patrick.net

A FEW QUESTIONS/COMMENTS on GAY MARRIAGE:

If gay marriage is ok, why not make polygamy, incest, or pedophilia, OK?

And all of aforementioned in the name of 'LOVE' will justify them all?

Do the "ends" justify the "means" at any cost?

Are gays really being honest with themselves and others in "coming out of the closet"? Why the need for gay "pride" in the first place decades ago?

Perhaps someone can explain why they want to shame others for their hate or homophobia when they themselves needed to advertise and promote their own "pride" well before anyone knew about gay pride?

ONE LAST POINT/QUESTION.
Doesn't the medical community recommend that you, "Wash your hands after you go to the bathroom."?

Yet, now there are some in the medical community that now say it's OK to "Sleep with the waste that gets flushed down in the toilet?" and that it's possible to live a perfectly normal life.

Ahc says

If gay marriage is ok, why not make polygamy, incest, or pedophilia, OK?

Don't you homophobic morons ever get tired of having failed logic shot down?

You are basically saying the equivalent of "We shouldn't allow doctors to remove a wart, because they'll cut off your testicles next!"

I wish you had thrown beastiality in there too because lets say old Homer wants to marry Bessie, (his cow and long time girlfriend). Lets say hypothetically that Bessie was able to communicate that she wished to marry Homer (and she was of consenting bovine age). Who the hell are you to stand in their way? Exactly why on earth do I care if Homer and Bessie have a wedding license sitting on their mantel?

Let's just stick to the biblical version of marriage here folks. Women are property, marriages are arranged by parents, if your brother dies, you must marry his widow, and divorce takes practically an act of god!

Look at the utterly pathetic track record of marriages in this so-called Christian nation. The soap box from which you are trying to preach is sinking into the quicksand of christian hypocrisy...

gbenson says

Let's just stick to the biblical version of marriage here folks.

What are we...we are all Europeans, Asian, Indians, and Africans.. each cultures definition is the same.. marriage between man and women.

whats the gay population... 2-3% at best..

2-3% isnt going to change 97-98% of our culture, traditions and religion.

You want equality.. you already have it.. its called a "Partnership" which is legal.

thomaswong.1986 says

What are we...we are all Europeans, Asian, Indians, and Africans.. each cultures definition is the same.. marriage between man and women.
whats the gay population... 2-3% at best..
2-3% isnt going to change 97-98% of our culture, traditions and religion.
You want equality.. you already have it.. its called a "Partnership" which is legal.

Actually if you cared to do your research or had stepped out of this country, you wouldn't make these kind of statements. In india marraige is governed by religion and then they have a separate secular marraige law. A muslim is legally allowed to marry 4 wives. There is nothing explicitly denying gay marraige- a lesbian couple got married there, by court order and were given police protection too.

The Masaai and many areas of Africa, folks have multiple wives. Back then you had to give a few cows or pigs to get a wife and the more you had, the more wives you could get. Of course practices must be a bit different in the urban areas. In Tibet and some areas of the Amazon rainforest, a woman could have multiple husbands. But carry on. I am more libertarian in my leanings. I really don't like big govt. Drugs, prostitution, marraige and most other things should be left to the individual to choose- that is what is called freedom isn't it??? Laws should only be enforced when one person is made to do against their will by force. Like if you kidnap someone and marry them(apparantely it happens in some countries) or force them into prostitution-yeah punish them. That is why I find the right wing to be disgusting hypocrites. The TX republican party for example had on its 2010 platform that they want to criminalize homesexuality-not marraige-but go into someone's bedroom and arrest them for engaing in sex. What's next-arrest someone for not growing a beard? I am just amazed the teabags never see the irony in their position when they screech about the constitution -that they are perfectly willing to throw anyone under the bus and stomp them if they don't agree with them

HEY YOU says

Here's one for the Right Wing Christian Homophobes.
"You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination." (Leviticus 18:22)

it's not about Biblical basis, but that's a good example of a very old prohibition on this form of behavior, which practically in all cases has been both an indicator and the cause of major social problems.

the fact is we have LOADS of information about how homosexuality is a destructive form of behavior, but this information is suppressed.

thomaswong.1986 says

You want equality.. you already have it.. its called a "Partnership" which is legal.

they're never going to have the equality that they want. Gays demand that the entire world be twisted into a shape that makes them feel better about what they know subconsciously is a derangement. It might sound like a religious thing(which I am not) but it's like a form of possession. Doing this act in turn shapes your entire outlook, your political views, and naturally(your lack of) family structure.

