Posted: Sun 02 Jul 2006 04:08 Post subject: Re: Why same-sex is not hetrosexual marriage
sagascend wrote:
winwinkel - You may have an explanation from me AFTER answering the questions I put forth to you previously. There were several contentions that you made that I questioned and you have yet to address them. Especially that last crack about "future troubles" in the inner city. Question I've re-posted below to make it easier to respond.
sagascend wrote:
We may be seeing future troubles foreshadowed for all of us in the unrest presently boiling in inner city "black" ghettoes.
What "troubles" are you intimating at? What "unrest" are you alluding to? And most importantly, on what basis are your portraying the "black ghetto situation" as a harbinger of what's to come for "all of us?" And who, exactly, do you mean by "all of us?"
Downtown inner-city neighborhoods for years have been described as "black ghettoes." I live near enough to one of them to read about its problems in my newspaper. The place use to be known as South Central Los Angeles; renamed now South Los Angeles. The acclaimed movie Boyz 'N the Hood (Ice Cube, Cuba Gooding, Jr.; dir.: John Singleton (1991)) depicted this exemplary ghetto's problems frankly and accurately, I think. Dr. Bill Cosby (I think I've read he holds a PhD despite being a top TV family-show comedian) recently criticized "black" ghetto life in ways paralleling my allusion. Anyway, we have discussed the relevant problems of "black" inner-city ghettos here on numerous threads which I am sure are still up, posted, available for visitors to read, self educate, before demanding one-on-one tutoring in the basics.
I address my posts to the board. With due respect, I decline Sagascend's invitation to degenerate this thread to one-on-one trading ad homonyms, flaming, if that is Sagascend's drift characterizing my mention of "black" ghetto troubles as "that last crack." No thanks. Please read our OneDropRule posting rules.
I did not say "black" ghettos are rife with homosexuality. No one says this. And a future-world without respected, honored heterosexual marriage probably will not boil over in homosexuality either -- still a fringe abnormality -- although likely more flaunted. But rightly or wrongly alluding to "black" inner city ghetto problems, my point about gay (same-sex) "marriage" redefining the word for sex-irrelevance is this: Such redefinition of marriage will, I think, scuttle its honor. I think it opens the door for other perversions to parade into the "marriage" or "legalized sex" tent (e.g., bigamy, polygamy, adultery, incest). Making marriage a joke may rarefy two-parent heterosexual marriages, which is already a problem in the "black" ghetto. There are other signs the honor of marriage is challenged in the "black" ghetto. Our own OneDropRule threads discuss, deplore the high rate of unwed "black" childbirths. The situation seems interconnected with "black" women jettisoning marriage in the face of their perceived man shortage. We have discussed our theories, that the imbalance seems corrupting on "black" men spoiled without having to work hard or compete for women. In a future America, without respected, honored, committed heterosexual marriages all men may connive for free sexual access similarly as the drive-by shooters of South L.A. All American women may adopt similar outlook as the unwed teen mothers of that neighborhood. Please read our posted threads on this topic for more self-education on troubles of "black" ghettos. My point, again, was theorizing the effects of weakened commitment to marriage. I have explained before, wedding bells publicly announce and effectively ring in peace. But destroying the legal definition of marriage may silence the bells or dull their sincere ringing, anyway. Dwelling on the details of ghetto drive-by shootings and other crimes are off-topic to this thread, I think.
Sagascend demands answers to a stack of other questions, such as "Why are infertile couple [sic] allowed to marry?" If I can cut to the issue, I think the objection focuses on the procreative purpose of heterosexual marriage. The question asks: "why aren't homosexuals similarly situated as infertile married couples for equal protection analysis?" Or: "why are heterosexuals permitted to marry even without procreating?" My answer is that procreation is thrown up as a solid, natural criterion helping to define the true difference between sexes. Heterosexual merely names the set, a couple (two-persons), defined by this basic natural sex-difference. Sex difference is much more naturally, biologically true and salient than the gender-preferences of same-sex persons. I think the true sex-biology (verifiable by microscope as xx or xy sperm cell chromosomes) is a necessary and sufficient foundation for defining marriage, its naming the heterosexual mating strategy of our species. In this respect same-sex persons are not similarly situated, because they are not biologically heterosexual, and equal protection is not denied to them.
Sagascend's paragraph about religious arguments, and the others, seems to class non-qualification of gays for heterosexual marriage to each other (in counterpoint to lesbian and gay individuals enjoying perfect rights to marry heterosexually, indifferent to their sexual activity, if any) together with oppressed minorities overcoming discrimination (e.g. racism). I am not sure that every unrequited craving qualifies for relief from "discrimination" precisely the same as emancipating slaves or liberating Negroes from Jim Crow. If unrequited craving is constitutional basis for relief from "discrimination," then all the sex perversions, however heinous, must eventually follow "homosexual marriage" up into America's legal mainstream. See also Justice Scalia's erudite dissenting opinion in Lawrence v. Texas 539 U.S. 558, (2003), joined by Justice Thomas. This was the decision legalizing sodomy, and moreover laying foundation for just the same-sex "marriage" debate we are now having.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=539&invol=558
George
Posted: Sun 02 Jul 2006 17:36 Post subject: Re: Why same-sex is not hetrosexual marriage
winwinkel wrote:
sagascend wrote:
winwinkel - You may have an explanation from me AFTER answering the questions I put forth to you previously. There were several contentions that you made that I questioned and you have yet to address them. Especially that last crack about "future troubles" in the inner city. Question I've re-posted below to make it easier to respond.
sagascend wrote:
We may be seeing future troubles foreshadowed for all of us in the unrest presently boiling in inner city "black" ghettoes.
