genoves
 
  0  
Reply Fri 5 Jun, 2009 01:31 am
aidan wrote:

Maybe it's hard for you to imagine two men loving each other.

end of quote

******************************************************
No, it's not hard for most people to imagine two men loving each other. But I am continually wondering--Who is the pitcher and who the catcher>

But, seriously, I wrote a post indicating that if homosexuals were not to be considered completely hypocritical, they must support people who are in favor of Polygamy, Polyandry, Beastiality, Man/Boy love, and necrophilia.

I wonder why homosexuals are eager to plump for support for their particular type of "love" and will not grant other groups the right to practice "love" as they see fit?

There may be some homosexuals who are turned off by Beastiality and will not back those who are in favor of that kind of love, but if there are, I hope that they realize that there are people who are similarly turned off by homosexuality.

Either let "love' be expressed in a large variety of ways, or subvert the very principles you say you espouse.
aidan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Jun, 2009 02:05 am
@genoves,
Quote:
But, seriously, I wrote a post indicating that if homosexuals were not to be considered completely hypocritical, they must support people who are in favor of Polygamy, Polyandry, Beastiality, Man/Boy love, and necrophilia.

Why? These types of relationships bear nothing in common with homosexuality.
Quote:

But I am continually wondering--Who is the pitcher and who the catcher>

Frustrated baseball fan, huh? Yankees or Mets?

0 Replies
 
genoves
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Jun, 2009 02:23 am
Aidan wrote:

Why? These types of relationships bear nothing in common with homosexuality.

Why not? They are all types of "love". Love, as Cyclops mentioned, is the root of homosexuality.

Don't try to be evasive. Members of NAMBLA proudly identify themselves as homosexuals except that they want young boys as their targets.

Homosexuals say that their "love" is no different than male-female love except that it is male-male or female-female love.

NOTHING IN COMMON????

************************************************************

You don't know what a
pitcher and a catcher is? Among the homosexuals in a local bar, one bragged that in his sexual activities with his partner, he was the pitcher and his partner the catcher. They weren't talking about baseball.
aidan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Jun, 2009 02:33 am
@genoves,
Quote:
Why not? They are all types of "love". Love, as Cyclops mentioned, is the root of homosexuality

Love could be, that's true. But it's not necessarily even at the root of heterosexual sex or marriage. There are lot of other reasons besides love that people have sex and get married.

But that's beside the point. The point is whether or not people should be discriminated against or kept from accessing a right or freedom that is available to others based on who they are.

Marriage between more than two people is illegal - so that cuts out polygamy and polyandry.

Marriage between animals and people is illegal - so that cuts out bestiality.

Sexual relations between adults and children is illegal - so that cuts out man/boy (or woman/girl) love.

Sexual relations with a dead body is also illegal - so that cuts necrophilia out.

But homosexuality is not illegal. Neither is marriage between two consenting adults for WHATEVER reason they decide to do it. That's why homosexual marriage (or love) does not equate with the rest of your examples.

Quote:
You obviously know nothing about the great playwright, Albee, who wrote--"Who is Sylvia or "The Goat". This is a story about man-animal love andAlbee noted that he wrote it as a proxy for male-male love.

I have read some Albee - but not that one. That's interesting - that he equates man-animal love with male-male love - but that's only his opinion or interpretation. It's nothing more than that (and maybe an indicator of some interesting little twists in his own psyche).
0 Replies
 
genoves
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Jun, 2009 02:46 am
Aldan wrote:

But homosexuality is not illegal.
end of quote
You mean in the USA, of course.

Note:

A sodomy law is a law that defines certain sexual acts as sex crimes. The precise sexual acts meant by the term sodomy are rarely spelled out in the law, but is typically understood by courts to include any sexual act which does not lead to procreation. It also has a range of similar euphemisms.[1] These acts typically include oral sex, anal sex, and bestiality; in practice such laws have rarely been enforced against heterosexual couples.[2]

Such laws have roots in antiquity, and are linked to religious proscriptions against certain sex acts. Contemporary supporters of sodomy laws argue that there are additional reasons for retaining them.

Sodomy laws can be found around the world. Today, consensual homosexual acts between adults are illegal in about 70 out of the 195 countries of the world;[3] in 40 of these, only male-male sex is outlawed.[4] This number has been declining since the second half of the 20th century.
******************************************************************

My State Senator is an opponent of Homosexuality. He notes that it is not illegal but he also notes that the acceptance of homosexuality will inevitably lead to the sanction of

Polygamy, Polyandry, Beastiality, Man/Boy Love and Necrophilia.

