What do homosexuals want?

[Blackrook]

What do homosexuals want? I mean, what's the end game?

It looks like you've won on same-sex marriage. Pretty soon it will be legal in every state.

Congratulations, I guess, you got what you wanted.

Will you be happy after that?

Or will something new be demanded of us?

[sachem]

Demanded of you? What have homosexuals demanded of you? I'm curious?

[IzzyB]

I don't know about other gay people but I'd like a Maserati some day.

[Blackrook]

Demanded of you? What have homosexuals demanded of you? I'm curious?
First of all, they demand that I put up with them while they flaunt their homosexuality in my face.

Second, they're going into schools and teaching kids about homosexuality and encouraging kids to take it up for themselves.

Third, they're asking me to ignore the fact that they are breaking the Ten Commandments, which is applicable to everyone.

I don't see adulterers asking me to condone their actions, they have the good sense to be discreet about it.

All people who engage in immoral sex should keep it to themselves, I'm not picking out homosexuals for special treatment.

[IzzyB]

Do you vote, Blackrook?

[sachem]

They put up with you. Turn about is fair play.

Homosexuality is not an acquired lifestyle, like swinging or bondage.

Not everyone lives by the ten commandments. And I don't remember homosexuality being mentioned in the ten commandments.

You don't have to condone anything. Just let them have the same rights as everyone else. And no, they aren't asking for special rights, just the same rights as everyone else.

I'm white, straight and employed. I don't condone you nor do I wanna live by your rules. You live your life and I will live mine.

[Green Arrow]

First of all, they demand that I put up with them while they flaunt their homosexuality in my face.

Translation: We are living normal lives and holding hands/hugging/cuddling/kissing in public just like straight people do.


Second, they're going into schools and teaching kids about homosexuality and encouraging kids to take it up for themselves.

You just broke the bullshit meter.


Third, they're asking me to ignore the fact that they are breaking the Ten Commandments, which is applicable to everyone.

Homosexuality isn't in the Ten Commandments, and do you work on Saturdays?


All people who engage in immoral sex should keep it to themselves, I'm not picking out homosexuals for special treatment.

And yet, your thread is solely talking about homosexuals.

[sotmfs]

I don't know about other gay people but I'd like a Maserati some day.

Youse peoples are never satisfied!LOL!

[The Xl]

First of all, they demand that I put up with them while they flaunt their homosexuality in my face.

Second, they're going into schools and teaching kids about homosexuality and encouraging kids to take it up for themselves.

Third, they're asking me to ignore the fact that they are breaking the Ten Commandments, which is applicable to everyone.

I don't see adulterers asking me to condone their actions, they have the good sense to be discreet about it.

All people who engage in immoral sex should keep it to themselves, I'm not picking out homosexuals for special treatment.

Keep your religious beliefs to yourself. No one else cares, and society shouldn't and won't revolve around them.

[sotmfs]

First of all, they demand that I put up with them while they flaunt their homosexuality in my face.
Really?They demand that?How do they?Right after the "Pledge of Allegiance" first thing in the morning in school?
Second, they're going into schools and teaching kids about homosexuality and encouraging kids to take it up for themselves.
Really?You must live in a community unlike the ones I am familiar with.
Third, they're asking me to ignore the fact that they are breaking the Ten Commandments, which is applicable to everyone.
Really?Do they ask politely?Good thing they are asking,if they were killers they would not ask,they would just kill you.They are not necessarily breaking the ten commandments.Read them!! They are breaking the eleventh one!! You know,the one that says "thou shall not be a homosexual.It is better to break any of the other ones ,DO NOT BREAK THIS ONE"
I don't see adulterers asking me to condone their actions, they have the good sense to be discreet about it.

Why do people have more concern about the "sin" of homosexuality than they do about the "sins" of murder,stealing,lying,etc?
Why should people be hassled because they do not follow the religious views or laws of Christianity that many Christians themselves do not follow? In fact ,Many Christians want the 10 commandments posted everywhere because they either can not remember them or they need constant reminders in order not to break them.