Ahc says

If gay marriage is ok, why not make polygamy, incest, or pedophilia, OK?

I personally think that these will follow if we legalize gay marriage.

While it's true not every marriage is perfect. The clear implication here is that marriage is about a partnership for procreation. As soon as we legalize gay marriage, we say clearly that it is something other than that- which opens the door to all kinds of things.

B.A.C.A.H. says

no it's not. It's a deliberate distraction to keep people from discussing important differences between us and the 1%.

I don't really think so.

the last 30-40 years have been a deliberate demoralization program. Of course they told us it was about 'freedom' and 'liberty' when in reality it will lead to it's opposite.

this demoralization has it's home in California. Especially San Francisco.

a great video: http://www.youtube.com/embed/8fQoGMtE0EY

Here's one for the Right Wing Christian Homophobes.
"You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination." (Leviticus 18:22)

Yet another example of Christians not knowing what their own freaking religion means. So ok, let the Atheist school you on your bible verse.

Canaanite religions surrounding the Israelites at the time of Leviticus often included fertility rites consisting of sexual rituals. During the rituals, whole families, including husbands, wives, mothers, fathers, sons, daughters, cousins, aunts and uncles would sometimes have sex.

Many Canaanites and Egyptians worshipped a goddess of love and fertility called Astarte or Ishtar. Within her temples were special priests called assinu, who were deemed to have special powers. Physical contact with the assinu was believed to ward off evil and promote good luck. These priests were, in effect, living good luck charms, and worshipers would often ritually touch them as part of their worship practices. Sexual intercourse was considered especially effective for gaining the goddess’s favor, because the male worshiper was offering his greatest possession, semen (which was thought to be the essence of life), to the goddess through her priests. Depositing semen in the body of a priest of the goddess was believed to guarantee one’s immortality.

So you had gay priests (there's a surprise), everyone was having sex with anything that moved, and it was also common for wealthy men to take young male servants into their home, and use them sexually.

Many of the verses of Leviticus were designed to stop this behavior. Most cultural historians believe Jesus would have been totally ok with a monogamous homosexual relationship. (He was after all quite liberal)

gbenson says

So ok, let the Atheist school you on your bible verse.

gbenson says

So you had gay priests (there's a surprise), everyone was having sex with anything that moved, and it was also common for wealthy men to take young male servants into their home, and use them sexually.

Many of the verses of Leviticus were designed to stop this behavior. Most cultural historians believe Jesus would have been totally ok with a monogamous homosexual relationship. (He was after all quite liberal)

Hmmm sounds a lot like a bunch of revisionist hoowie if you ask me.

But lets explore Homoancientus, and the facts vs the possible outcomes.

Fact, there are no documented ancient Gay marital unions.

Now according to Milk Historians, Ancient Greece and Rome were full of open gay conduct. Now out of all this conduct there are no reports of two notable Romans or Greeks being an openly Gay item couple.

More over, something bad must have happens because all the Gay fornication reports seem to stop during the Dark ages through out Medieval times well through out the Renaissance.

Now how do we go from grown men frolicking around bath houses draped in linen openly engaged in intercourse, with other men to no mention of such behavior after the fall of the Roman empire?

Also you would expect there to be gays depicted in art, carvings, reliefs, panels, statues not only in ancient Rome and Greece, but examples of this in the Americas in the rich artisan culture found there.

Gays if you listen long enough to them, even Abraham Lincoln was Gay.

The Original Bankster @ 110
Cathay made it about his bibical beliefs.

CaptainShuddup says

Now according to Milk Historians, Ancient Greece and Rome were full of open gay conduct. Now out of all this conduct there are no reports of two notable Romans or Greeks being an openly Gay item couple.

Uh, read the Symposium - or just about any of Sappho's poetry.

Hint: Sappho was from Lesbos. Wanna guess where the term "Lesbian" comes from?

Obama was against gay marriage just a few weeks ago.

Funny, but I didn't see any outrage from liberals then against him and didn't see any protest at the white house.

This is just more selective outrage from the liberals who are intolerant of people's opinion.

CaptainShuddup says

Now according to Milk Historians, Ancient Greece and Rome were full of open gay conduct. Now out of all this conduct there are no reports of two notable Romans or Greeks being an openly Gay item couple.