Why not? Progressivism calls for the unchaining of man and the right for anyone to pursue his happiness.

0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Jun, 2009 07:37 am
@aidan,
Quote:
What is easily asserted? Love? By gay people who are fighting the ******* laws of the land to have their feelings recognized. You call that easy?


I don't consider it "fighting". Our military fight. Once again the corrosion of language is taking place under this sort of discussion.

And "******* laws of the land" is barricade talk.

But this "fighting" is rewarding. It is safe. It is cosy. It is distracting. It is entertaining. It is attention getting. It feeds the joys of righteous indignation. It needs no training. It is easy. It is social. It is fun. It is something to do. It gets them on telly. It keeps sex in the forefront of the mind. It provides cheap copy for media. It's controversial. It makes them feel different. There is a career for some in it. It's a poke in the eye to authority and tradition.

The "Love", which now boldy speaks its name, albeit in polite words, is easily asserted to justify having a ball comprising that little lot.

I'm desperately enamoured of performing lewd acts in public places with ladies who share my understandable penchant as befits any respectable descendent of apes or a philosopher of the Diogenes persuasion. But in view of puritannical public opinion, as shown on this thread, I accept the laws which frustrate me and, in view of the shortness of the act in relation to the rest of life, I can't say I'm all that bothered about it. I have mooned from coach windows on occasion but only when pissed up and passing a bingo hall at closing time.
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Jun, 2009 08:02 am
Prop. 8 and the Misery of the Law


Protesters take part in a “No on Prop. 8” march and rally last year in front of a Mormon church in Los Angeles to protest the Mormon leadership’s support of the measure to ban same-sex marriage in California. Voters approved the initiative last November and it took effect almost immediately.

By Scott Tucker

The right to rebel is my real subject here, but the misery of the law is not incidental. No good case can be made for rebellion as an unqualified good in itself. But the right to rebel also cannot be limited to the rebel causes that were won long ago and have passed over into our national mythology.

There is a historical irony in the events of Nov. 4, 2008: Barack Obama became the first black president of the United States, and a majority of American voters broke down one more racial barrier to high public office. On the same day, Proposition 8 was passed by a small majority of California voters and added this sentence to the state constitution: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”

A further historical irony was underscored on May 26, 2009: Obama nominated federal appeals court Justice Sonia Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court, a woman who, if confirmed, may be the first person of Latino heritage on the highest court.1 And on the same day, the California Supreme Court voted to deny validity to the legal suits brought against Proposition 8 after its passage, and thus to make the language of Proposition 8 constitutionally binding upon all citizens of the state.

The majority of the court argued that their hands were tied in delivering this ruling. (See Strauss v. Horton, Tyler v. State of California, and City and County of San Francisco v. Horton, 2009.) The constraints of the state constitution were so clear and binding, in the majority’s view, that their own earlier arguments and decision in favor of granting the legal right of marriage to same-sex couples in California had to be consigned to legal history. The majority opinion, written by Chief Justice Ronald M. George (who had also written the previous majority opinion in favor of same-sex marriage), took great pains to insist that the main issue before the court was not the merits or demerits of same-sex marriage, but instead a strictly legal question of who gets to change the language of the state constitution, under what form, and by what means.

The dissenting opinion written by Justice Carlos R. Moreno also states that the court had already decided in Marriage Cases (2008) that the language of Proposition 8 “discriminates against same-sex couples and denies them equal protection of the law,” so the procedural question of amendment or of revision called for separate resolution. In the case of Proposition 8, is the proposed change a limited and fairly technical amendment? Or is Proposition 8 a serious revision, in both principle and practical scope, of the state constitution? The majority on the court decided Proposition 8 was an amendment, and furthermore that the California Constitution gave the justices on this court no authority over the initiative process and the majoritarian decision of the voters. Moreno, on the contrary, argued that Proposition 8 is indeed a far-reaching change that must be considered a revision, rather than an amendment, of the state Constitution. In Moreno’s words: “The rule the majority crafts today not only allows same-sex couples to be stripped of the right to marry that is recognized in the Marriage Cases, it places at risk the constitutional rights of all disfavored minorities. It weakens the status of our state Constitution as a bulwark of fundamental rights for minorities protected from the will of the majority. I therefore dissent.”

Furthermore, Moreno noted: “ … Proposition 8 entirely undermines the countermajoritarian nature of the equal protection clause and usurps the judiciary’s special constitutional role as protector of minority rights. … ”

In summary, Moreno wrote:

Proposition 8 represents an unprecedented instance of a majority of voters altering the meaning of the equal protection clause by modifying the California Constitution to require deprivation of a fundamental right on the basis of a suspect classification. The majority’s holding is not just a defeat for same-sex couples, but for any minority group that seeks the protection of the equal protection clause of the California Constitution.

