I've said on several occasions that the worst thing about this Fag-Marriage thingy is that it will open the door to all sorts of other perversions being accepted as normal.
And this article supports my assertion of such.
Next? Richard Gere will be able to marry his gerbil.
Thursday, May 7, 2009
34 comments:
Your First Amendment right to free speech is a privilege and comes with a measure of responsibility. You have the right to exercise that responsibility here but we reserve the right to inform you when you've used that right irresponsibly.
We are benevolent dictators in this regard. Enjoy.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Good news for you and the squirrel.
ReplyDeleteWhy must you be such a bigot, FeoDORK?
ReplyDeleteIt's your nature, ain't it?
No, it's the material I'm working with at the time.
ReplyDeleteThe material that is you.
ReplyDeleteThanks for that admission, Dork de Feo!
The material is with you always, Dork.
Fret not, Al. You and Mark are way to concerned over the comments of Feo the Troll. It's so much more fun to watch him continually expose himself as the fraud he is, with his posturing as one of intellectual superiority, yet never proving it is so. His continued failure at being clever also amuses. He's all flash and no thunder. Enjoy him for the buffoon he continually proves himself to be. At some point, perhaps he'll cut the crap and actually engage in something akin to intelligent discussion, that is, relative to his ability to do so.
ReplyDeleteNo worries, MA.
ReplyDeleteI've got his number.
Here's a serious point.
ReplyDeleteHow can a gerbil or a schnauser or anything other than a human sign a marriage certificate? How could they inherit property? The idea that just because we civically recognize the monogamous, committed relationships of homosexuals, America will become some anarchistic orgyland of perversion is LUDICROUS.
It is really a sign of a a failure of logic and cognition.
Arranged marriages, anti-interracial marriages, claiming a brother's widow, pedophiliac marriages, marriage at ages as young as 12 or 14. These have all been marriage norms in the past. Endorsed and supported by both society and religion.
Now, regarding the article, you are not, as you know, the only one who predicted this type of further decay of our culture and the story indeed belongs on a blog that highlights American Descent. Though they existed already, we will begin to see more people who think this also a benign alteration of our society. Whatever it takes to protect and promote immaturity and decadence. I don't know what's worse: those who so elevate sexual self-gratification, or those who don't think it's worthy of opposing.
ReplyDeleteIn the article, one of the interviewed states that they want to walk arm in arm in arm and openly proclaim their "love" for each other, but that that wouldn't be enough. They want all the state endowed privileges that go along with it. This suggests to me that their "love" has no real substance to it if they need acceptance by the state. They may indeed have the right to try for such status, but there is no Constitutional basis for providing it to them. As in the homosexual community, such a "right" is mere invention without true basis.
Most people are driven to some degree by their lusts. Marriage is not a matter of a state recognizing the lust that brings two together, but the unique benefits to society of the traditional and logically obvious union of a man and a woman as the basis of all societies. There is no benefit to society in any other arrangement that requires the same legal status, if one exists at all, which I doubt.
"The idea that just because we civically recognize the monogamous, committed relationships of homosexuals, America will become some anarchistic orgyland of perversion is LUDICROUS." - BenT
ReplyDeleteDude, Fag-Marriage is a symptom of what you describe...not the other way 'round.
We are ALREADY an "orgyland of perversion" thanks to liberals like you and conservatives who have allowed it to come to this point.
Bent,
ReplyDeleteIt is not a new thing that eccentric people leave fortunes to their pets, so indeed animals can inherit property. They merely have an executor that abides the terms of the will.
And it is no newsflash that animals develop attachments to humans, particularly in the case of dogs. As some factions in society seem more than willing to redefine terms to mean what they don't, where would be the big deal regarding changing how contracts are written and recognized as they might regard a human and an animal? How does the inpenetrable wall get erected there but to shore up the arguments in favor of non-traditional marriages with which you might favor or tolerate?
It's not that our argument is "a failure of logic and cognition", but that you deny the logic of the argument. What's illogical about the notion that redefining marriage to allow homosexuals to marry won't lead to other arrangements of any kind? The arguments of the homosexual holds for everyone else; there's no way to separate one group as being less worthy than the one before it once that redefinition is accepted.
And the real downside, as it relates to the descent of America, is how over time these bastardizations of the word "marriage" will serve to alter perceptions on how society views marriage, human sexuality and relationships and when or if we should succomb to or resist sexual desires no matter the consequences.
The logic here is in what happens when the door is opened. How can you stop others from demanding the same respect for their notions of marital bliss? How can you stop the growing confusion of what constitutes right vs wrong as regards sexuality? This is not a religious question alone as this confusion will have an impact on society as a whole. It's indeed a civic concern, even if the full extent of the consequences won't be felt for several generations.
