how to explain gay rights to an idiot

[Katzndogz]

You know, I have to say that you chose your posting name well. It fits with the usual caliber of your posts much better than, say, "CalmlyDiscoursingEagle" or "RationallyThinkingEagle."

Be that as it may, marriage traditionally was a property arrangement in which a woman went from being the property of her father or other male relative to being the property of her husband, who had the right to have sex with her whether she wanted to or not. As he was her possession, no one else had the right to have sex with her without her husband's permission -- her own permission was irrelevant, but his was necessary. Her husband had the right to rape her anytime he wanted, but if another man did so, that was a property crime and incurred payment of compensation to the offended husband.

Traditionally, men were not condemned for committing adultery, only women, except as noted when a man committed adultery with another man's wife, or with the unmarried virginal daughter of another man.

As for children, it was routine to expose unwanted babies, especially girl babies, at birth. (In those days, although some herbal methods existed generally abortions were not available.) In many cultures, a father had absolute authority over his children, up to and including life and death. So no, traditional marriage was certainly not for the benefit of the children. It was to ensure paternity of the children, and otherwise was unconcerned with them.

Any gentler and more egalitarian conceptions of marriage are not the "traditional" concept, but rather transitional phases of our transformation from traditional society to modern civilization. Acceptance of gay marriage is part of that transformation.

It also amazes me at how ignorant so many of them are with what "traditional marriage" REALLY means....especially for women. I mean, do they WANT to be treated as chattel? Really?

no matter how miserable marriage was for women in the past.....it still was marriage between a man and a woman.....

acceptance of gay marriage is certainly not a requirement for the transformation to modern civilization...

It wasn't miserable! Of all the writings of women and the repeated stories handed down from generation to generation it is CLEAR that women weren't miserable. They were quite happy even if they did not have the benefit of our modern conveniences. They loved their husbands and their husbands loved them. They had strong families. They had security. SOME might have been miserable, but SOME marriages today are miserable and some same sex relationships are just as miserable. Some wives today are beaten and murdered by their husbands. MORE women today are abandoned and left penniless than they were in the days when women were "chattle".

 

[Dragon]

That transformation will continue, until the eventual cultural collapse under the power of a stronger people as is the historical path. No degenerate culture survives.

So you think that the fact a husband no longer has the right to rape his wife, and that marriage is no longer a property transaction, and that rape of a married woman by a man who is not her husband is now a crime against HER, not against her husband, amounts to "deneration."

I think you might want to explain why you feel that way. Or then again, maybe you wouldn't.

EDIT: I guess you made your feelings clear in that last post. Well, to each his/her own, but I'm certainly VERY glad that your views no longer prevail.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

no matter how miserable marriage was for women in the past.....it still was marriage between a man and a woman.....

See the irrelevance of tradition in post # 415.

acceptance of gay marriage is certainly not a requirement for the transformation to modern civilization...

Acceptance of the 14th Amendment’s mandate of equal access to the laws of all citizens is certainly a requirement in our Constitutional Republic; we transformed into a modern civilization in 1789, it’s well past the time we conduct ourselves accordingly.

gays have the same right to marry a woman as a het......and many have done so....

 

[Dragon]

Gays do not have the same right as heterosexuals to marry the one they love.

Regarding constitutionality, here in California the ruling against Prop. 8 was on the basis of language in the CA constitution, but that language was identical to language in the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. So the same arguments might well prevail in federal court.

I'm quite convinced that the provision in the DOMA that lets states off the full-faith-and-credit hook w/r/t same-sex marriage is unconstitutional, though. There's no doubt whatever that a state has the authority to recognize same-sex marriage, and that, just as other states with more stringent marriage requirements must recognize marriages made in Nevada, so states that do not allow same-sex marriage within their borders must recognize same-sex marriages made in another state that does.

 

[Katzndogz]

That transformation will continue, until the eventual cultural collapse under the power of a stronger people as is the historical path. No degenerate culture survives.

So you think that the fact a husband no longer has the right to rape his wife, and that marriage is no longer a property transaction, and that rape of a married woman by a man who is not her husband is now a crime against HER, not against her husband, amounts to "deneration."