This could not have been the intent of those who devised and enacted the initiative process. In my view, the aim of Proposition 8 and all similar initiating measures that seek to alter the California Constitution to deny a fundamental right to a group that has historically been subject to discrimination on the basis of a suspect classification, violates the essence of the equal protection clause of the California Constitution and fundamentally alters its scope and meaning. Such a change cannot be accomplished through the initiative process by a simple amendment to our Constitution enacted by a bare majority of the votes; it must be accomplished, if at all, by a constitutional revision to modify the equal protection clause to protect some, rather than all, similarly situated persons. I would therefore hold that Proposition 8 is not a lawful amendment of the California Constitution.

Proposition 8 is now a miserable provision of the California Constitution, ratified by a majority of justices who made many miserably consistent legal arguments for an unjust cause. But there are also preposterous legal contradictions in the opinions of the majority of the court. In this regard, we must be grateful for the thorough and devastating dissent penned by Justice Moreno. (His dissent concurs in part with the majority, and in good legal form is titled “A Concurring and Dissenting Opinion.”)

The misery of the law is not an uplifting subject for career politicians, and certainly not for lawyers and judges. They choose to give speeches and write books about the majesty of the law instead, a choice that is understandable given their careers and the general division of labor. No matter what happens behind closed doors, their professions require the projection of optimism to the general public. Big bankers might be shaken in their faith that the hand of God works through the free market. The CEOs of General Motors and Chrysler may still tell customers they will deliver another century of Happy Motoring, and yet have private doubts. Hell, even Bill Clinton may grow tired of his own snake-oil salesmanship on behalf of the Clinton Foundation, and Tony Blair may yet lose faith in the Tony Blair Faith Foundation. But we, the people, are led to believe by high courts and career politicians that only citizens with weak constitutions could waver in our faith in the Founding Fathers.

To make a modest argument for the misery of the law is to make the argument for a small dose of corrective medicine. The malady is constitutional triumphalism. But of course any sane person would prefer that malady over outright dictatorship. And the usual arguments for the rule of law and against the rule of demagogues are no less reasonable for being unoriginal. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote a recent book titled “The Majesty of the Law,” and in 1996 Judge Sotomayor gave a lecture at Suffolk University Law School that was published (with a co-author and in revised form) in the school’s Law Review under the title “Returning Majesty to the Law and Politics: A Modern Approach.” Sotomayor makes the case for a kind of legal realism, namely, for more honest acknowledgement that judges often respond to unforeseen events and to social movements. Judges do not (as a general rule) simply make up the law out of their own will and whimsy, but neither are they obliged to throw themselves under the juggernaut of legal tradition simply because the accumulated weight and momentum of case law is real.

Balance of essay:

http://www.truthdig.com/report/page2/20090604_prop_8_and_the_misery_of_the_law/
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Jun, 2009 08:05 am
Look out for those flying Bingo tokens -- one might find its target and injure the brain.
0 Replies
 
GoObEr GrApE
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Jun, 2009 09:10 am
@majikal,
i believe there should be gay marrages because their human like the rest of the worlds population. any way there were probaly gays when christ was around they were probaly just afraid to reveal themselves
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Jun, 2009 09:52 am
@GoObEr GrApE,
GoObEr GrApE wrote:

i believe there should be gay marrages because their human like the rest of the worlds population. any way there were probaly gays when christ was around they were probaly just afraid to reveal themselves


In fact, there most certainly were (if he existed, that is). And I don't recall him having much of a problem with them.

Cycloptichorn
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Jun, 2009 10:08 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

GoObEr GrApE wrote:

i believe there should be gay marrages because their human like the rest of the worlds population. any way there were probaly gays when christ was around they were probaly just afraid to reveal themselves


In fact, there most certainly were (if he existed, that is). And I don't recall him having much of a problem with them.

Cycloptichorn


You mean the Twelve Apostlettes?
aidan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Jun, 2009 11:57 am
@Lightwizard,
Genoves wrote:
Quote:
You don't know what a
pitcher and a catcher is? Among the homosexuals in a local bar, one bragged that in his sexual activities with his partner, he was the pitcher and his partner the catcher. They weren't talking about baseball.
Laughing Laughing Laughing They weren't? What were they talking about? Laughing Laughing Laughing

No, Genoves- I got it. (I was gonna make a joke about girls ALWAYS having to be the catcher- and add something about how hard that position is on the knees...but nevermind).
0 Replies
 
aidan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Jun, 2009 12:20 pm
@spendius,
Quote:
I don't consider it "fighting". Our military fight. Once again the corrosion of language is taking place under this sort of discussion.