What "troubles" are you intimating at? What "unrest" are you alluding to? And most importantly, on what basis are your portraying the "black ghetto situation" as a harbinger of what's to come for "all of us?" And who, exactly, do you mean by "all of us?"
Downtown inner-city neighborhoods for years have been described as "black ghettoes." I live near enough to one of them to read about its problems in my newspaper. The place use to be known as South Central Los Angeles; renamed now South Los Angeles. The acclaimed movie Boyz 'N the Hood (Ice Cube, Cuba Gooding, Jr.; dir.: John Singleton (1991)) depicted this exemplary ghetto's problems frankly and accurately, I think. Dr. Bill Cosby (I think I've read he holds a PhD despite being a top TV family-show comedian) recently criticized "black" ghetto life in ways paralleling my allusion. Anyway, we have discussed the relevant problems of "black" inner-city ghettos here on numerous threads which I am sure are still up, posted, available for visitors to read, self educate, before demanding one-on-one tutoring in the basics.
I address my posts to the board. With due respect, I decline Sagascend's invitation to degenerate this thread to one-on-one trading ad homonyms, flaming, if that is Sagascend's drift characterizing my mention of "black" ghetto troubles as "that last crack." No thanks. Please read our OneDropRule posting rules.
I did not say "black" ghettos are rife with homosexuality. No one says this. And a future-world without respected, honored heterosexual marriage probably will not boil over in homosexuality either -- still a fringe abnormality -- although likely more flaunted. But rightly or wrongly alluding to "black" inner city ghetto problems, my point about gay (same-sex) "marriage" redefining the word for sex-irrelevance is this: Such redefinition of marriage will, I think, scuttle its honor. I think it opens the door for other perversions to parade into the "marriage" or "legalized sex" tent (e.g., bigamy, polygamy, adultery, incest). Making marriage a joke may rarefy two-parent heterosexual marriages, which is already a problem in the "black" ghetto. There are other signs the honor of marriage is challenged in the "black" ghetto. Our own OneDropRule threads discuss, deplore the high rate of unwed "black" childbirths. The situation seems interconnected with "black" women jettisoning marriage in the face of their perceived man shortage. We have discussed our theories, that the imbalance seems corrupting on "black" men spoiled without having to work hard or compete for women. In a future America, without respected, honored, committed heterosexual marriages all men may connive for free sexual access similarly as the drive-by shooters of South L.A. All American women may adopt similar outlook as the unwed teen mothers of that neighborhood. Please read our posted threads on this topic for more self-education on troubles of "black" ghettos. My point, again, was theorizing the effects of weakened commitment to marriage. I have explained before, wedding bells publicly announce and effectively ring in peace. But destroying the legal definition of marriage may silence the bells or dull their sincere ringing, anyway. Dwelling on the details of ghetto drive-by shootings and other crimes are off-topic to this thread, I think.
Sagascend demands answers to a stack of other questions, such as "Why are infertile couple [sic] allowed to marry?" If I can cut to the issue, I think the objection focuses on the procreative purpose of heterosexual marriage. The question asks: "why aren't homosexuals similarly situated as infertile married couples for equal protection analysis?" Or: "why are heterosexuals permitted to marry even without procreating?" My answer is that procreation is thrown up as a solid, natural criterion helping to define the true difference between sexes. Heterosexual merely names the set, a couple (two-persons), defined by this basic natural sex-difference. Sex difference is much more naturally, biologically true and salient than the gender-preferences of same-sex persons. I think the true sex-biology (verifiable by microscope as xx or xy sperm cell chromosomes) is a necessary and sufficient foundation for defining marriage, its naming the heterosexual mating strategy of our species. In this respect same-sex persons are not similarly situated, because they are not biologically heterosexual, and equal protection is not denied to them.
Sagascend's paragraph about religious arguments, and the others, seems to class non-qualification of gays for heterosexual marriage to each other (in counterpoint to lesbian and gay individuals enjoying perfect rights to marry heterosexually, indifferent to their sexual activity, if any) together with oppressed minorities overcoming discrimination (e.g. racism). I am not sure that every unrequited craving qualifies for relief from "discrimination" precisely the same as emancipating slaves or liberating Negroes from Jim Crow. If unrequited craving is constitutional basis for relief from "discrimination," then all the sex perversions, however heinous, must eventually follow "homosexual marriage" up into America's legal mainstream. See also Justice Scalia's erudite dissenting opinion in Lawrence v. Texas 539 U.S. 558, (2003), joined by Justice Thomas. This was the decision legalizing sodomy, and moreover laying foundation for just the same-sex "marriage" debate we are now having.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=539&invol=558
George
What I "demanded," and rightly so I think, is that you support/expand upon claims that you made.