I think you might want to explain why you feel that way. Or then again, maybe you wouldn't.

That was a nice manufacture. Not supported by anything I said but you don't need that.

Accepting homosexuality as "normal" behavior and accepting same sex marriage as "normal" marriage equal to marriage between a man and a woman is to accept perversion and degeneracy making it easier and more palatable to accept all other forms of degeneracy as well. The transformation of our culture into one in which perversion and degeneracy is considered acceptable and normal behavior will continue until it collapses and is taken over by a stronger people. As is what has happened in the past. NO degenerate culture survives.

Now if THIS to you has anything to do with property transactions or men raping women then you too are willfully stupid.

 

[bodecea]

That transformation will continue, until the eventual cultural collapse under the power of a stronger people as is the historical path. No degenerate culture survives.

So you think that the fact a husband no longer has the right to rape his wife, and that marriage is no longer a property transaction, and that rape of a married woman by a man who is not her husband is now a crime against HER, not against her husband, amounts to "deneration."

I think you might want to explain why you feel that way. Or then again, maybe you wouldn't.

That was a nice manufacture. Not supported by anything I said but you don't need that.

Accepting homosexuality as "normal" behavior and accepting same sex marriage as "normal" marriage equal to marriage between a man and a woman is to accept perversion and degeneracy making it easier and more palatable to accept all other forms of degeneracy as well. The transformation of our culture into one in which perversion and degeneracy is considered acceptable and normal behavior will continue until it collapses and is taken over by a stronger people. As is what has happened in the past. NO degenerate culture survives.

Now if THIS to you has anything to do with property transactions or men raping women then you too are willfully stupid.

Two fallacies of your post.

1..That to accept gay marriag is to accept perversion and degeneracy. Not true.

2. That it makes it easier and more palatable to accept all other forms of degeneracy. Not true.

 

[Katzndogz]

Gays do not have the same right as heterosexuals to marry the one they love.

Regarding constitutionality, here in California the ruling against Prop. 8 was on the basis of language in the CA constitution, but that language was identical to language in the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. So the same arguments might well prevail in federal court.

I'm quite convinced that the provision in the DOMA that lets states off the full-faith-and-credit hook w/r/t same-sex marriage is unconstitutional, though. There's no doubt whatever that a state has the authority to recognize same-sex marriage, and that, just as other states with more stringent marriage requirements must recognize marriages made in Nevada, so states that do not allow same-sex marriage within their borders must recognize same-sex marriages made in another state that does.

Many people do not have the right to marry someone they love. But they will. As we slide down. Brothers and sisters love each other. Men and horses. Warren Jeffs loved all his wives. Jerry Sandusky loved his boys. Some people love their toasters. All want to marry who they love. All you need is love.

By the way, I should educate you.

Objectophilia

Do you have any pity for this woman, desperately in love, yet cannot marry her loved one, can't even have a moment's privacy alone.

Objectophilia is defined as the love for objects. Objectophiles are not attracted to people but sexually and emotionally committed to a particular object. They have formed an internet-based community and hope that their sexual inclinations will be recognized and accepted. The photographs were taken during my visits with these individuals (whom I initially contacted over the internet), and represent their various love objects: pinball machine, computer, World Trade Center, Berlin Hauptbahnhof, and steam locomotive.

The video “Mein Hauptbahnhof” focuses on a young woman who is in love with the Berlin Hauptbahnhof. In a continuous monologue, part confession part love letter, she describes their relationship in great detail, including her frustration, for as she explains her love is unrequited and she does not have any privacy with the building. The video conveys the comfort induced by the space, and raises questions concerning the discourse of love, and our emotional attachment to spaces.

Surely we should respect such love.

 

[Dragon]

That was a nice manufacture. Not supported by anything I said but you don't need that.

Oh, but it was. I rather hoped it wouldn't be, but it was. That is, you had expressed support for "traditional" marriage, and I rather hoped that when confronted with what "traditional" marriage actually constituted you might feel some degree of discomfiture with the idea. But apparently you don't:

It wasn't miserable! Of all the writings of women and the repeated stories handed down from generation to generation it is CLEAR that women weren't miserable. They were quite happy even if they did not have the benefit of our modern conveniences. They loved their husbands and their husbands loved them. They had strong families. They had security. SOME might have been miserable, but SOME marriages today are miserable and some same sex relationships are just as miserable. Some wives today are beaten and murdered by their husbands. MORE women today are abandoned and left penniless than they were in the days when women were "chattle".