Oh come on Spendius - so now fighting is only armed combat in war or something? Don't be ridiculous- my dictionary says: any contest or struggle, to contend or strive vigorously for or against something. I am not corroding the language at all- I used the word correctly.

Quote:
But this "fighting" is rewarding. It is safe. It is cosy. It is distracting. It is entertaining. It is attention getting. It feeds the joys of righteous indignation. It needs no training. It is easy. It is social. It is fun. It is something to do. It gets them on telly. It keeps sex in the forefront of the mind. It provides cheap copy for media. It's controversial. It makes them feel different. There is a career for some in it. It's a poke in the eye to authority and tradition.

Maybe when viewed from a distance and in the abstract. You don't seem able to separate the spectacle from the underlying individual need that's being voiced. Do you have any gay friends at all? I'm just curious. And I don't mean friends, as in blokes in the pub who put on their pub face for the rest of the chaps - I mean anyone who has ever voiced to you what it feels like to be them?
And if you did - would you care?

Quote:
I'm desperately enamoured of performing lewd acts in public places with ladies who share my understandable penchant as befits any respectable descendent of apes or a philosopher of the Diogenes persuasion.

Really? An exhibitionist, huh? I never would have guessed that. Why?

Quote:
But in view of puritanical public opinion, as shown on this thread, I accept the laws which frustrate me and, in view of the shortness of the act in relation to the rest of life, I can't say I'm all that bothered about it.

Right - because you can marry who you like and do what you want in the privacy of your own home-( or undercover of darkness anywhere else) to satisfy your natural urges.
What if you had to spend your whole life loving someone and not legally having the option of being married to that person?

Quote:
I have mooned from coach windows on occasion but only when pissed up and passing a bingo hall at closing time.

Recently?

I don't know Spendius - not to make assumptions or assertions and maybe you don't need cautioning, and if you don't - just ignore me- but it'd be a shame if your faith became nothing more than an intellectual exercise or a comfortable habit or succession of rites. And I mean absolutely no offence when I ask this -I'm not accusing you of anything. I'm sincerely curious. How does your faith play out in your life? Does it inform your view of people and how you want them to be treated?
If it does, why would you want to uphold a tradition that is hurtful to people?
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Jun, 2009 03:33 pm
@aidan,
Quote:
Oh come on Spendius - so now fighting is only armed combat in war or something?


I don't associate the word with all those pleasant things I listed. I could have suggested more.

No--I have never had any male homosexual friends nor acquaintances. Not to my knowledge at least.

It is pub time. I hope to continue at a later time.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Jun, 2009 03:37 pm
@spendius,
spendius wrote:

Quote:
Oh come on Spendius - so now fighting is only armed combat in war or something?


I don't associate the word with all those pleasant things I listed. I could have suggested more.

No--I have never had any male homosexual friends nor acquaintances. Not to my knowledge at least.

It is pub time. I hope to continue at a later time.


Oh, I guarantee that you have, sir.

Cycloptichorn
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Jun, 2009 05:28 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Quote:
Oh, I guarantee that you have, sir.


Well--I have to admit that a very intimate lady friend of mine did once tell me that a chap I knew fancied me. I asked her how she knew of course because I was flabbergasted. She tapped her nose and winked in that superior manner that some ladies have and which I have yet to get to the bottom of.

Obviously I took the necessary precautions thereafter.
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Jun, 2009 08:26 am
@spendius,
A chastity belt on your butt must have been uncomfortable on a pub stool, but I suppose the patrons would have preferred it around your mouth.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Jun, 2009 11:13 am
@aidan,
Quote:
Really? An exhibitionist, huh? I never would have guessed that. Why?


Why am I an exhibitionist or why would you never have guessed.

I'm an exhibitionist because it is natural to exhibit what one is good at or even fairly good at. I was exhibiting a sense of humour in the hope you might catch a smile or more. I was also taking the opportunity of exhibiting the hypocrisy of the vast majority of Darwinists.

Why you never would have guessed that I cannot imagine unless I risk demeaning your estimable faculties of appreciation.

Quote:
Right - because you can marry who you like and do what you want in the privacy of your own home-( or undercover of darkness anywhere else) to satisfy your natural urges.


I would have liked to marry Princess Anne when she came back on the market. If you think about it our natural urges are arranged in a hierarchy. Sex is a fair way down the list and hardly to be thought about when any of them above it in the list is wanting satisfaction.