Remember this?Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone.Or this :(Mat 7:1 Judge not lest ye be judged.)"

Maybe we should post those phrases everywhere?

[sotmfs]

They put up with you. Turn about is fair play.

Homosexuality is not an acquired lifestyle, like swinging or bondage.

Not everyone lives by the ten commandments. And I don't remember homosexuality being mentioned in the ten commandments.

You don't have to condone anything. Just let them have the same rights as everyone else. And no, they aren't asking for special rights, just the same rights as everyone else.

I'm white, straight and employed. I don't condone you nor do I wanna live by your rules. You live your life and I will live mine.

I am white,straight,and retired,but why should I be losing my rights in order for others to have more rights?
I can't own or hang blacks anymore.I can not control the assets and lives of the women in my life.
And now I can no longer abuse homosexuals!!

It is not like the good old days when decency was followed!!
Know what I mean?

[Germanicus]

They are part of Affirmative Action nonsense. So after gays can get married they will want 'equality'. Just look at feminists and that is the future of the homosexual movement.

Homosexuals are also part of western imperialism.

[zelmo1234]

Keep your religious beliefs to yourself. No one else cares, and society shouldn't and won't revolve around them.

Wait, why should he have to keep that to himself? Not that I care, but what if someone were to say to homosexuals, keep your sexual preference to yourself, no one else cares.

all hell breaks loose when that stance is taken!

[zelmo1234]

They are part of Affirmative Action nonsense. So after gays can get married they will want 'equality'. Just look at feminists and that is the future of the homosexual movement.

Homosexuals are also part of western imperialism.

I Think that the next step will be to force Churches to Marry them. I know we are already catching hell from the Gay community about our covenant marriage that does not leave the people Married in the eyes of the state!

[Gerrard Winstanley]

I've proposed time and time again to conservative folk getting emotional about the prospect of gay marriage that the issue could be solved outright if the state withdrew itself from nuptial processes entirely. Marriage is a social contract into which the government has injected itself without invitation and beyond the call of neccessity.

But no, the Morality Brigade wants it all handled at a local level, because a bunch of Baptist bureaucrats in Austin are somehow more qualified to oversee such matters than a bunch of bureaucrats in Washington.

[kilgram]

What do homosexuals want? I mean, what's the end game?

It looks like you've won on same-sex marriage. Pretty soon it will be legal in every state.

Congratulations, I guess, you got what you wanted.

Will you be happy after that?

Or will something new be demanded of us?
Be respected. Be able to behave as everybody. For example, being able to have their couples without questioning that. Without fear to any kind of aggression.

But, well, fascists like you never will respect that and people like you are going to try to force their own believes in the others, believes that restrict freedom.

[Peter1469]

I've proposed time and time again to conservative folk getting emotional about the prospect of gay marriage that the issue could be solved outright if the state withdrew itself from nuptial processes entirely. Marriage is a social contract into which the government has injected itself without invitation and beyond the call of neccessity.

But no, the Morality Brigade wants it all handled at a local level, because a bunch of Baptist bureaucrats in Austin are somehow more qualified to oversee such matters than a bunch of bureaucrats in Washington.

I would rather government stay out of it as well. But at least the states and local governments can meddle in marriage without running afoul of the constitution.

[Blackrook]

Well, people in this thread are talking about abolishing state recognition of marriage, and that is why I opposed same-sex marriage in the first place, because it leads to this kind of talk of abolishing marriage.

But I've learned over the years that people don't listen to those who know what's really happening, but they listen to the foolish who want to change things without thinking through all the consequences

[Blackrook]

The end game is the complete elimination of family, because family competes with the power of the all-mighty state.

The end game is no marriage, and no parental rights.

Children will be raised in state-run creches, and not allowed to see their parents.

This happened in Israel, in the kibbutzes.

It's what leftists really want.

[Peter1469]

Back to the title of the thread: I think we need to understand that there is a difference between the vast majority of gays and the activists.

[Gerrard Winstanley]

Well, people in this thread are talking about abolishing state recognition of marriage, and that is why I opposed same-sex marriage in the first place, because it leads to this kind of talk of abolishing marriage.