Clearly, then, you are perfectly alright with women being chattel, the property of their husbands. because it made their husbands less likely to "abandon" them. And of course, made it quite impossible for the WIVES to abandon the marriage.

Some relationships today are miserable, that's true. But a woman who is in such a miserable relationship can get out of it. Don't you think that's better? Well, maybe you don't . . .

Accepting homosexuality as "normal" behavior and accepting same sex marriage as "normal" marriage equal to marriage between a man and a woman is to accept perversion and degeneracy making it easier and more palatable to accept all other forms of degeneracy as well.

But you see, the only reason you believe that is because you see homosexuality as "perversion and degeneracy." Someone like myself, who does NOT see homosexuality as "perversion and degeneracy," is not going to be likely to accept "other forms of perversion and degeneracy," because in MY mind there is no connection among them.

In fact, for me, the very word "perversion" has no useful meaning. As I said before, I don't object to pederasty because it is a "perversion," but because it victimizes children. I object to it for the same reason I object to rape.

I simply have a moral code regarding sex that is utterly different from yours, and so do many other people. We have not just "loosened" sexual morality, as you seem to believe. We have tightened it as much as we have loosened it, but the tightening is in other areas of behavior. For example, we have made it illegal for a husband to rape his wife -- it didn't use to be. We have also made it easier to convict someone accused of rape; it's no longer a defense to show that the victim is sexually active outside marriage. We have made sexual harassment and sexual discrimination unacceptable activities.

So you see, there is no reason to fear that we will "loosen" sexual morality further, especially not towards acceptance of something as vile as the rape of children. (Now, you want to talk about polyamory, that's a different subject . . .)

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Gays do not have the same right as heterosexuals to marry the one they love.

Regarding constitutionality, here in California the ruling against Prop. 8 was on the basis of language in the CA constitution, but that language was identical to language in the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. So the same arguments might well prevail in federal court.

I'm quite convinced that the provision in the DOMA that lets states off the full-faith-and-credit hook w/r/t same-sex marriage is unconstitutional, though. There's no doubt whatever that a state has the authority to recognize same-sex marriage, and that, just as other states with more stringent marriage requirements must recognize marriages made in Nevada, so states that do not allow same-sex marriage within their borders must recognize same-sex marriages made in another state that does.

Many people do not have the right to marry someone they love. But they will. As we slide down. Brothers and sisters love each other. Men and horses. Warren Jeffs loved all his wives. Jerry Sandusky loved his boys. Some people love their toasters. All want to marry who they love. All you need is love.

By the way, I should educate you.

Objectophilia

Do you have any pity for this woman, desperately in love, yet cannot marry her loved one, can't even have a moment's privacy alone.

Objectophilia is defined as the love for objects. Objectophiles are not attracted to people but sexually and emotionally committed to a particular object. They have formed an internet-based community and hope that their sexual inclinations will be recognized and accepted. The photographs were taken during my visits with these individuals (whom I initially contacted over the internet), and represent their various love objects: pinball machine, computer, World Trade Center, Berlin Hauptbahnhof, and steam locomotive.

The video “Mein Hauptbahnhof” focuses on a young woman who is in love with the Berlin Hauptbahnhof. In a continuous monologue, part confession part love letter, she describes their relationship in great detail, including her frustration, for as she explains her love is unrequited and she does not have any privacy with the building. The video conveys the comfort induced by the space, and raises questions concerning the discourse of love, and our emotional attachment to spaces.

Surely we should respect such love.

yes surely the psychologists will declare such love not an aberration......just as they did homosexuality.....

 

[Dragon]

"Aberration," like "perversion," is a useless word. There are several questions to answer:

1) Is the relationship between consenting adults?
2) If not, does it cause any harm to anyone?

In the case of the woman in love with the building (which is, of course, not a real example, but whatever), the answers are no, the building is not a consenting adult, and no, it doesn't cause any harm.