Quite frankly, the problems that you list as manifesting themselves in Black poor to lower middle class areas seem far more related to degeneration of Black families in the 20th century (with the host of social, economic and psychological explanations offered in academic literature) and the sexualizing of heterosexual culture rather than the advent of same-sex marriage. You may live in the proximity of the ghetto in LA, and read about these issues in the newspaper, but your characterization of those acute social problems as representative/related to same-sex marriage struck me as wrong in the context of the ongoing discussion, and I wanted clarification from the source (you). If you would like readers to refer to other discussions on this board when intimating your intent and to provide the proper context, it would be more helpful to post links to them rather than to make blanket statements about what newer site participants should do to get up to speed on past discussions that are not relevant to this one. And while reading the posting here is certainly an education on the mindset of any particular poster, I will continue to receive my education, as it were, from people who study these populations/issues directly, and the people in these environments who articulate their personal experiences.
Quote:
My answer is that procreation is thrown up as a solid, natural criterion helping to define the true difference between sexes. Heterosexual merely names the set, a couple (two-persons), defined by this basic natural sex-difference. Sex difference is much more naturally, biologically true and salient than the gender-preferences of same-sex persons. I think the true sex-biology (verifiable by microscope as xx or xy sperm cell chromosomes) is a necessary and sufficient foundation for defining marriage, its naming the heterosexual mating strategy of our species.
Technology, feminism and sex between unmarried men and women are making your traditional definition of marriage more and more irrelevant. Your definition of marriage is no more necessary in 2006 than it was in 2005 B.C. Marriage is not necessary for the continuation of the species - only fruitful coupling between men and women and a birthrate above 0%is needed for that. Marriage is about recognizing and legitimizing the union between people in a given society, for many reasons. Among them are the orderly transfer of property, wealth consolidation between families, political gain, social stability, the declaration of children produced during the union as legitimate, and even love/individual choice. Scientific progress and the expansion of human rights to groups previously excluded over the centuries makes this traditional definition of marriage more and more problematic, and it will continue to.
Marriage is, however, often a stabilizing factor in the progression of the human species. And we know more about what makes human relationships successful than we ever have, from a scientific perspective. It makes more sense to me to for advocates of marriage to ensure that people who could marry 1) WANT TO and 2) learn these skills. Why should anyone respect marriage if married people themselves do not? How many children of divorced parents are categorically refusing to marry because of the bad example set by their parents and by society? Why should a women who does not need to rely on a man for financial stability marry?
The problem is clearly seen in the urban centers of the US, but it's also in the high divorce rates and delay of marriage among educated people of all backgrounds. It's in the idealization of overtly sexual relationships (the "hook up") among teens and "sex without consequences" portrayed in the media. And that, folks, has very little to do with boys kissing boys or girls kissing girls.
There is no "cutting the issue" in this hetero marriage = right based procreation because the issue isn't who is marrying whom and who can produce offspring, but the fact that proponents don't want same sex marriage for other, more religious or personal reasons. Heterosexual marriage crusaders seem very uninterested in improving the perception of marriage itself within popular culture, and with improving on the poor execution of marriage among heterosexual people - things which have a more direct influence on successful uptake.
Posted: Mon 03 Jul 2006 05:10 Post subject: Re: Why same-sex is not hetrosexual marriage
sagascend wrote:
... [T]he issue isn't who is marrying whom and who can produce offspring, but the fact that proponents don't want same sex marriage for other, more religious or personal reasons. Heterosexual marriage crusaders seem very uninterested in improving the perception of marriage itself within popular culture, and with improving on the poor execution of marriage among heterosexual people. ...
Maybe I can find common cause with Sagascend on the disappointing narrowness of those proposing a constitutional amendment limiting marriage to a man and a woman. Seemingly the Bible, its scriptures condemning homosexuality, are all the authority they think they need. But this is no authority at all. In our pluralistic society today this sort of Bible-thumping is nothing but overt establishment of tenets of Judeo-Christian religion. (I.e., violative of the 1st Amendment clause.) I am disappointed in the Press, the Media, whose duty, I think, is to find voices stating true authority recognizing our species' reproductive strategy and explaining (scientifically), we are biologically one human race with two sexes. Media mavens, however, seem committed to social philosophy too friendly to the silly hallucination, of happily smooching (& f#cking) sexually ambivalent human-it-arians -- everyone "letting it all hang out," as we use to say at pot-smoky, LSD Flower Child "be-ins" 40 years ago. (Would cold water in the face work?)
Media mavens have vast backup all across America's blue-state map of liberal-progressive academic elitism. "Equal," a word appearing in our U.S. Declaration of Independence, and in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution (& implied in two const. Due Process clauses), has been taken out of context, drunk by many as if it is an intoxicant. Or, perhaps equal is not an intoxicant; but rather the rancid hypnosis we suffer from in America (a special U.S. obsessive-compulsive mental illness) -- our ascribing everyone to "groups" (e.g., "different races") -- and fantasizing their paradoxical "rights" to be Procrusteanized "equal-different" "groups." The worst offender had become the U.S. Supreme Court.
