Gay Marriage Vote Passes in DC City Council

@aidan,

Thank you for the stats and the ref. I also would argue that the latest trend in psyche is to say someone can be homosexual without committing homosexual acts and someone can commit homosexual acts without being homosexual. Whilst I think this is meaningless psycho-babble, it serves an important purpose. It is to alleviate guilt, and this will also affect any reporting on the subject. So how many have homosexual thoughts ? What is the basis of a woman looking at another woman and saying she is beautiful ? I'll be damned if I can do that with men. They all look bloody ugly to me, and I cant think of anything that would collapse my penis quicker than the sight of a hairy male arsehole. But women talk of kissing a sweet little face, which is a different aspect to sexuality that doesnt really depend on thinking about riping the gear off and getting imbetween each others legs. So there still might be something to it but I accept the figures you presented.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Quote:

I assume Rebecca that the proximity to the female body of infants of both sexes is the likliest explanation of why lesbianism is more acceptable and has never been condemned by the Church.

That may have something to do with why, as Ionus stated, women find it easier to find other women 'beautiful' without attaching sexual feelings, while men find that harder to do or maybe to admit that they do.

Quote:

Psychologists say that our basic nature is set in those early years. Which makes it a it surprising that lesbianism isn't more popular.

Why? Are you referencing the love between mother and daughter? It's the same as between mother and son, ideally. And hopefully thats nonsexual spendius - or you'd run into a whole different hornet's nest.
You might as well say that you're surprised maternal incest is not more popular.

Quote:

There is also the fact that there is no reproductive loss in lesbianism as there is in male homosexuality?

Not anymore maybe, but at the time the church was setting its policy, there most certainly was a reproductive loss in avowed or admitted or honestly manifested lesbianism.

1 Reply

@Ionus,

Quote:

and someone can commit homosexual acts without being homosexual.

This is true. I was just watching a movie with my son and there was this club scene with all these girls all over each other and I asked him,
'Is that really what it's like when you go out to a club?' I was curious. He said, 'Yes.' And I said, 'That's so weird, the only time you'd see stuff like that when I was your age was if you were in a gay bar.' He didn't believe me. He said,'Those girls aren't gay.' I was like, 'Well, then why are they kissing each other?' He said,'That's always gone on...that happened when you were my age.' And I said, 'Yeah, between lesbians...when I was your age if you weren't a lesbian you didn't kiss other girls.' He said, 'Why?' I said, 'Because you didn't WANT to!'
I think a lot of times these girls do it because they feel it's expected of them.

I guess the other question is whether homosexuality is more an acceptance of the same sex or rejection of the opposite sex. That will definitely make a difference in how often and in what manner it's manifested.

Quote:

What is the basis of a woman looking at another woman and saying she is beautiful ?

I look at the female form like I'd look at a flower. I can admit that it's beautiful, but I don't want or need to have sex with it. Can't men do that? Is there no neutral way for a man to look at another male form? Does it have to be either with desire or revulsion - is there no middle ground of objective appreciation of form? Or do you think it's because you're not allowed to look appreciatively or say you look appreciatively.

Quote:

I'll be damned if I can do that with men. They all look bloody ugly to me, and I cant think of anything that would collapse my penis quicker than the sight of a hairy male arsehole. But women talk of kissing a sweet little face, which is a different aspect to sexuality that doesnt really depend on thinking about riping the gear off and getting imbetween each others legs.

Let's just lay it right out on the line.

1 Reply

@aidan,

I can look at a bloke and say he is musclier than me, or he would have a longer reach than me in a fight, or his face is symetrical...maybe a woman would think he is handsome....but I can not say another man is good looking. I just cant get it. I have been genuinely stunned when I have asked women is that guy good looking and I cant even do as well as guessing ...I am shocking at it.

The idea of kissing was originally between males who were friends, mothers and infants and some female friends but not usually ...at least, that is what happens in chimpanzee society. We probably get kissing for sexual pleasure from the homosexuality of the greeks, as about the same time we probably picked up handshaking from the Iranians.

0 Replies

@aidan,

Quote:

And hopefully thats nonsexual spendius - or you'd run into a whole different hornet's nest.

Well--Freud is the hornet's nest. It's a warm, comforting flesh thing they say.

Huxley, in Brave New World, dealt with infantile sexuality in the hatchery.

Quote:

You might as well say that you're surprised maternal incest is not more popular.

It might be if there wasn't so much social disapproval.

Quote:

Not anymore maybe, but at the time the church was setting its policy, there most certainly was a reproductive loss in avowed or admitted or honestly manifested lesbianism.

