical function like urinating. Homosexuals seem to champion anonymous bathroom sex; some fornicate through a hole in a cubicle wall. Most have 10s-100s of partners each year. In less extreme form, this is the model heterosexuals have adopted. Recently a social columnist at the National Post enviously described straight couples she knows who have just broken up: "they're out partying, having the timeand the sex, it seemsof their lives."

In conclusion, the "sexual revolution" was really a triumph of perverse homosexual norms and values. The gay-feminist agenda is to redefine healthy as deviant and vice-versa and they have succeeded. In forty short years, almost all sexual constraints have dissolved and heterosexual society is reeling. The cultural and social breakdown will only get worse. We need a counter-revolution. "

Mon Sep 26, 2005 1:31 pm

Ahhh yes. Feminists and homosexuals as the parties responsible for the Playboy esthete. Gays who can't marry causing divorce. The military as a powerless institution. Multinational corporations controlled by The Advocate. The missionary position only a nostalgic memory. Heterosexuals as society's persecuted, oppressed victims.

It isn't an argument, it doesn't make enough sense to be an argument. It's as half-baked as it was the last time you posted it. But perhaps some will find it a relief since it clarifies that homosexuals have no interest in getting married.

Eileen

Mon Sep 26, 2005 5:09 pm

Kinsey, who died prematurely of disease associated with excessive masturbation, [...]

:shock:

What is excessive in this context?

I'm asking for no particular reason.

Mon Sep 26, 2005 5:36 pm

Torben wrote:
Kinsey, who died prematurely of disease associated with excessive masturbation, [...]

:shock:

What is excessive in this context?

I'm asking for no particular reason.

Image

Mon Sep 26, 2005 5:43 pm

Torben -
I've consulted the Wanker Spanker's Rules of Engagement. It states:
3 times a week - good for the prostate.
7 times a week - things are well in hand.
10-15 times a week - time to get a girlfriend.
Over 15 times a week - you're a jerk-off artist!

Mon Sep 26, 2005 5:45 pm

Pete

Thanks for the info.

Very useful.

Mon Sep 26, 2005 6:27 pm

Gay marriage: There is no 'right' to marriage in the Constitution. Marriage is a time-honored tradition, one that has, for the most part, been defined as being between 1 man and 1 woman. In a democracy it's the people who have the right to define what constitutes a marriage. The traditional family has been the bedrock of western culture, and it's disintegration is one of the main reasons - if not THE main reason- for the so-called moral decline of the west.

That said, I would not be against some form of 'companion' benefits. But the sexuality component should be left out of it, otherwise it becomes a special right.

Mon Sep 26, 2005 7:14 pm

I don't want people to get the wrong impression here, I do care about many things, but masturbation is something I couldn't give a toss about.