Justice Scalia dissenting in Lawrence v. Texas 539 U.S. 558, (2003), wrote, for example, pointing out that the state of Colorado, several years earlier, attempted to amend its state Constitution placing a hurdle before homosexuals and others in the LGBT community. (LGBT: Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender.) Colorado Constitutional Amendment 2, admittedly, was slightly discriminatory against LGBT, their ilk, as a class. Amendment 2's purpose was to oblige the LGBT "group" to seek constitutional amendment for its distinctive "group rights." At a time when Texas and a few other states still prosecuted same-sex sodomy, and the U.S. military and Boy Scouts excluded gays, Colorado attempted to place a constitutional hurdle before the growth of LGBT Gay "group rights." This attempt was overturned by the Supreme Court in Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996).
Justice Scalia, dissenting there, too, drew for analogy a hypothetical state law against the mayor's kinfolk bidding on city contracts. Such a law would compel the town mayor's kin to seek contracts from the Legislature; other citizens would simply go to city hall. No one had any problem with this "discrimination." Analogously, explained Scalia, the Colorado Amendment 2 would render LGBT mere ordinary citizens protected by ordinary laws -- until the LGBT bloc could change the Constitution again. The rationale of this minimally discriminatory anti-LGBT hurdle was that homosexual acts were crimes in some states; grounds for expulsion from the military; were historically abhorrent. Colorado adopted its protective constitutional amendment against the rising tide of Gay "group-rights" a decade too late. Just 10 years earlier the U.S. Supreme Court had upheld Georgia's law against sodomy in Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986).
Lawrence v. Texas, supra, 539 U.S. 558 -- a final word discussing this case. I think it significant that ALL nine Supreme Court justices opposed this Texas anti-sodomy law. The dissenting opinion advised Texas to repeal it. Justice Thomas called it silly. Everyone should know, the dissent in Lawrence was about the way our laws are made and reviewed, and about who does it. We see here also an oddly familiar pattern: In this case the set of acts forbidden in the Old Testament (circa 700 BC), first diagnosed "homosexual" in the late 19th-Century, first recognized as an insular minority "class" in the 1950s, obtained nascent "group rights" in the 1990s, and now becomes a full-fledged "protected minority" winning their first affirmative action entitlements in the new millennium. (E.g., same-sex "marriage" in Massachusetts, & maybe more to come? Will "sexual orientation" be a question on the 2010 census?) Is this a template or road map for even farther-out "groups" to follow? Who first blazed of this Balkanizing "equal-different" "group-rights" trail?
The civil rights campaign in the 1950s-1960s was simply for equal rights regardless of anyone's "color." Somehow it has morphed into burgeoning "group rights" defined now on numerous anatomical, ethnic, cultural, religious, or "condition" characteristics beside racial "color." (E.g., "pre-operative" re trans-gender.) The U.S. Supreme Court occasionally blurts out the truth -- "group rights" do not exist under our Constitution. Rights all belong to individuals. Nonetheless, the High Court of late has fallen into habits of handing-out, balancing "group rights."
George
Posted: Mon 03 Jul 2006 15:33 Post subject: Re: Still Crazy After All These Years - Alan Keyes
Altertude wrote:
One other thing worries Keyes about homosexuality: lesbian couples having children by means of artificial insemination. Why? Well, because the children of lesbians who don't know their fathers might meet and be unknowingly related: "That means that an incestuous situation could easily arise in our society; it's more than likely to arise – not to mention every other kind of incestuous complication."
Posted: Mon 03 Jul 2006 16:02 Post subject: Re: Still Crazy After All These Years - Alan Keyes
e harmoni wrote:
Altertude wrote:
One other thing worries Keyes about homosexuality: lesbian couples having children by means of artificial insemination. Why? Well, because the children of lesbians who don't know their fathers might meet and be unknowingly related: "That means that an incestuous situation could easily arise in our society; it's more than likely to arise – not to mention every other kind of incestuous complication."
Man, I never thought of that.
The same problem arises with single women (lesbian or straight) or heterosexual couples that choose artificial insemination. The likelihood of this happening could be reduced by choosing a friend or someone close to be the sperm doner.
Be on the look out in the future for couples with the same father getting married and having three-legged children or kids with two heads.
Homosexuality and bisexuality have existed in many cultures that thrived.
Where are they now? Many famous people are labeled as 'gay' but they are no longer here to defend themselves (just like blackwashing of former Americans of supposed mixed descent).
Sal is right.
Spartan Greeks, Romans, Japanese, and a number of Amerindian societies all accepted or endorsed bisexuality in their societies.
For various reasons, in Japan the Buddhist priesthood and the samurai military caste constructed a vision of the female body in such a way as to minimize its attractiveness. Conversely, the youthful male body was constructed as optimally desirable and a fitting object of attraction for adult men. For men, same-sex sexual options were not distinguished as different orders of sexual interaction (homosexual as opposed to heterosexual) definitive of specific types of people (homosexuals as opposed to heterosexuals) but were instead understood as simply a certain style, one among many, through which sexual pleasure could be enjoyed. The youthful male body was constructed and displayed as a fitting object of aesthetic and sensual appreciation for other men throughout Japanese history, beginning in Buddhist institutions from the ninth century and reaching its apogee in the samurai towns of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.http://www.westernbuddhistreview.com/vol3/homosexuality.html (source. 4th paragraph of introduction)
I think it was the three major mothiestic faiths: Judaism, Christianity and Islam whom spiritual and moral roots has had the strongest impact on how post ancient societies view homosexuality. With Christianity and Islam being the two major forces and reasons for the spread of the Abrahamic spiritual view points on human sexuality moral wise.