Not true. The egg is unaffected. There is only caressing. In male homosexuality the sperm is wasted as it is, of course, when birth control is in operation. Hence the Church's consistent position on all related matters. And consistent with the state of affairs in all evolution. These evolutionists attacking the Church are a joke.

And obviously when the Church was setting its policy any reproductive loss was repressed because the population was in danger of being unable to resist invasions from the south and east. If the repression was ruthless it was because survival of western culture was at stake. Women grow armies. We owe every aspect of our lives to the Church.

The Mother and child cult was encouraged by patronage of the arts.

Like Ionus I find men ghastly. Shuddering tackle from the sexual point of view but okay for arguing with, taking the piss out of and borrowing money off.

1 Reply

@spendius,

There is of course, Rebecca, lest it be forgot, the hermaphrodite option. That we are all homosexual. Common ancestor ****.

And we got bored with it so we got a division of labour thing going whereby half of us had to act poncier and cook it up a storm and play hard to get and the other half had to beg. They probably took it in turns at first but the more cunning and devious started getting into the habit of preferring the poncy storm cooking part to the begging part for reasons too obvious for me to explain as it would be like explaining to grandmother how to suck eggs to a lady of your intelligence.

And however many "more" is requires some of the others to be in a beggarly state in proportion as more becomes more popular on account of the distinct advantages it implies. Both gradually becoming habits.

Eventually a balance was struck at 50-50 or thereabouts depending upon climates and geological stuff and the better the poncing, mewling, peek-a-boo- now you see it now you don't-- got performed the more beggarly the other lot had to get. Which is to say--uglier. In contrast. You can't peek-a-boo unless there's beauty to be peeked at.

The organs evolved to suit the situation as Mr Darwin demonstrated.

You could get out of the beggarly mode by disdaining to take part or being satisfied with an ugly. Why would a man dedicated to celibacy ever want to get married? It would be like eating the chip fat instead of the chips.

It's amazing how a lot of women are sympathetic to male homosexuality when it's against their interest just because they have similiar tendencies themselves when the two things are not connected. It's those silly feminists and their penis envy that connected them together. A can-can girl would guffaw at the idea of penis envy. And having to shave everyday and after all these years still can't make up its mind what type of underpants it looks best in.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Quote:

Not true. The egg is unaffected. There is only caressing. In male homosexuality the sperm is wasted as it is, of course, when birth control is in operation.

I'd say that women who were sticking to 'only caressing' or 'only being caressed' by other women practice perhaps the most fool-proof method of birth control there is.

Quote:

There is of course, Rebecca, lest it be forgot, the hermaphrodite option. That we are all homosexual. Common ancestor ****.

I haven't heard that one. I instinctively reject it though (the option).

Quote:

And we got bored with it so we got a division of labour thing going whereby half of us had to act poncier and cook it up a storm and play hard to get and the other half had to beg. They probably took it in turns at first but the more cunning and devious started getting into the habit of preferring the poncy storm cooking part to the begging part for reasons too obvious for me to explain as it would be like explaining to grandmother how to suck eggs to a lady of your intelligence.

Why do they have to be 'cunning' and 'devious'? If they procured the smarter and easier route for themselves - why don't you call them 'efficient' and/or 'enterprisingly intelligent'? I'm sure that's what you call yourself when you achieve any sort of coups.
And you're right, you don't have to give me the reasons these hypothetical people may have preferred their chosen role over the other - I totally agree. I've always been very happy to be a woman - but not for the reasons you outline here. There are others.

Quote:

A can-can girl would guffaw at the idea of penis envy.

Me too!

Quote:

It's amazing how a lot of women are sympathetic to male homosexuality when it's against their interest just because they have similiar tendencies themselves when the two things are not connected.

I think it's because women have tenderer hearts. We're generally more accepting and sympathetic. I mean, that's part of our maternal instinct- our role. It's akin to how it's always more shocking to me to hear a woman utter racist sentiments than it is to hear a man say the same things. For some reason it seems to be more against a feminine nature to feel and express such judgment toward people who are other womens' children. Do you know what I mean?

I also think it has to do with the fact that men can't deal with the thought of penetration. Unless they're homosexual, it disgusts them and represents a violation on a very instinctual level, and women just don't have that same aversion. If they did - our species would be in big trouble.

Anyway - those are my theories about it.

1 Reply

@Ionus,

Ionus wrote:

Quote:
A male member of the DC city council submits a bill to have the same sex marriage recognized. The bill is successfully passed. Simple.
So it specifically excludes women ? It has nothing to do with them ?

It includes both genders. It grants no exception or bias towards either. For the last time, this is not about some women's movement. This bill helps homosexuals of both genders equally. Stop being dense.