Since the building is not a consenting adult, no marriage can be recognized, but since the woman's alleged-and-almost-certainly-not-genuine infatuation causes no harm to others it's not a big deal.

Are we done with this sort of silliness? Please?

 

[Katzndogz]

Gays do not have the same right as heterosexuals to marry the one they love.

Regarding constitutionality, here in California the ruling against Prop. 8 was on the basis of language in the CA constitution, but that language was identical to language in the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. So the same arguments might well prevail in federal court.

I'm quite convinced that the provision in the DOMA that lets states off the full-faith-and-credit hook w/r/t same-sex marriage is unconstitutional, though. There's no doubt whatever that a state has the authority to recognize same-sex marriage, and that, just as other states with more stringent marriage requirements must recognize marriages made in Nevada, so states that do not allow same-sex marriage within their borders must recognize same-sex marriages made in another state that does.

Many people do not have the right to marry someone they love. But they will. As we slide down. Brothers and sisters love each other. Men and horses. Warren Jeffs loved all his wives. Jerry Sandusky loved his boys. Some people love their toasters. All want to marry who they love. All you need is love.

By the way, I should educate you.

Objectophilia

Do you have any pity for this woman, desperately in love, yet cannot marry her loved one, can't even have a moment's privacy alone.

Objectophilia is defined as the love for objects. Objectophiles are not attracted to people but sexually and emotionally committed to a particular object. They have formed an internet-based community and hope that their sexual inclinations will be recognized and accepted. The photographs were taken during my visits with these individuals (whom I initially contacted over the internet), and represent their various love objects: pinball machine, computer, World Trade Center, Berlin Hauptbahnhof, and steam locomotive.

The video “Mein Hauptbahnhof” focuses on a young woman who is in love with the Berlin Hauptbahnhof. In a continuous monologue, part confession part love letter, she describes their relationship in great detail, including her frustration, for as she explains her love is unrequited and she does not have any privacy with the building. The video conveys the comfort induced by the space, and raises questions concerning the discourse of love, and our emotional attachment to spaces.

Surely we should respect such love.

yes surely the psychologists will declare such love not an aberration......just as they did homosexuality.....

Those psychologists have already declared child abuse as a sexual orientation so it's pretty much on its way.

 

[Katzndogz]

That was a nice manufacture. Not supported by anything I said but you don't need that.

Oh, but it was. I rather hoped it wouldn't be, but it was. That is, you had expressed support for "traditional" marriage, and I rather hoped that when confronted with what "traditional" marriage actually constituted you might feel some degree of discomfiture with the idea. But apparently you don't:

It wasn't miserable! Of all the writings of women and the repeated stories handed down from generation to generation it is CLEAR that women weren't miserable. They were quite happy even if they did not have the benefit of our modern conveniences. They loved their husbands and their husbands loved them. They had strong families. They had security. SOME might have been miserable, but SOME marriages today are miserable and some same sex relationships are just as miserable. Some wives today are beaten and murdered by their husbands. MORE women today are abandoned and left penniless than they were in the days when women were "chattle".

Clearly, then, you are perfectly alright with women being chattel, the property of their husbands. because it made their husbands less likely to "abandon" them. And of course, made it quite impossible for the WIVES to abandon the marriage.

Some relationships today are miserable, that's true. But a woman who is in such a miserable relationship can get out of it. Don't you think that's better? Well, maybe you don't . . .

Accepting homosexuality as "normal" behavior and accepting same sex marriage as "normal" marriage equal to marriage between a man and a woman is to accept perversion and degeneracy making it easier and more palatable to accept all other forms of degeneracy as well.

But you see, the only reason you believe that is because you see homosexuality as "perversion and degeneracy." Someone like myself, who does NOT see homosexuality as "perversion and degeneracy," is not going to be likely to accept "other forms of perversion and degeneracy," because in MY mind there is no connection among them.

In fact, for me, the very word "perversion" has no useful meaning. As I said before, I don't object to pederasty because it is a "perversion," but because it victimizes children. I object to it for the same reason I object to rape.