But I've learned over the years that people don't listen to those who know what's really happening, but they listen to the foolish who want to change things without thinking through all the consequences
Who the hell's talking about abolishing marriage?

[Peter1469]

Who the hell's talking about abolishing marriage?
Not abolishing it, just getting government out of it.

[Gerrard Winstanley]

The end game is the complete elimination of family, because family competes with the power of the all-mighty state.

The end game is no marriage, and no parental rights.

Children will be raised in state-run creches, and not allowed to see their parents.

This happened in Israel, in the kibbutzes.

It's what leftists really want.
A scenario like that is more likely to result from your insistence that the state continues to monopolize marriage as if it's some commodity.

[Gerrard Winstanley]

Not abolishing it, just getting government out of it.
Yes. I struggle to make sense of Blackrook's problem with that.

[Peter1469]

Yes. I struggle to make sense of Blackrook's problem with that.

Probably thinks that filing taxes as married filing jointly saves on taxes.

(It only does if one in the couple does not work).

[Gerrard Winstanley]

Probably thinks that filing taxes as married filing jointly saves on taxes.

(It only does if one in the couple does not work).
No, his primary concern appears to be the government's removal of its ass from something as mundane as marriage will (somehow) lead to the realization of a counter-religious Orwellian nightmare.

[Green Arrow]

Well, people in this thread are talking about abolishing state recognition of marriage, and that is why I opposed same-sex marriage in the first place, because it leads to this kind of talk of abolishing marriage.

But I've learned over the years that people don't listen to those who know what's really happening, but they listen to the foolish who want to change things without thinking through all the consequences

Why do you hate traditional marriage?

[IzzyB]

I don't think that what gays and lesbians do is "marriage". I think marriage is that historical thing where women were attached or sold off to a guy for a dowry of cattle and they had kids together. I don't need that title but I would like the legal privileges.

[Kabuki Joe]

What do homosexuals want? I mean, what's the end game?

It looks like you've won on same-sex marriage. Pretty soon it will be legal in every state.

Congratulations, I guess, you got what you wanted.

Will you be happy after that?

Or will something new be demanded of us?


...no, they want you to think of them as "normal" which they aren't...

[Kabuki Joe]

They put up with you. Turn about is fair play.

Homosexuality is not an acquired lifestyle, like swinging or bondage.

Not everyone lives by the ten commandments. And I don't remember homosexuality being mentioned in the ten commandments.

You don't have to condone anything. Just let them have the same rights as everyone else. And no, they aren't asking for special rights, just the same rights as everyone else.

I'm white, straight and employed. I don't condone you nor do I wanna live by your rules. You live your life and I will live mine.


...it sure makes you look good saying that... :) ...one small tidbit you need to add to this, "as long as I agree with it"...that needs to go right in between LIFE and AND...

[IzzyB]

...no, they want you to think of them as "normal" which they aren't...

What is abnormal about me? I have two eyes, all the right limbs, what is not normal?

[Kabuki Joe]

First of all, they demand that I put up with them while they flaunt their homosexuality in my face.
Really?They demand that?How do they?Right after the "Pledge of Allegiance" first thing in the morning in school?
Second, they're going into schools and teaching kids about homosexuality and encouraging kids to take it up for themselves.
Really?You must live in a community unlike the ones I am familiar with.
Third, they're asking me to ignore the fact that they are breaking the Ten Commandments, which is applicable to everyone.
Really?Do they ask politely?Good thing they are asking,if they were killers they would not ask,they would just kill you.They are not necessarily breaking the ten commandments.Read them!! They are breaking the eleventh one!! You know,the one that says "thou shall not be a homosexual.It is better to break any of the other ones ,DO NOT BREAK THIS ONE"
I don't see adulterers asking me to condone their actions, they have the good sense to be discreet about it.

Why do people have more concern about the "sin" of homosexuality than they do about the "sins" of murder,stealing,lying,etc?
Why should people be hassled because they do not follow the religious views or laws of Christianity that many Christians themselves do not follow? In fact ,Many Christians want the 10 commandments posted everywhere because they either can not remember them or they need constant reminders in order not to break them.