Ionus wrote:

Using your logic, if a woman presents a Bill it has everything to do with the womans movement. Are you pretending to be stupid ? It is about politics. You know, where various power groups compete for primacy. Is the womans movement a political power ? Just trying to determine the extent of your ignorance, thats all.

Primacy? Homosexuals aren't asking for anything more than what heterosexuals already have. This is about equality, not primacy.

T
K
O

2 Replies

@aidan,

Quote:

Why do they have to be 'cunning' and 'devious'? If they procured the smarter and easier route for themselves - why don't you call them 'efficient' and/or 'enterprisingly intelligent'?

They are the same thing seen from a different point of view.

Quote:

I'd say that women who were sticking to 'only caressing' or 'only being caressed' by other women practice perhaps the most fool-proof method of birth control there is.

The egg is not necessarily wasted. The caress in only thought dramatic because of lines of demarcation drawn on the body.

Quote:

I instinctively reject it though

It can't be instinct. It has to be conditioning. If it was instinct it would be shared by all women. It has been learned.

Quote:

- I totally agree. I've always been very happy to be a woman - but not for the reasons you outline here. There are others.

I daresay there are. I was being playful. But not entirely inaccurate. There's not being expected to dig ditches. And being rescued first when the ship is sinking. There's putting on all those slinky silkies which must be quite fun. I could probably think of more. Being a Mum has plusses and minuses.

Quote:

I also think it has to do with the fact that men can't deal with the thought of penetration.

Which is justifiable as we are not designed for it.

Quote:

women just don't have that same aversion.

Some women do.

0 Replies

@Diest TKO,

Quote:

Homosexuals aren't asking for anything more than what heterosexuals already have.

You must mean heterosexuals who don't mean their wedding vows to be taken seriously. Heterosexuals who do mean them are in for better or worse. This union being proposed can be broken on a whim and the parties go their separate ways without social disorder. It's a nothing thing. A gig.

It's ridiculous. It's all based on talking in euphemisms.

0 Replies

@Diest TKO,

Surely I dont have to explain politics ? It is about who has power and who wants it. It is about nothing other than primacy. I say why I think women politically support such ventures and you say it has nothing to do with them...have you removed the right to vote from women ?

Quote:

This bill helps homosexuals of both genders equally.

I have never said it doesnt. I was approaching the matter by analysing one part at a time. It seems you can only read what you want to see and not what is written. If we ever get over this hurdle of you being unable to understand why different people vote for the same thing for different reasons, I would like to explain my opinion on men's votes.

1 Reply

@Ionus,

Ionus wrote:

Surely I dont have to explain politics ? It is about who has power and who wants it. It is about nothing other than primacy. I say why I think women politically support such ventures and you say it has nothing to do with them...have you removed the right to vote from women ?

Quote:
This bill helps homosexuals of both genders equally.
I have never said it doesnt. I was approaching the matter by analysing one part at a time. It seems you can only read what you want to see and not what is written. If we ever get over this hurdle of you being unable to understand why different people vote for the same thing for different reasons, I would like to explain my opinion on men's votes.

Who cares why women would support this? It's not just women who support this. Beyond that, there are many reasons people support this bill, so you entering and declaring that you know why women support it ignores numerous real reasons that the full range of supporters have.

This bill in no way grants primacy to any group. If you can't be bothered to get up to speed on what the bill does, who proposed it, who actually votes on it (city counsel: 13 people, 10 male, 3 female. It was a unanimous vote) and signs it (the mayor, also a man), then I can' t be bothered to baby sit you through this current event.

You're conspiracy theories about a womens aggressive political agenda to power grab and take primacy is not supported by anything that has actually taken place.

You don't know **** about the topic dude.

T
K
O

2 Replies

@Diest TKO,

Quote:

You don't know **** about the topic dude.

Oouch ! Your razor sharp wit has wounded me...

So you think political decisions are made in a vacumn with no influences what so ever from outside the voting room ? They just went into vote wondering...what shall I vote on today...and surprise ! It has homosexual marriage ! So without any previous input from anyone anywhere, they voted ....

You are depressingly dumb.

1 Reply

@Ionus,

I'm starting to understand exactly which type of dumb you are. You're the type of dumb that thinks you are special for inventing the square wheel.

This topic is very simple. Your attempt to make it into some conspiracy about a female vie for power (systemically no less) is truly pathetic to watch. Frankly, you don't know **** about politics Ionus. Whoever told you that you do, did so as a cruel joke.

I'll let you whine it out though. I know it's awful tough being you. Poor guy. You have the shame of a few places in the world socially rejecting that you are superior than homosexuals. That was sooo important to you. I'll leave you alone now so you can cry and sulk.