And it will be felt. More illogical is the notion that these changes to our societal mores will be benign, without any impact at all. That's not only illogical, it's naive as can be. It's a natural progression that began in the late 50's and early 60's as ideas about sexuality began to loosen. People began to loosen the standards of sexual behavior and now virginity is a punchline. Abortion was given the green light and now 1000's are performed everyday. Divorce became no-fault and the rate of divorce is up. Just these three quick examples support the contention that further changes will bring further negative results.
People, hetero, homo, "triad" or whatever, need to listen less to their crotches and get back to thinking with their brains. This is a bad trend and thanks to people with no sense of self-discipline, this giant snowball will be hard to stop rolling down the hill, to the detriment of future generations.
Yeah, Izard, MA is a regular Philadelphia lawyer.
ReplyDeleteJust look at the extended discourse in structural anthropology.
Too bad you are unable to understand his clear and concise arguments, FeoDORK.
ReplyDeleteBut then again...I think you DO understand them, see the truth in them, and reject them because they don't line-up with your view that "if it feels good, do it".
Liberals: The same today, tomorrow, and for-freaking-ever!
Just like Jesus. (It's from Hebrews, Izard)
ReplyDeleteYou walked into that one.
Dream-on, FeoDORK.
ReplyDeleteJesus may love liberals like you, pal...but it's despite your pervertede world-view..
You're in luck, though! He loves you every bit as much as he does me.
Feo,
ReplyDeleteBig difference between forever good, holy, divine like Jesus, and forever, well, like you.
Now rather than pretending there's no merit to my arguments with your feigned condescension and mockery, try responding directly and see if you can prove your intellectual superiority. It shouldn't be hard for such a well read, well travelled scholar like yourself. Or will you simply continue to pretend that there's no point like Geoffrey does, when in truth, you really have no argument, like Geoffrey does.
You know, FeoDORK. You've illustrated the difference between me and thee.
ReplyDeleteYou see...I KNOW I'm imperfect and have a sinful nature.
Just the opposite of you, I'm afraid.
One day, however, we'll stand before Him.
You'll tell him what a great liberal you are.
I'll tell him that any righteousness in me is because of Him.
Well then, we'd be talking about the same thing wouldn't we? You say tomayto, I say tomahto.
ReplyDeleteUs'n heelbeelies...we call 'em...'maters!
ReplyDeleteBut, then, what do you call your wives?
ReplyDeleteOr daughters for that matter...
ReplyDeleteI can show you pictures of gay men and women marching around the Whitehouse in suits and dresses. Carrying placards asking for the end to the criminalizing their sexual relationships. These pictures are from the 30's and 40's.
ReplyDeletePerhaps that was where it began? When policemen stopped raiding "those" clubs and beating up the occupants with clubs.
Or perhaps it was when that young man from Tupelo got on TV with his swining hips.
Or maybe when radios started playing that devil music.
Hogwash! Western society has been getting more and more liberal since the end of the Victorian Era. Should we return to those days as paragons of public virtue and private morality?
Gay marriage is not a bridge to far, it is only the latest bridge. And perhaps it will be a moderating influence on homosexuals. After all marriage is two people publicly committing to a long-term monogamous relationship. And that has to be better than the current view of gay men and women being lust-driven hound dogs. Because the fact is even if public recognition of marriage weren't on the march, outlawing gay marriage will not make homosexuals into heterosexuals.
-------------------------------
If what offends you is public sexuality, then turn your attention to heterosexuals. Because there are a lot more portrayals of straight people on the constant search for sex, than there are gay men and women.
Almost all the television sitcoms, daytime soaps, all the reality series, most major music singles, all the major film releases, etc.
Marshall,
ReplyDeleteIt was a very slow day at work and I should contribute my day's pay to some worthwhile cause, like the committee to re-elect, but to answer your question, I am afraid that, yes, I am like GKS.
I no longer have enough respect, let alone time, for this blog at least, to marshall any points that take the posts truly seriously. The problem is, as BenT demonstrates, one is immediately taken back to junior-high levels of logic and value by the post and so one has to clear that thicket, move through a high-school level of historical survey, and then lay down a more mature, balanced, thoughtful array of points.
Which go nowhere.
It is wrong of us to think that you can be persuaded to collapse ten years of real moral growth to come into a few paragraphs of discourse.
I really should desist. It's not nice to take on the cousins who never quite got out of the dying town.
If I hadn't grown up with you, I'd never have come and troubled us both.
I have no argument because there is none. Everyone agrees you are all a bunch of small minded bigots.