Adolf Hitler was a courageous fighter and war hero of WWI. Supposedly, some speculate he had homosexual encounters while homeless in his earlier years. Even if it is true it doesn't take anything away from his good qualities nor does it mean it was a causation of his bad qualities. The Nazi's were politically and economically left-wing, but they were socially right-wing. Morally conservative like Rome, Spain, and the United States.
Posted: Mon 03 Jul 2006 16:08 Post subject: Re: Still Crazy After All These Years - Alan Keyes
G-Man wrote:
e harmoni wrote:
Altertude wrote:
One other thing worries Keyes about homosexuality: lesbian couples having children by means of artificial insemination. Why? Well, because the children of lesbians who don't know their fathers might meet and be unknowingly related: "That means that an incestuous situation could easily arise in our society; it's more than likely to arise – not to mention every other kind of incestuous complication."
Man, I never thought of that.
The same problem arises with single women (lesbian or straight) or heterosexual couples that choose artificial insemination. The likelihood of this happening could be reduced by choosing a friend or someone close to be the sperm doner.
Be on the look out in the future for couples with the same father getting married and having three-legged children or kids with two heads.
Yes. It would be quite something for psychiatrist to start seeing more cases (however small in number) of guys seeking treatment with them because they have become addicted to their sisters p---ies, whom they never suspected at first, they were related to.
Posted: Mon 03 Jul 2006 16:21 Post subject: Re: Where
Altertude wrote:
Salsassin wrote:
oevega wrote:
Salsassin wrote:
Homosexuality and bisexuality have existed in many cultures that thrived.
Well, classical Greeks had a fascination for homosexuality, but how long they remained free after more "standard" people came to compite? Actually, Romans and Barbarians did not shared Greek prefferences.
Omar
Romans also showed a lot of bisexuality. What about the Japanese, plenty of bisexuality there
I wasn't aware of a culture of bisexuality in Japan at any time in history or today.
As for Greece and Rome didn't these civilizations value the male more than the female? From what I've read they got up to, its a wonder they managed to reproduce themselves for a couple millennia.
It was the Spartans moreso than the Athenians who had a solidly gay/bisexual culture. "Giving" or "recieving" was not looked down upon.
However ancient Rome was slightly different. It had attidudes regarding homosexuality more akin to modern southern Italians and modern Brazilians... that being the "giver" was not looked down upon and was not even actually considered gay if the "reciever" they were giving it was femenine enough. The "reciever" in ancient Roman society was always looked down upon, similar to morder southern and modern Brazilian culture today.
The Japanese, especially the Samurai class, were some of the most bisexual societies to ever be found any where on earth. There was a good Japanese made movie, not so many years ago, that was a drama about a young beautiful samurai who was the object of lust, attraction, and countless coutrships by other of his older samurai comrades. One or two of them having the benefit to f--k him.
The movie probably fairly accurately captured the role of sex in the samurais life.
Posted: Mon 03 Jul 2006 17:27 Post subject: Re: Still Crazy After All These Years - Alan Keyes
e harmoni wrote:
Altertude wrote:
One other thing worries Keyes about homosexuality: lesbian couples having children by means of artificial insemination. Why? Well, because the children of lesbians who don't know their fathers might meet and be unknowingly related: "That means that an incestuous situation could easily arise in our society; it's more than likely to arise – not to mention every other kind of incestuous complication."
Man, I never thought of that.
And every child who was adopted with a sibling of the opposite sex. We must stop adoptions now.
Posted: Mon 03 Jul 2006 17:52 Post subject: Re: Where
e harmoni wrote:
The Japanese, especially the Samurai class, were some of the most bisexual societies to ever be found any where on earth. There was a good Japanese made movie, not so many years ago, that was a drama about a young beautiful samurai who was the object of lust, attraction, and countless coutrships by other of his older samurai comrades. One or two of them having the benefit to f--k him.
The movie probably fairly accurately captured the role of sex in the samurais life.
I believe you are referring to Taboo. From Netflix
From legendary director Nagisa Oshima (In the Realm of the Senses) comes a spellbinding samurai action-drama. In 1865, the Shinsengumi militia is combing the new recruits for the next samurai warriors. Two are chosen: Hyozo Tashiro, a low-level samurai, and the dangerously handsome Sozaburo Kano. Rigid rules maintain order and unity, but the militia finds itself wrought with rumors and jealousy when Kano becomes the object of much fascination.
Posted: Mon 03 Jul 2006 19:47 Post subject: Re: Still Crazy After All These Years - Alan Keyes
Salsassin wrote:
e harmoni wrote:
Altertude wrote:
One other thing worries Keyes about homosexuality: lesbian couples having children by means of artificial insemination. Why? Well, because the children of lesbians who don't know their fathers might meet and be unknowingly related: "That means that an incestuous situation could easily arise in our society; it's more than likely to arise – not to mention every other kind of incestuous complication."
Man, I never thought of that.
And every child who was adopted with a sibling of the opposite sex. We must stop adoptions now.
Don't forget about huge families with too many cousins and families who don't keep in touch, move around and keep breeding and changing their last names. Someone is bound to marry their half-uncle's daughter's son and have a two-headed throwback. And this is assuming everyone has told the truth about the parentage of their kids within or outside of a marriage.