More over, something bad must have happens because all the Gay fornication reports seem to stop during the Dark ages through out Medieval times well through out the Renaissance.

Interesting point.

It would seem that Christianity and Islam caused homosexuality to have to go underground, since it was not considered morally acceptable by either.

And yet ironically in Catholicism and other branches of Christianity priests were frequently homosexual. I don't know whether celibacy rules were established to keep wealth within the church (no children for inheritance ), but "celibacy" sure set the stage for homosexuality within the clergy. And that in turn has sent a very hypocritical message.

THe question becomes: is religious ideology about gayness right ? OR is it (was it) just about promoting family ?

My belief is that for whatever reason (world population being 7 billion might be one), accepted beliefs about homosexuality are changing.

This doesn't mean we are depraved or following in the footsteps of the Romans. Homosexuality has always been there, but for reasons having to do with social evolution, it's becoming more acceptable (again).

marcus says

And yet ironically in Catholicism and other branches of Christianity priests were frequently homosexual.

Yes it is Ironic that priest carry the Gay flame post Greek Classical period.
But it is still under ground, Martin Luther didn't marry John Calvin.

"the love and hate of God towards men is immutable and eternal, existing, not merely before there was any merit or work of ‘free-will,’ but before the world was made; [so] all things take place in us of necessity, according as He has from eternity loved or not loved ... faith and unbelief come to us by no work of our own, but through the love and hatred of God"

So in other words you have no other point than how much you enjoy obfuscation.

Randomly plausible.

Here's my queery.

If there is truly an innate inheritable homosexual tendency, would having homosexuality totally acceptable cause this trait (DNA) to be passed on far less ?

That is, acceptance of homosexuality by the culture should eventually cause a decreased prevalence of homosexuality.

marcus says

That is, acceptance of homosexuality by the culture should eventually cause a decreased prevalence of homosexuality.

Well I've thought about getting my nipples pierced in hopes my daughters will think piercings and tattoos are so uncool they wont end up with a tramp-stamp on their nether regions.

But in all seriousness Homosexuality has been culturally accepted to the brink as far as it can possibly go. Not only in this country but in most countries. Well just short of the sharia law borders.

That is the problem, Gays are self loathing drama queens, if Mom and Dad and or the Neighbors don't get a rise out of Melvin playing dress up with eye liner and his hot sequin number. Then take it to the church, and get a rise out of father O'Toole. To which he replies, you're twenty years to old for me Son, now go with God.

I had a very good and long conversation with Australian expat and several Malay Lesbians at an Irish pub in Malaysia. They really wish the American GBL moment would shut their pie holes. The more they rail and push the envelope, the less people accept Gay people all over the world.
Gay people really have had a good run, for example sitting in a Muslim country in a bar full of openly gay women, how can you say there isn't acceptance?

Because a few people that are chocked full of violence will still commit those atrocities regardless of Gays marital status, or any official acknowledgment of their rights in any capacity.
She also noted that in Clinton's administration Civil Union recognition was a sure thing, but that wasn't good enough. Because they wanted to fuck with the church and ram their agenda down the religious rights throats, they demanded marital rights. Which a Civil Union by another definition is "Marriage". But it wasn't good enough.

I expected to see pictures of lesbians kissing in Chick-fil-a's by now.

I'm all for gay marriage, as long as both chicks are hot.

SO John Stewart put the kaputs on the CFA kiss in with his voice of reason?

And you guys say he's all about the satire.

CaptainShuddup says

Fact, there are no documented ancient Gay marital unions.

there's also not a lot of mainstream documentation regarding the giant penises found on Egyptian artifacts, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen.

http://libertycrier.com/finance/everyone-a-millionaire-social-security-vs-private-retirement/

Honest Abe says

Imagine you took the money that the government takes from your paycheck to invest into social security and used it instead to privately invest for retirement?

Yeah that sort of apples to oranges misdirection works well on SUCKERS, who can't comprehend the difference between a Paygo insurance plan and a Ponzi scheme. Imagine you'd invested it all with Bernie Madoff, you'd be RICH....if you got out early before his fraud was uncovered. Con men are good at appealing to naked greed and avarice and playing that up, and downplaying risks.

What does this SPAM have to do with the thread BTW? Nothing that I can see.

Vincente, wouldn't you like the opportunity to be able to make the decision whether to invest on you own, or participate in a government sponsored retirement plan? [freedom of choice]

Or do you prefer to let our "wise" government leaders make all the decisions which affect your life?