ReplyDeleteFag-marriage . . . Ozzie, you are a true piece of work.
"Should we return to those days as paragons of public virtue and private morality?"
ReplyDeleteTo some extent, yes. Our culture would benefit by returning to higher standards of propriety. That's pretty much what I'm saying. However, I know that you are attempting to skew the debate by alluding to the negative aspects of that era. Our "sophisticated" understanding of human sexuality didn't come about with an equal amount of maturity and our society has suffered as a result. So just as I don't condone a return to a strict patriarchal social system in order to regain our sense of honor and propriety, I don't condone a return to clubbing homosexuals who want to indulge in their perversions.
But there's nothing to support an upside to granting their demands beyond being left alone and we're already experiencing the downside with just four or five states sanctioning homosex marriage. You all on the left insist on ignoring what is so blatantly obvious.
"Gay marriage is not a bridge to far, it is only the latest bridge. And perhaps it will be a moderating influence on homosexuals."
Wishful thinking based on...what? There's nothing to suggest that this could be true. It doesn't necessarily seem so with heteros.
"After all marriage is two people publicly committing to a long-term monogamous relationship."
Not quite. It's a man and a woman committing to each other to a permanent monogamous relationship. No public announcement is required for the marriage, only for state licensing.
"...outlawing gay marriage will not make homosexuals into heterosexuals."
Not the point at all. First of all, there's no outlawing required for that which doesn't exist. But as has been demonstrated by Al-Ozarka's link, as well as a plethora of other ills that I've outlined in past posts at my blog, opposing homosex marriage is a preventative measure, a protection from all that will befall our culture should it find widespread acceptance.
As for you final comment, had you ever spent any time at my blog, and you are more than welcome, you would have (or should have) learned that I consider the current push for so-called "gay rights" to be just one manifestation of an overall moral problem in our culture as regards things sexual. Though unfortunately there is an unfortunate level of acceptance of promiscuous sex, we're not seeing adulterers or other fornicators looking for state sanctioning. The won't even call me bigoted or hateful for pointing out their sinfulness. They'll just tell me to mind my own business, which I do anyway.
Feodor,
ReplyDeleteRegarding your last. Nice dodge. Coward.
Geoffrey,
ReplyDeleteThanks for demonstrating my point. No argument? You're right about that in a way you don't intend. YOU don't have an argument and that's why you've taken your ball and gone home. But YOUR intention by your comment is just another dodge.
Feodor and Geoffrey,
ReplyDeleteI am willing to bet that I haven't read one third the stuff either of you have read. Likely even less. It's amazing to me that for all that reading you both have such poor understanding. Pity.
"Fag-marriage . . . Ozzie, you are a true piece of work." J-Off
ReplyDeleteLOL!
Your preacher wife might be able to tell you that...."Great peace have they which love thy law and NOTHInG shall offend them.
But you people make a whole life for yourselves based on being offended, don't you?
Which fits...because loving God's Law is out of the question for you.
If you're offended at the the use of the word "fag", J-Off...you are truly a weak-minded little wimp.
BenT,
Show us where ANY of us has advocated violence towards fags!
While you're at it, show us ANYWHERE ANY of us have said that fags should be prosecuted for their perversions for that matter.
The fact is...we're all perfectly willing to let fags be fags as long as those fags keep their perversions to themselves.
But when fags try to FORCE their perversions upon my family and DEMAND their perverted behavior be accepted as normal behavior, I have EVERY right to call them on it.
Fag-marriage is a PERVERSION of marriage...nothing more.
In case you haven't noticed, it's the left that demonizes others for their political and moral positions.
"Everyone agrees you are all a bunch of small minded bigots." - J-Off
Everyone, J-Off? Seems to me its just a very small handful of bigots who seem perfectly justified in calling others bigots.
Bigots like you and FeoDORK!
And J-Off...you should examine your own writings a bit before calling others "small-minded".
Or are you trying to be a comedian or something?
All the books in world can't explain stupidity and hatefulness.
ReplyDeleteThat's why GKS and I continue to be dumbfounded here.
LOL!
ReplyDeleteYou and J-Off will ALWAYS be dumfounded, FeoDORK!
Whether here or there...or any damned where!
Because your whole life philosophy is founded on....need I say it...DUMB!
BTW,
ReplyDeleteYou walked right into that one, pal.
Izard, can you define exactly what I walked into? Or are you just typing words and phrases on loan to you from yesterday?
ReplyDeleteI doubt you could grasp it, FeoDORk...being DUMBfounded and all.
ReplyDeleteThat's what I thought.
ReplyDeleteerrr... I was thinking something else, but it had to do with your not... never mind.