Posted: Mon 03 Jul 2006 23:47 Post subject: Re: Where
G-Man wrote:
e harmoni wrote:
The Japanese, especially the Samurai class, were some of the most bisexual societies to ever be found any where on earth. There was a good Japanese made movie, not so many years ago, that was a drama about a young beautiful samurai who was the object of lust, attraction, and countless coutrships by other of his older samurai comrades. One or two of them having the benefit to f--k him.
The movie probably fairly accurately captured the role of sex in the samurais life.
I believe you are referring to Taboo. From Netflix
From legendary director Nagisa Oshima (In the Realm of the Senses) comes a spellbinding samurai action-drama. In 1865, the Shinsengumi militia is combing the new recruits for the next samurai warriors. Two are chosen: Hyozo Tashiro, a low-level samurai, and the dangerously handsome Sozaburo Kano. Rigid rules maintain order and unity, but the militia finds itself wrought with rumors and jealousy when Kano becomes the object of much fascination.
Yep! That's the flick. If you like beautiful young males in dramas and sword fights ( pun intended) all in a oriental warrior class... then this is a movie to watch.
>>>>
Sal & Saga:
You both have a point. Now I will have to oppose adoption and support only masterbation.
Posted: Thu 27 Jul 2006 14:24 Post subject: Re: I agree
oevega wrote:
Quote:
Gay marriage, Keyes warns, will cause "the destruction of civilizations," and he has equated the "homosexual agenda" as "totalitarianism." In fact, Keyes claims, "Hitler and his supporters were Satanists and homosexuals." To Keyes, "The notion that is involved in homosexuality, the unbridled sort of satisfaction of human passions," leads to totalitarianism, Nazism, and communism.
Says Keyes, "Since marriage is about procreation, and they can't procreate, it is a logical requirement that they can't get married." Never mind that heterosexual couples incapable of or unwilling to have children can get married, or that many gay couples have children. Keyes seems oblivious to this reality: "Homosexuals are not haunted by the prospect or possibility of procreation – because they're simply not capable of it. I think this is pretty obvious, isn't it?"
I agree with this guy!!!
After all, Hitler was an homosexual. He enjoyed gay sex in the battlefield Perhaps his histerical reactions got something to do with it.
I also agree with his remarks about marriage. Yes, gays have the right to make comercial contracts between them, I guess. And to live their lives the way they want.
But marriage is, by definition, the natural union between a man and a woman to form a family.
Yes, no cheap imitations of marriage, please.
We already have them, that is why we have such a high rate of divorce.
Posted: Thu 27 Jul 2006 14:39 Post subject: Re: Still Crazy After All These Years - Alan Keyes
sagascend wrote:
Salsassin wrote:
e harmoni wrote:
Altertude wrote:
One other thing worries Keyes about homosexuality: lesbian couples having children by means of artificial insemination. Why? Well, because the children of lesbians who don't know their fathers might meet and be unknowingly related: "That means that an incestuous situation could easily arise in our society; it's more than likely to arise – not to mention every other kind of incestuous complication."
Man, I never thought of that.
And every child who was adopted with a sibling of the opposite sex. We must stop adoptions now.
Don't forget about huge families with too many cousins and families who don't keep in touch, move around and keep breeding and changing their last names. Someone is bound to marry their half-uncle's daughter's son and have a two-headed throwback. And this is assuming everyone has told the truth about the parentage of their kids within or outside of a marriage.
lol right,
most incest knowingly takes place, not by accident.
Posted: Thu 27 Jul 2006 14:48 Post subject: Re: Where...the native american berdache
e harmoni wrote:
Altertude wrote:
Salsassin wrote:
oevega wrote:
Salsassin wrote:
Homosexuality and bisexuality have existed in many cultures that thrived.
Well, classical Greeks had a fascination for homosexuality, but how long they remained free after more "standard" people came to compite? Actually, Romans and Barbarians did not shared Greek prefferences.
Omar
Romans also showed a lot of bisexuality. What about the Japanese, plenty of bisexuality there
I wasn't aware of a culture of bisexuality in Japan at any time in history or today.
As for Greece and Rome didn't these civilizations value the male more than the female? From what I've read they got up to, its a wonder they managed to reproduce themselves for a couple millennia.
It was the Spartans moreso than the Athenians who had a solidly gay/bisexual culture. "Giving" or "recieving" was not looked down upon.
However ancient Rome was slightly different. It had attidudes regarding homosexuality more akin to modern southern Italians and modern Brazilians... that being the "giver" was not looked down upon and was not even actually considered gay if the "reciever" they were giving it was femenine enough. The "reciever" in ancient Roman society was always looked down upon, similar to morder southern and modern Brazilian culture today.
The Japanese, especially the Samurai class, were some of the most bisexual societies to ever be found any where on earth. There was a good Japanese made movie, not so many years ago, that was a drama about a young beautiful samurai who was the object of lust, attraction, and countless coutrships by other of his older samurai comrades. One or two of them having the benefit to f--k him.
The movie probably fairly accurately captured the role of sex in the samurais life.
Certain Native American groups had a different look at it as well. A Brave was a Brave weither or not he took a Berdache or woman.