T
K
O

1 Reply

@Diest TKO,

I raised one aspect (the feminist vote) on the politics of the homosexual marriage decision and you rant with no understanding and even an apparent inability to read but do so from the vantage of indignant morality....

You say this topic is very simple ? Perhaps the topic is complicated and simplicity lies in the mind of the beholder.

You have no trouble vilifying oponents with all the enthusiasm and respect of a gay basher. What is it like to be so perfect you dont even have to read an opponents writing to understand it and reject it offhand ? You must be truely awesome in your own mind.

There are politics involved. That you say there are not is not going to reassure anyone. You also say there is no damage done to marriage but can not cite any study that would support this new finding. If something is new it is a good idea to study its effect. This is done in trials and requires more science then the sky has not fallen. Just because you support it out of politics doesnt mean there are no politics involved or that there are no negative effects.

1 Reply

@Ionus,

Ionus wrote:

I raised one aspect (the feminist vote) on the politics of the homosexual marriage decision and you rant with no understanding and even an apparent inability to read but do so from the vantage of indignant morality....

But what is your point Ionus? Why single out why women would support this? Oh and then, to top it off, your claim was bullshit.

Ionus wrote:

You say this topic is very simple ? Perhaps the topic is complicated and simplicity lies in the mind of the beholder.

It is simple in the way a car's engine is simple. We know all the parts. It is not complex in that we do not need to understand the role of unicorns or other imaginary entities and their contribution to how a engine runs. Certainly a engine and any political item has its dynamics, but the degree of conspiracy you dribble here is just stupid and repeatedly denies the facts. You claim this is a push by women, and I have show multiple times who the players are here, and they are mostly men. Out the window with your stupid theory.

Ionus wrote:

You have no trouble vilifying oponents with all the enthusiasm and respect of a gay basher. What is it like to be so perfect you dont even have to read an opponents writing to understand it and reject it offhand ? You must be truely awesome in your own mind.

Here's where you fall flat on your ass Ionus. I'm a straight male, so what is my agenda? What do I get out of gays marrying? How in any way is this my play for power and primacy? What your worldview lacks is the understanding that people care about each other, and compassion can drive us to act on others behalf, not just our own. I don't benefit from same sex marriage at all, I don't need to benefit from it to support it either. Your stupid notion (and it should be repeated how stupid it is) that women's support of same sex marriage must be a cog in a larger political mechanism is completely devoid of any sort of notion that people can support things that have no benefit for them.

You are free to be as selfish as you like, but don't project your shallow nature on others.

Ionus wrote:

There are politics involved. That you say there are not is not going to reassure anyone. You also say there is no damage done to marriage but can not cite any study that would support this new finding. If something is new it is a good idea to study its effect. This is done in trials and requires more science then the sky has not fallen. Just because you support it out of politics doesnt mean there are no politics involved or that there are no negative effects.

The sky is not falling and that is the point. The claim by critics was that marriage would fall apart if we let this happen. After several nations and multiple states have now challenged that notion, we find that they were wrong. Marriage still exists, and those who were married the day before gay marriage, are just as married as before.

T
K
O

2 Replies

@Diest TKO,

Quote:

But what is your point Ionus? Why single out why women would support this?

As I said before...different people support the same thing for different reasons. I was starting with women, the most politically active would have to be the feminists, and I was going to proceed to men. You killed that with attacks.

Quote:

Oh and then, to top it off, your claim was bullshit.

Wrong. Statistics were presented that showed (not proved, because we would have to examine the methodology first) if you ask women if they had a homosexual relationship what their asnwers were....surely you dont think it is impossible for people to lie about their sex lives ?

Quote:

You claim this is a push by women, and I have show multiple times who the players are here, and they are mostly men.

You cant read.

Quote:

so what is my agenda?

You want people to do what you tell them. You are on a power trip. This is amplified in your mind by you being righteous and bashing the evil non-believers.

Quote:

You are free to be as selfish as you like, but don't project your shallow nature on others.

Clearly you understand nothing of Psychology, Politics and Sociology.

Quote:

we find that they were wrong.

We find nothing of the sort because we arent even looking. You cant read can you.

All of this has been addressed before and you are dragging us around in circles. If you cant read what I write then ask, but if you are in some deep denial, then get help.

1 Reply

@Ionus,

Ionus wrote:

Quote:
But what is your point Ionus? Why single out why women would support this?
As I said before...different people support the same thing for different reasons. I was starting with women, the most politically active would have to be the feminists, and I was going to proceed to men. You killed that with attacks.