Remember this?Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone.Or this :(Mat 7:1 Judge not lest ye be judged.)"

Maybe we should post those phrases everywhere?


...another person using the bible.........when it suits their needs...

[Green Arrow]

...no, they want you to think of them as "normal" which they aren't...

I don't want anyone to think of me as normal. Normal is boring. Who needs a herd?

[Kabuki Joe]

What is abnormal about me? I have two eyes, all the right limbs, what is not normal?


...so same sex and opposite sex relationships are the same thing?...

[Kabuki Joe]

I don't want anyone to think of me as normal. Normal is boring. Who needs a herd?


...you win...

[Gerrard Winstanley]

...so same sex and opposite sex relationships are the same thing?...
Same love.

[Kabuki Joe]

Same love.


...so it's about same love?...

[Gerrard Winstanley]

...so it's about same love?...
Yes?

[IzzyB]

Same love.


It's not. I say I'm "mostly lesbian" because I prefer women to men. Lesbian relationships are 100% different than male-female relationships and from all the gay men I know, theirs are different, too.

But why does that have to matter? I pay taxes. I should have the same privileges or they shouldn't be privileges.

[Kabuki Joe]

Yes?


...there we go, pedophiles need acceptance...goathumpers need acceptance...polygamy needs acceptance...it's all the same right?...

[IzzyB]

...there we go, pedophiles need acceptance...goathumpers need acceptance...polygamy needs acceptance...it's all the same right?...

So two consenting people touching each other is similar to touching a child without its consent? How fucked is your thinking? It's like saying a handshake and a punch are similar.

[Gerrard Winstanley]

...there we go, pedophiles need acceptance...goathumpers need acceptance...polygamy needs acceptance...it's all the same right?...
I'm not going to give you the satisfaction you seek with that overdone strawman.

[Kabuki Joe]

So two consenting people touching each other is similar to touching a child without its consent? How fucked is your thinking? It's like saying a handshake and a punch are similar.

...so you don't approve of an alternative sexual preference...yet you want others to approve of yours?...got it, you're different, yet the same...

[Gerrard Winstanley]

...so you don't approve of an alternative sexual preference...yet you want others to approve of yours?...got it, you're different, yet the same...
Homosexuality involves a pair of consenting adults. Pedophilia is exploitation of a vulnerable party, tantamount to rape.

[The Xl]

Homosexuality involves a pair of consenting adults. Pedophilia is exploitation of a vulnerable party, tantamount to rape.

He's not intelligent enough to grasp such a simple concept.

[Kabuki Joe]

I'm not going to give you the satisfaction you seek with that overdone strawman.


...it's not a strawman...either everyone get's the same acceptance or not...you can't pick and choose based on your own personal morals who gets accepted and who doesn't...liberals say this with regard to homosexuals all the time...so, if you can't discriminate over one sexual preference how can you discriminate over another?...

[Kabuki Joe]

Homosexuality involves a pair of consenting adults. Pedophilia is exploitation of a vulnerable party, tantamount to rape.


...but if we are to accept "same love" like you said, then we need to do it across the board, not just with what you think is ok...

[Gerrard Winstanley]

...but if we are to accept "same love" like you said, then we need to do it across the board, not just with what you think is ok...
May as well legalize murder over petty disagreements, then. :rollseyes:

[Gerrard Winstanley]

...it's not a strawman...either everyone get's the same acceptance or not...you can't pick and choose based on your own personal morals who gets accepted and who doesn't...liberals say this with regard to homosexuals all the time...so, if you can't discriminate over one sexual preference how can you discriminate over another?...
Please stop. This is descending into stupid territory.

[Kabuki Joe]

May as well legalize murder over petty disagreements, then. :rollseyes:


...we aren't talking about murder, stick to the topic...

[Kabuki Joe]

Please stop. This is descending into stupid territory.


...you aren't answering the question, if we can't discriminate against homosexuals over their sexual preference how can we discriminate against pedophiles?...we aren't talking about the act, we are talking about the preference...