The "berdache" I refer to in "Mudheads" is the anthropological term
for a third or fourth gender person in many native tribes across the American continents.
They were often honored and assumed scared roles in their tribes.
When the Europeans arrived, many persecuted these people.
The conquistador Vasco Núñez de Balboa, for example,
upon discovering some berdaches in what is now Panama,
threw them to the dogs, which ate them alive.
Today, many native gays and lesbians prefer
the term "two-spirit" to describe both the historical
third or fourth gender person and themselves.
See Will Roscoe's Changing Ones: Third and
Fourth Genders in Native North America
(Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire, England:
Macmillan, 1998) and
Walter L. Williams's The Spirit and the Flesh: Sexual Diversity
in American Indian Culture, Boston: Beacon, 1986.
Homosexuality and bisexuality have existed in many cultures that thrived.
Where are they now? Many famous people are labeled as 'gay' but they are no longer here to defend themselves (just like blackwashing of former Americans of supposed mixed descent).
Sal is right.
Spartan Greeks, Romans, Japanese, and a number of Amerindian societies all accepted or endorsed bisexuality in their societies.
For various reasons, in Japan the Buddhist priesthood and the samurai military caste constructed a vision of the female body in such a way as to minimize its attractiveness. Conversely, the youthful male body was constructed as optimally desirable and a fitting object of attraction for adult men. For men, same-sex sexual options were not distinguished as different orders of sexual interaction (homosexual as opposed to heterosexual) definitive of specific types of people (homosexuals as opposed to heterosexuals) but were instead understood as simply a certain style, one among many, through which sexual pleasure could be enjoyed. The youthful male body was constructed and displayed as a fitting object of aesthetic and sensual appreciation for other men throughout Japanese history, beginning in Buddhist institutions from the ninth century and reaching its apogee in the samurai towns of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.http://www.westernbuddhistreview.com/vol3/homosexuality.html (source. 4th paragraph of introduction)
I think it was the three major mothiestic faiths: Judaism, Christianity and Islam whom spiritual and moral roots has had the strongest impact on how post ancient societies view homosexuality. With Christianity and Islam being the two major forces and reasons for the spread of the Abrahamic spiritual view points on human sexuality moral wise.
Adolf Hitler was a courageous fighter and war hero of WWI.
You really see Adolf Hitler as a courageous fighter?
Supposedly, some speculate he had homosexual encounters while homeless in his earlier years. Even if it is true it doesn't take anything away from his good qualities nor does it mean it was a causation of his bad qualities. The Nazi's were politically and economically left-wing, but they were socially right-wing. Morally conservative like Rome, Spain, and the United States.
Posted: Thu 27 Jul 2006 14:53 Post subject: Re: Still Crazy After All These Years - Alan Keyes
e harmoni wrote:
Altertude wrote:
One other thing worries Keyes about homosexuality: lesbian couples having children by means of artificial insemination. Why? Well, because the children of lesbians who don't know their fathers might meet and be unknowingly related: "That means that an incestuous situation could easily arise in our society; it's more than likely to arise – not to mention every other kind of incestuous complication."
Joined: 15 Oct 2005 {Posts: 76 } Location: Chicago, IL
Posted: Fri 28 Jul 2006 06:25 Post subject:
Yes she is.
Wow. This thread really just reminded me why I don't post here more often and why this is probably going to be my final post. It's amazing how quickly a group of people who feel so marginalized and have, in very recent previous decades, been seen as abnormal, abominations in the eyes of God (thank you BJU), etc. so easily attack another group with the same charges when they think they've gained enough "status" in this country. Or hope to gain, anyway. I shouldn't be amazed at the amount of hatred and vitriol spewed over this topic on this board, unfortunately.
It is furthermore amazing how those who are pro-marriage that is supposed to be based on love between them and their mate thinks said love can be made invalid by another person's actions. It seems completely incompatible to me, especially to those Christians who usually take as part of their vows, "What God has joined together, no man put asunder". God is all-powerful and all-mighty, correct, according to some of you (you know who you are)? So how can ANYTHING some puny mortal does invalidate that? Don't you have more faith in your deity?
I do not believe in any of the Judeo-Christian religions. At all. I'd rather be broken on the wheel or set aflame on a stake than ascribe to those beliefs again. However, individuals have the right to believe whatever they want to. This is America, after all, and too many of you can't deal with the strength of the idea of individual freedoms. Freedom of religion, just so you know, means you can worship Jesus and the crazy dude next to you can worship a giant foot if he wishes.
Separation of church and state means just that. It protects the church and the state. Obviously some here have forgotten that the men who wrote that provision came from a continent that was still in the throes of the Church relentlessly persecuting OTHER CHRISTIANS (as well as other religions) with the approval of the government and did not want that to happen here too. America is supposed to be better than that.
So, fine, if Christians don't want to have gay marriage in their church, they have every right. Churches should also still retain their private right to deny marrying interracial couples, lest some of you forget that is still forbidden/discouraged/looked down upon in some churches in some areas of the country. However the Judeo-Christian spectrum is not the only game in town, folks, as much as that probably disturbs you. But don't worry. Me and the rest of the "godless" "liberal" *gasp* ACLU cardholders will make sure that the church's PRIVATE right to deny a gay marriage to place in their holy sanctuary is vigorously defended as per the provisions in the US Constitution.
