Re: Usenet "Gay-Dar" triggered by "Patriot Games"

Strabo wrote:
Curly Surmudgeon wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 05:09:28 -0500, Strabo wrote:

Dan wrote:
Sue wrote:
On 26 Feb 2009 16:04:28 GMT, Curly Surmudgeon
<CurlySurmudgeon@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Thu, 26 Feb 2009 05:16:32 -0500, Strabo wrote:

Curly Surmudgeon wrote:
On Thu, 26 Feb 2009 01:44:21 -0500, Zarian wrote:

Duncan Patton a Campbell <campbell@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I'd suggest his agenda is more coherent and his "sincerity" in
his outbursts somewhat less so... a drearily ordinary usenet
troll.

Dhu


The USA is in trouble. High crime, fiscal irresponsibility.


All the while somoe of them were concerned about "Gay Marriage". The "slippery slide" about "marrying your dog or goat".

Fear mongering that we heard here for about a year, from the
wackiest of religious nut cases.

Canada's Constitution says that gay people are equals. We allow
them to be married.

Yet, Canada has fewer of the nonsense. Our Heterosexual
marriages last longer, we have fewer domestic murders; and
marrying an animal is
not legal because it's called "willful consent". And, yes. A
woman can marry a woman, a man can marry a man.

As far as I know, there has been no instance of homosexuals being
married who have destroyed the sanctity of a heterosexual
marriage.
Yeah, some day the knuckle-draggers in the USA will figure that
out...


The knuckle draggers know something you don't.

Destroying the sanctity of heterosexual marriage refers to the 1)
logical fallacy of same-sex unions and 2) presenting and supporting
conflicting values, with a resulting moral decline.
Straw man, how has your, or my, hetrosexual marriage been "destroyed"
by giving homosexuals equal rights?
I sure am waiting for the answer to that one. I've been waiting for a
long time. That is such an incredibly idiotic reason to disallow gays
to marry.
Sue - Waiting for the inevitable.

You don't understand "logical fallacy of same-sex unions" or
"conflicting values...resulting in moral decline"?

Not in this context, no. Explain it to me.

You're a parent. You're supposed to act like parent.

And I have. My daughter is tolerant, protective and helpful of the infirm, elderly and minorities. She is a whole, integrated, being.

Get in line. I've been waiting almost 30 years for the answer to the
question: "What extra rights do gays have?"


That sounds like Gunner arguing that Bush's infamous Patriot Act does
not infringe on individual rights. But then you and Gunner are trapped
in a 'left'/'right' box.


You own an apartment building. You don't want to rent to musicians. You
find that their friends and practicing tend to be noisy. And they miss
payments. So you don't rent to musicians.

I suspect the same percentage of homosexuals are musicians as hetrosexuals, unless you have significantly different data otherwise. How is this metaphor applicable?

You own an apartment building. You don't want to rent to homosexuals.
You find that they have a lot of domestic disputes and lots of parties.
And then there is the disease thing. So you don't rent to homosexuals.

I agree, owners should have the right to be bigots.

The musicians go on their way and happily find a place which caters to
them.

Worthless metaphor.

The homosexuals report you to Big Brother. The government prosecutes,
fines you and forces you to rent to homosexuals.

I agree, again, that owners should have the right to be bigots.


*Do* have the right.

They just do not have the right to harm other people by ACTING on their bigotry (until the Republicans get in power again and outlaw thought crimes).

Then the homosexuals bring a civil case and win forcing you to sell your
building.

The concept of private property no longer exists to the federal
government. The coming 'remedy' to the gun show "loophole" will
demonstrate that.

There are many examples involving discrimination and 'hate crimes' which
places the non-homosexual in legal limbo.

Privilege. Special rights. Extra rights. Government prejudice. Otherwise
known as Socialism.

Your seque into ownership does not explain how homosexuals "destroy" my marriage.



At issue is same-sex marriage and the acceptance of homosexuality
as a normal behavior and not the mere existence of homosexual thought.

Um, that is all Constitutionally protected. There is always Saudi Arabia if you want the government to tell you what you can do...