It is a significant measure of how satisfied we all are in respect of our natural urges that we can exercise this amount of attention on one of such a trivial nature. It is almost the equivalent of the decadence of the Roman Empire.

Quote:
What if you had to spend your whole life loving someone and not legally having the option of being married to that person?


What is love? I see no love which comes without conditions. You're playing with this important word. A mystical concept. The "Quietist" heresy of Madame de Guyon and the Abbe Fenelon. A madness the ancients said.

Quote:
Recently?


No. When I was young and foolish. Anything for a laugh days.

Quote:
If it does, why would you want to uphold a tradition that is hurtful to people?


Again- "hurtful" is just too loose. There are a lot of traditions and I daresay most of them hurt somebody. Genoves goat fancier for example. American consumption of oil hurts people they say.




aidan
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Jun, 2009 05:21 pm
@spendius,
I was asking, 'Why are you an exhibitionist?' I was wondering what about that you might find edifying.
Spendius said:
Quote:
I'm an exhibitionist because it is natural to exhibit what one is good at or even fairly good at.

Laughing So someone told you were good or fairly good at 'it'? That must have been edifying indeed.

Yeah well, I did catch a smile- although I have to admit- if I were to come upon people coupling like a couple of apes - I think I'd have to turn my head and walk back the other way as quickly as I could...I'm not a very voyeuristic sort, and the whole animalistic aspect of it- let's just say my mom did her best to socially condition me to think of the whole activity in different terms - and she succeeded.

Quote:
Why you never would have guessed that I cannot imagine unless I risk demeaning your estimable faculties of appreciation.

I thought you seemed like someone who enjoys his privacy.

Quote:
I would have liked to marry Princess Anne when she came back on the market.
Wow! Now that is shocking to me. I guess I don't know you at all Spendius - although I can imagine you with Princess Anne sooner than I can see you with Diana or Fergie...but how about Princess Margaret (in her heyday)?
Quote:

Sex is a fair way down the list and hardly to be thought about when any of them above it in the list is wanting satisfaction.

Yes, but it's not all about sex. This is about much more than that - I've tried to explain that. It's about validation and recognition of the legitimacy of a lasting commitment and connection between two people - and that ability to attach comfortably and have that attachment reciprocated is what allows a person to function emotionally.
Even if you have food, water and shelter- if a person does not attach or feels unworthy or unable to attach - they're pretty much emotionaly screwed up for the rest of their lives.
And if everyone around you is telling you that because you want to attach to someone that they feel is unacceptable- you're unacceptable-what do you think that does to a person?
You know, sex is not the only method of connection in an adult relationship. Homosexuals aren't asking for the legal right to have sex. They already have that legal right. They're asking for something deeper than that.
It would seem to me that those who hate all the spectacle and sexual openness of 'gay pride' etc. would be happy to see the focus deepening to something a little less lurid and transient than the stereotype of promiscuity and musical partners that has typified what people believe homosexual relationships to have been in the past or up to now.

Quote:
You're playing with this important word. A mystical concept. The "Quietist" heresy of Madame de Guyon and the Abbe Fenelon. A madness the ancients said.

Yes, unexplainable and undeniable. Why should its expression be allowed to some and denied to others?

Quote:
Genoves goat fancier for example.

I'm gonna read that play- 'goat fancier'- yikes.

Quote:
American consumption of oil hurts people they say

Right and if you could stop it you would.
Tell me how homosexual marriage would hurt someone. Not our amorphous society - how would it hurt people?
And if it doesn't hurt people, but the denial of this right is hurtful to those who would be looked at and treated as equal under the law - why not stop denying them? What is the reason for upholding this tradition?
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Jun, 2009 05:46 pm
@aidan,
Quote:
I was wondering what about that you might find edifying.


Showing my pals how it should be done. None of them seem to have any idea.

Quote:
if I were to come upon people coupling like a couple of apes


Why not react as if you had come across a couple of people chatting in a bus queue.

Quote:
Wow! Now that is shocking to me. I guess I don't know you at all Spendius - although I can imagine you with Princess Anne sooner than I can see you with Diana or Fergie...but how about Princess Margaret (in her heyday)?


Oh no. Princess Anne is my choice.

On the other stuff I just don't trust the sentiments. They could too easily be a justification for other things already mentioned.

Why haven't 46 states bought into this if it is as straightforward as you suggest?

I have asked what the population of the 4 states is which have and there has been no response.
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Prop 8?
  3. » Page 98
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 06/22/2024 at 10:14:23