But will YOU defend my right to exist?
Quote:
Well, because the children of lesbians who don't know their fathers might meet and be unknowingly related: "That means that an incestuous situation could easily arise in our society; it's more than likely to arise – not to mention every other kind of incestuous complication."
True, but, most people marry others in their age group so if anything they are more likely to marry half-siblings, which could happen in the absence of artificial inseminations. Previous marriages, families forcibly separated by law (think Jim Crow era). Very few people marry those who are more than ten years older than them.
Quote:
Technology, feminism and sex between unmarried men and women are making your traditional definition of marriage more and more irrelevant. Your definition of marriage is no more necessary in 2006 than it was in 2005 B.C. Marriage is not necessary for the continuation of the species - only fruitful coupling between men and women and a birthrate above 0%is needed for that.
THANK YOU! Really, that should not have been so difficult to figure out. But apparently...
It is my parting and fervent wish that some of you expand your horizons. Trust me, it won't hurt a bit.
Wow. This thread really just reminded me why I don't post here more often and why this is probably going to be my final post. It's amazing how quickly a group of people who feel so marginalized and have, in very recent previous decades, been seen as abnormal, abominations in the eyes of God (thank you BJU), etc. so easily attack another group with the same charges when they think they've gained enough "status" in this country. Or hope to gain, anyway. I shouldn't be amazed at the amount of hatred and vitriol spewed over this topic on this board, unfortunately.
EC, who are you talking about, there is only 1 person or 2 who had said something anti(gay) it is their right to say what they think, but as far as I read, only 2. And who are the people that are marginalized and previously seen as abnormal. Oevega isn't black-american, he's latin from South America.
If you can show me all the hatred and vitriol spewed over this topic then I'll understand, but if not, then maybe your just being way too sensitive and being judgmental yourself.
It is furthermore amazing how those who are pro-marriage that is supposed to be based on love between them and their mate thinks said love can be made invalid by another person's actions. It seems completely incompatible to me, especially to those Christians who usually take as part of their vows, "What God has joined together, no man put asunder". God is all-powerful and all-mighty, correct, according to some of you (you know who you are)? So how can ANYTHING some puny mortal does invalidate that? Don't you have more faith in your deity?
I do not believe in any of the Judeo-Christian religions. At all. I'd rather be broken on the wheel or set aflame on a stake than ascribe to those beliefs again. However, individuals have the right to believe whatever they want to. This is America, after all, and too many of you can't deal with the strength of the idea of individual freedoms. Freedom of religion, just so you know, means you can worship Jesus and the crazy dude next to you can worship a giant foot if he wishes.
You are really way off lady, you don't know what people here believe.
Separation of church and state means just that. It protects the church and the state. Obviously some here have forgotten that the men who wrote that provision came from a continent that was still in the throes of the Church relentlessly persecuting OTHER CHRISTIANS (as well as other religions) with the approval of the government and did not want that to happen here too. America is supposed to be better than that.
Everyone has a right to believe what they want. I don't know how old you are, but there may be people here way older than you raised in a different time and aren't exposed to the changes many of us who are younger see and experience. You have no right to judge them. You can point the finger at 'christians' and religious folk but the same thing you accuse others of your doing yourself. You doin't have to be religious to be self-righteous.
So, fine, if Christians don't want to have gay marriage in their church, they have every right.
And there are christians who believe in gay marriage and are for it. Don't be so blind to reality.
Churches should also still retain their private right to deny marrying interracial couples, lest some of you forget that is still forbidden/discouraged/looked down upon in some churches in some areas of the country. However the Judeo-Christian spectrum is not the only game in town, folks, as much as that probably disturbs you. But don't worry. Me and the rest of the "godless" "liberal" *gasp* ACLU cardholders will make sure that the church's PRIVATE right to deny a gay marriage to place in their holy sanctuary is vigorously defended as per the provisions in the US Constitution.
But will YOU defend my right to exist?
You got some issues you need to sort out. This is by far NOT a religious oriented group. Weither I believe gays should have the right to marry or not(hell some gays don't care for it), someone being gay or heterosexual, is not the same as being African, Norwegian or Mohawk.
Quote:
Well, because the children of lesbians who don't know their fathers might meet and be unknowingly related: "That means that an incestuous situation could easily arise in our society; it's more than likely to arise – not to mention every other kind of incestuous complication."
True, but, most people marry others in their age group so if anything they are more likely to marry half-siblings, which could happen in the absence of artificial inseminations. Previous marriages, families forcibly separated by law (think Jim Crow era). Very few people marry those who are more than ten years older than them.
Quote:
Technology, feminism and sex between unmarried men and women are making your traditional definition of marriage more and more irrelevant. Your definition of marriage is no more necessary in 2006 than it was in 2005 B.C. Marriage is not necessary for the continuation of the species - only fruitful coupling between men and women and a birthrate above 0%is needed for that.
THANK YOU! Really, that should not have been so difficult to figure out. But apparently...
It is my parting and fervent wish that some of you expand your horizons. Trust me, it won't hurt a bit.
I hope you learn in your parting to not be so self-righteous
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
Man, I never thought of that.
pun intended) all in a oriental warrior class... then this is a movie to watch.