I said "Destroying the *sanctity* of heterosexual marriage",
not any particular marriage since the relative success or failure
of all marriages is effected by the beliefs and practices of
previous generations.

So yoiu are OK with homosexuals marrying, then. Good to know.

As it fits within the American framework...

Bush is no longer Resident; we got our county back. You not get the memo?

...the sanctity of marriage is the preservation of certain goals,
expectations and values associated with structuring and maintaining
a monogamous heterosexual household in order to ensure a stable
society and the continuance of individual freedom, liberty and
inherent rights.

Which is a nonsensical, impractical, and totally unConstitutional realm of government intervention. Thanks for pointing that out.

In the modern era this package of values and goals has been
described as Christian, but it is the practices within a relationship
that is essential to success, not belief in Christianity.

True.

This allows
room for individual variation but a belief by the greater society in a
creator force IS necessary to pass the package along to succeeding
generations.

Wrong. No Creators need apply. We have a perfectly good secular Republic, thank you very much, thanks to some perspicacious old white guys from a long time ago, and "A goddamn piece of paper." they cobbled together, and waited well over a year for all the relevant parties to argue about and agree with.

By applying heterosexual values, can 'gays' accomplish the same
as parents?

Yes. But marriage has NOTHING to do with parenting, or there would be fertility provisions written into the law...

No, I do not see that homosexuals can pull this off.

Wild asses opinion noted.

*The distortion
of role models*, the *interpersonal and extra-familial social dynamics*,
the *sexual attraction-orientation* of homosexuals, preclude the
possibility of homosexuality as an alternative to heterosexuality.

Only in your world. Out here in Real World v1.0 they do as well or better, on average, and well within the bounds or normalcy.

That some claim success is anecdotal and should be suspect though
I'm sure a child here and there manages to develop properly into
the next procreating generation in spite of the odds.

Anecdotal opinion noted.

Do you EVER base any of your opinions on actual facts?

By rejecting the heterosexual formula one puts society and individuals
at risk through intergenerational downgrading or discounting of
marriage as a serious and necessary social function. Instead,
marriage is treated as a "right" to be enjoined by anyone for the
purpose of self-serving gratification.

No, they do not. But type away all you want...

Given your value system I suspect you may not have instilled
heterosexual values in your daughter so she will treat her offspring
accordingly. Bit by bit, generation by generation (though it'll
only take three), the tried and true is perverted and tossed away
leaving a valueless hulk that masquerades as marriage.

I know I, and I very much suspect Curly, did a great job in instilling values in our children. The fact that those values are not identical to the ones YOU believe in, against all evidence, should in no way mean the government should intrude on the side of ignorance, as it currently does.

Moral Relativism and the Next Generation

Bush is out of office, for now, so this section is moot.

Your granddaughter for example may find normalcy in *marrying* a goat
or some other bacchanalian or fertility symbol as as social function,
and be impregnated from among a group of pre-approved mates (donors)
- a standard animistic model which historically appealed to the Roman
Confusion.

And you might sprout wings and fly away. So?

In the modern world the state will support this breeding endeavor but
take the child in its third year and assign it to a nursery for
beginning indoctrination, per Huxley.

Paranoia, it strike deep.

Say, weren't you one of those wackos who wanted personal freedoms and all that nonsense? Glad to see you have seen the error of your ways and joined up with the NeoCon overlords. For my edification, what did they offer you to make the change?

As a forecast, if atheism dominates, there will be a rejection of modern
religions

Atheism doesn't dominate now, and there is a rejection of modern religions, replaced by a set of new age superstitions and cults of personality (read: fundamentalist christianity).

to be replaced by the formation of occupational and fertility
cults.

Prediction noted. I'll take that bet at 10 to 1.

These cults will be sanctified by the corporate state. The
Pope, then the chief cult leader, will be happy and everyone will think
themselves quite normal.

You've gone off your meds again.

Have you ever been diagnosed as Manic-Depressive? Honestly, you are showing so many of the symptoms. I'd have it looked at.

You go for weeks being lucid, then go out and say stuff like this.

[Or was this all just another parody?]

Dan
.

Loading