CaptainShuddup says

Gays if you listen long enough to them, even Abraham Lincoln was Gay.

I know, right? Just because he slept with a man in a small bed and later wrote him love letters.

Honest Abe says

Vincente, wouldn't you like the opportunity to be able to make the decision whether to invest on you own

Wouldn't you like the freedom to get in on the ground floor of my scheme? We are buying stamps in one country and selling them in another, and taking advantage of exchange rates. People smart enough to see what a GREAT scheme this is, could be bazillionaires!

It's very seductive. It's playing on greed not certainty.

V - prove to me your company or idea is worth investing in and I'll consider it. I didn't say I would, I said I'd consider it.

Certainty almost always yields a lower return. You know the risk-reward scenario, right.

YOU "invest"with SS and after 25 or 30 years your nest egg is ZERO, and you get $300 per week.

The other scenario, after 25 or 30 years your nest egg is $3.5M, and a weekly income of $3,500. Seriously, which sounds better to you? I said seriously, no liberal mumbo-jumbo.

BTW, average stock market returns for the last 5 years = 2.3%, over the last 10 years 4.5%, the last 20 years 9.4% and the last 25 years 10.5%. Thats not greed, that's just being fiscally prudent...but the government forces you to accept their wonderful, guaranteed zero return investment...yuck.

Why not do both Abe? This way SS protects you from, say, a housing bubble that brings down the market and your retirement with it.

And then the Government doesn't have to help keep old people, widows and orphans from eating cat food.

Honest Abe says

YOU "invest"with SS and after 25 or 30 years your nest egg is ZERO, and you get $300 per week.

It's not an investment scheme, it's an insurance plan.

Your misunderstandings, whether deliberate or out of ignorance, just cause further mayhem from that point.

Socialized Insecurity is more of a ponzi scheme than anything, whereby the newer and fewer workers support the older and more numerous retirees.

And I do understand whether SS is an insurance plan or not, because its not. Helvering vs. Davis among other things stated Social Security "was NOT a contirbutary insurance program" [emphasis added].

Glad I could clear that up for you, Abe.
http://washingtonexaminer.com/duped-by-congressional-lies/article/727066

My Florida insurance provider (who takes a month to write a policy, yes that long) JUST EMAILED ME TO TELL ME HER INTERNET WAS DOWN AND SHE WOULD HAVE TO WAIT TIL TOMORROW TO WRITE IT UP. She emailed me.

My internets down, I'll blog you later.

Honest Abe says

Socialized Insecurity is.....

Obviously you've mistaken this for FreeRepublic.com. Where everyone tries to top each other for hip ways to rename things in derogatory fashion.

But I understand. What with your namesake being gay and all, you are traumatized and delirious.

Be careful out there y'all. I've heard it starts with sucking on straws....

?1343334660

OK, since you guys can't deliver:

CaptainShuddup says

She also noted that in Clinton's administration Civil Union recognition was a sure thing, but that wasn't good enough. Because they wanted to fuck with the church and ram their agenda down the religious rights throats, they demanded marital rights. Which a Civil Union by another definition is "Marriage". But it wasn't good enough.

You are so full of shit. Are you on Fox News Payroll?

The reason why many gays demanded full equality and full marriage rights and the 1,100+ rights that go along with marriage is because we realized that resistance on the right was not about marriage at all.

This is evidenced by the fact that Christianists opposed gay people even when they timidly asked for domestic partnerships and civil unions. Hell, they, the christianist right, opposed any legal recognition of gay persons, contracts, job protections, housing protections, etc. Anything to make the life of a gay person just a little more tolerable was fought tooth and nail. Hell, you guys are still fighting against any law that would attempt to decrease the incidence of anti gay bullying for our youth. In TN you can't even say the word gay in schools. It is now illegal. WTF? You would rather see gay teens kill themselves than to offer up any meager protection or support that may be gained via a gay straight student alliance. No, you fight these too. You have blood on your hands. You simply don't give a shit about kids either.

This whole fight is all about humiliating and dehumanizing gay people. It has nothing to do with marriage at all. The anti gay marriage issue by the christianist right is simply cover for their animus and bigotry. Your cover is off, you have been exposed for who you really are. You don't give a crap about marriage at all. You only care about putting an entire group of people out to pasture simply so that you may feel a tinge better about yourself, which obviously is not much. Pathetic to say the least.