Quite the self contrary post. If people support the same thing for different reasons, then why in the **** am I supposed to take you seriously when you group all of women together as to why they would support this? You simply do not understand this topic.

Ionus wrote:

Quote:
Oh and then, to top it off, your claim was bullshit.
Wrong. Statistics were presented that showed (not proved, because we would have to examine the methodology first) if you ask women if they had a homosexual relationship what their asnwers were....surely you dont think it is impossible for people to lie about their sex lives ?

Those statistics were contrary to your claim of +50%. Beyond that, your rationale that women where supporting this to alleviate guilt doesn't even make sense. How would this even achieve that goal? Those individuals that hide their homosexuality and feel shame typically act out in exaggerated heterosexual ways. Again, you seem to just be making this up as you go.

Ionus wrote:

Quote:
You claim this is a push by women, and I have show multiple times who the players are here, and they are mostly men.
You cant read.

You're the one making **** up. I've already provided sources.

Ionus wrote:

Quote:
so what is my agenda?
You want people to do what you tell them. You are on a power trip. This is amplified in your mind by you being righteous and bashing the evil non-believers.

Indulge me. What is it exactly that I'm trying to make people do?

What a crazy power trip! I want the law to apply equally for all citizens! Ooooh!

Ionus wrote:

Quote:
You are free to be as selfish as you like, but don't project your shallow nature on others.
Clearly you understand nothing of Psychology, Politics and Sociology.

Teach me all about it Mr. Conspiracy. I'm all ears.

Ionus wrote:

Quote:
we find that they were wrong.
We find nothing of the sort because we arent even looking. You cant read can you.

The hell we aren't. This is the same line of logic that opponents of gay people adopting children try to use. They say it will hurt the children, and then the AAP says that they see no such thing, and do you know what the opponents do then? They jam their fingers in their ears.

Here, you show me a measurable way that we could see how all married couples are affected negatively by this. You seem to repeatedly reject my observables, so ante up. You tell me. What actual observables are there?

Ionus wrote:

All of this has been addressed before and you are dragging us around in circles. If you cant read what I write then ask, but if you are in some deep denial, then get help.

Precious Ionus, I admire how hard you try and how much you want to be a part of this conversation.

T
K
O

1 Reply

Gay marriage right out of our own capital city. Is this the peoples wish? I would want rights for gays , not marriage. This is a union between man and woman. Don't think this US of A is going to go into the future like we were in the past. All past leading nations who "ruled" the world are gone and the US of A will go there too. Our time is limited.....sorry.
We have all seen the chaos out of DC and the absence of leadership in congress. Why did they not face the issue and give gays the rights they deserve.....too much trouble, they can't handle the job, it was easier to just include them in a sacred union set aside for men and women.

1 Reply

@Diest TKO,

Quote:

You're conspiracy theories about a womens aggressive political agenda to power grab and take primacy is not supported by anything that has actually taken place.

Blimey!!! Have you seen court awards for getting goosed behind the filing cabinet compared to those for getting a couple of limbs blown off fighting for the country? One millionaire who kept a diary calculated that the judge who awarded his ex-wife her alimony valued each shag at £47,000.

Your statement TK is presumably meant to reassure us that some force is not slowly creeping up upon us and that we are paranoid to think it is.

When did you sell out to the hand that rocks the cradle?

The first few words of the SCUM manifesto are--

Quote:

Life in this society, at best an utter bore, and no aspect of society being at all relevant to women, there remains to civic-minded, responsible, thrill-seeking females only to overthrow the government, eliminate the money system, institute complete automation, and destroy the male sex.

It is now technically possible to reproduce without the aid of the male (or, for that matter, females) and to produce only females. We must begin immediately.

Valerie Solanas--The Society for Cutting Up Men. SCUM. Ms Solanas emptied an automatic, without warning, into Andy Warhol's shirt front at close range while he was at his desk.

Still stuck on the apron strings are you TK?

Women are fronting up football and rugby programmes here in low cut frocks and are shown crossing and recrossing their power legs as they pout out the direst platitudes. Obviously they are all catwalk types. No uglies. They have yet to storm the cricket. They don't present the weather forecasts because the know anything about the weather. It's big tits, tight skirts, high heels and assertive striding and rain is automatically a bad thing even when the crops are dying of thirst.

But the National Lottery grant system, a feminist cadre, has bribed the Lord's committee into allowing women into the previously sacrosanct Long Room. It did the same to the men's snooker room of a club I was a member of in return for a grant which was used to build netball courts and the whole complex is now demolished. And it wasn't their own money.

1 Reply

Gay Marriage Vote Passes in DC City Council

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know