I simply have a moral code regarding sex that is utterly different from yours, and so do many other people. We have not just "loosened" sexual morality, as you seem to believe. We have tightened it as much as we have loosened it, but the tightening is in other areas of behavior. For example, we have made it illegal for a husband to rape his wife -- it didn't use to be. We have also made it easier to convict someone accused of rape; it's no longer a defense to show that the victim is sexually active outside marriage. We have made sexual harassment and sexual discrimination unacceptable activities.

So you see, there is no reason to fear that we will "loosen" sexual morality further, especially not towards acceptance of something as vile as the rape of children. (Now, you want to talk about polyamory, that's a different subject . . .)

You are as entitled to your opinion as anyone else.

But you really should explore objectophilia more since you know absolutely nothing about it.

 

[Dragon]

You are as entitled to your opinion as anyone else.

My point is that you don't even understand my opinion. You persistently think it is something other than what it is, no matter how many times it's explained to you.

 

[eots]

first we need to clarify... what is gay ?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KiPyMciRWQQ]King Missile - Gay/Not Gay - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Katzndogz]

You are as entitled to your opinion as anyone else.

My point is that you don't even understand my opinion. You persistently think it is something other than what it is, no matter how many times it's explained to you.

Your opinion as you state is based on your moral code. Others have a moral code too. And it's not the same as yours. They want their "rights" too. They want the right to love just like you do and marry who they love,just like you do. The difference is, your moral code! That others don't think should apply to them. And it won't! You won't be able to force your moral code on others. Just like people today can't force their moral code on others.

Where do you draw the line? Just before or just after you get what you want? What kind of moral authority do you think you will have? None, actually.

 

[Luissa]

Gays do not have the same right as heterosexuals to marry the one they love.

Regarding constitutionality, here in California the ruling against Prop. 8 was on the basis of language in the CA constitution, but that language was identical to language in the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. So the same arguments might well prevail in federal court.

I'm quite convinced that the provision in the DOMA that lets states off the full-faith-and-credit hook w/r/t same-sex marriage is unconstitutional, though. There's no doubt whatever that a state has the authority to recognize same-sex marriage, and that, just as other states with more stringent marriage requirements must recognize marriages made in Nevada, so states that do not allow same-sex marriage within their borders must recognize same-sex marriages made in another state that does.

Many people do not have the right to marry someone they love. But they will. As we slide down. Brothers and sisters love each other. Men and horses. Warren Jeffs loved all his wives. Jerry Sandusky loved his boys. Some people love their toasters. All want to marry who they love. All you need is love.

By the way, I should educate you.

Objectophilia

Do you have any pity for this woman, desperately in love, yet cannot marry her loved one, can't even have a moment's privacy alone.

Objectophilia is defined as the love for objects. Objectophiles are not attracted to people but sexually and emotionally committed to a particular object. They have formed an internet-based community and hope that their sexual inclinations will be recognized and accepted. The photographs were taken during my visits with these individuals (whom I initially contacted over the internet), and represent their various love objects: pinball machine, computer, World Trade Center, Berlin Hauptbahnhof, and steam locomotive.

The video “Mein Hauptbahnhof” focuses on a young woman who is in love with the Berlin Hauptbahnhof. In a continuous monologue, part confession part love letter, she describes their relationship in great detail, including her frustration, for as she explains her love is unrequited and she does not have any privacy with the building. The video conveys the comfort induced by the space, and raises questions concerning the discourse of love, and our emotional attachment to spaces.

Surely we should respect such love.

The boys nor the toaster are not consenting adult. That is the part you keep leaving out.

 

[Luissa]

So if we legalize gay marriage we will then allow people to marry their toaster, little boys, and blow up dolls... That sounds rational.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

"Aberration," like "perversion," is a useless word. There are several questions to answer:

1) Is the relationship between consenting adults?
2) If not, does it cause any harm to anyone?

In the case of the woman in love with the building (which is, of course, not a real example, but whatever), the answers are no, the building is not a consenting adult, and no, it doesn't cause any harm.

Since the building is not a consenting adult, no marriage can be recognized, but since the woman's alleged-and-almost-certainly-not-genuine infatuation causes no harm to others it's not a big deal.

Are we done with this sort of silliness? Please?

i'd say perversion is not a "useless" word because it aptly describes behavior of people like say Sandusky.....or the act of two men having sex together...

to pervert means:
1. to affect with perversion.
2. to lead astray morally.
3. to turn away from the right course.
4. to lead into mental error or false judgment.
5. to turn to an improper use; misapply.

perversion means:
1. the act of perverting.
2. the state of being perverted.
3. a perverted form of something.
4. any of various means of obtaining sexual gratification that are generally regarded as being abnormal.
5. Pathology . a change to what is unnatural or abnormal: a perversion of function or structure.

What makes you think that just because two adults consent and no third party is seemingly hurt...that perversion does not take place....?

 

[Katzndogz]

Gays do not have the same right as heterosexuals to marry the one they love.

Regarding constitutionality, here in California the ruling against Prop. 8 was on the basis of language in the CA constitution, but that language was identical to language in the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. So the same arguments might well prevail in federal court.

I'm quite convinced that the provision in the DOMA that lets states off the full-faith-and-credit hook w/r/t same-sex marriage is unconstitutional, though. There's no doubt whatever that a state has the authority to recognize same-sex marriage, and that, just as other states with more stringent marriage requirements must recognize marriages made in Nevada, so states that do not allow same-sex marriage within their borders must recognize same-sex marriages made in another state that does.

Many people do not have the right to marry someone they love. But they will. As we slide down. Brothers and sisters love each other. Men and horses. Warren Jeffs loved all his wives. Jerry Sandusky loved his boys. Some people love their toasters. All want to marry who they love. All you need is love.

By the way, I should educate you.

Objectophilia

Do you have any pity for this woman, desperately in love, yet cannot marry her loved one, can't even have a moment's privacy alone.

Objectophilia is defined as the love for objects. Objectophiles are not attracted to people but sexually and emotionally committed to a particular object. They have formed an internet-based community and hope that their sexual inclinations will be recognized and accepted. The photographs were taken during my visits with these individuals (whom I initially contacted over the internet), and represent their various love objects: pinball machine, computer, World Trade Center, Berlin Hauptbahnhof, and steam locomotive.

The video “Mein Hauptbahnhof” focuses on a young woman who is in love with the Berlin Hauptbahnhof. In a continuous monologue, part confession part love letter, she describes their relationship in great detail, including her frustration, for as she explains her love is unrequited and she does not have any privacy with the building. The video conveys the comfort induced by the space, and raises questions concerning the discourse of love, and our emotional attachment to spaces.

Surely we should respect such love.

The boys nor the toaster are not consenting adult. That is the part you keep leaving out.

That's because I'm not talking about having sex. That's the part you leave out.

 

[Luissa]

Many people do not have the right to marry someone they love. But they will. As we slide down. Brothers and sisters love each other. Men and horses. Warren Jeffs loved all his wives. Jerry Sandusky loved his boys. Some people love their toasters. All want to marry who they love. All you need is love.

By the way, I should educate you.

Objectophilia

Do you have any pity for this woman, desperately in love, yet cannot marry her loved one, can't even have a moment's privacy alone.

Objectophilia is defined as the love for objects. Objectophiles are not attracted to people but sexually and emotionally committed to a particular object. They have formed an internet-based community and hope that their sexual inclinations will be recognized and accepted. The photographs were taken during my visits with these individuals (whom I initially contacted over the internet), and represent their various love objects: pinball machine, computer, World Trade Center, Berlin Hauptbahnhof, and steam locomotive.

The video “Mein Hauptbahnhof” focuses on a young woman who is in love with the Berlin Hauptbahnhof. In a continuous monologue, part confession part love letter, she describes their relationship in great detail, including her frustration, for as she explains her love is unrequited and she does not have any privacy with the building. The video conveys the comfort induced by the space, and raises questions concerning the discourse of love, and our emotional attachment to spaces.

Surely we should respect such love.

The boys nor the toaster are not consenting adult. That is the part you keep leaving out.

That's because I'm not talking about having sex. That's the part you leave out.

Are you talking about them marrying the under age boys or the toaster? Because that seems even better.

Your argument is not based in reality.