[Gerrard Winstanley]

...we aren't talking about murder, stick to the topic...
We're still on the topic. Using the logic you put forward, if somebody's guaranteed the legal right to shoot another for trespassing on their property, shouldn't all murder be decriminalized provided the cause is a disagreement of some kind?

[Peter1469]

...so same sex and opposite sex relationships are the same thing?...

Relationships are relationships.

[Gerrard Winstanley]

...you aren't answering the question, if we can't discriminate against homosexuals over their sexual preference how can we discriminate against pedophiles?...we aren't talking about the act, we are talking about the preference...
You don't see a difference between a pair of adults engaging in consensual sex and some weirdo feeling up manipulated children?

[Kabuki Joe]

We're still on the topic. Using the logic you put forward, if somebody's guaranteed the legal right to shoot another for trespassing on their property, shouldn't all murder be decriminalized provided the cause is a disagreement of some kind?


...murder and sexual preference are the same now?...well I'll be...

[Kabuki Joe]

Relationships are relationships.

...come on Pete, don't be pc...

[Peter1469]

...you aren't answering the question, if we can't discriminate against homosexuals over their sexual preference how can we discriminate against pedophiles?...we aren't talking about the act, we are talking about the preference...

We have laws against pedophilia. And we have largely eliminated our laws against homosexual behavior. Even the military has ended consensual sodomy as a crime.

[Green Arrow]

http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20121219134515/glee/images/7/72/Jaejoong_popcorn.gif

[Gerrard Winstanley]

...murder and sexual preference are the same now?...well I'll be...
Thank you for the assistance in derailing your own argument.

[Mainecoons]

Most of them want to be left alone and a few of them want to be cultural warriors and impose their views on everyone else.

In other words, they're just like the rest of us.

[IzzyB]

...so you don't approve of an alternative sexual preference...yet you want others to approve of yours?...got it, you're different, yet the same...

No, you don't "got it". It's just sexual preference. Straight preference is a preference. There are pedophiles who like same sex and those that like opposite sex.

If they try to have that sex they are doing it to an unwilling person and violating them.

[Common]

America will soon pay through the nose for gay marriage. Its going to cost this country billions upon billions.
Before the push for gay marriage 3% of the country was homosexual.
In the future and not the long term, you will see same sex heterosexuals marrying by the dozens to share health care, insurance and leave Social Security and Medicare to survivors. WHY NOT!!!!!!!! Id damn sure do it I wasnt married and had no intenion. Dont be so naive to not think this is going to occur then snowball.

GOD FORBID if I ever wind up an old man single, I am going to marry a 20 yr old male kid and hope I live two years so he collects my two pensions FOR LIFE and gets my SS and Medicare 45 yrs from now

If you naive libertarians and progressives dont think thats going to happen, you should live in fla goin the VFWs and Moose and Elks club and listen to the seniors talking about it already.

[Peter1469]

You probably will have straight people do stuff like that. Wasn't there a Seinfeld episode on that?

[Gerrard Winstanley]

You probably will have straight people do stuff like that. Wasn't there a Seinfeld episode on that?
It's been happening for years, lol.

[IzzyB]

If you want to take away all those privileges and let no one have them then I'm fine with it, but if I only get them if I marry a man instead of a woman or hell if I have to get married to get them at all it pretty much screams unfair.

[Ransom]

Marriage defined by tax breaks or social security from the federal government......we clearly have our priorities in order. Explains why more than 50% of marriages fail, we don't care anymore. Marriage = politics to the Left.

[jillian]

What do homosexuals want? I mean, what's the end game?

It looks like you've won on same-sex marriage. Pretty soon it will be legal in every state.

Congratulations, I guess, you got what you wanted.

Will you be happy after that?

Or will something new be demanded of us?

the same rights as everyone else.

not complicated.

get over it.

[Peter1469]

the same rights as everyone else.

not complicated.

get over it.

right

[Mainecoons]

Tax breaks and other government perks for marriage were designed to encourage marriage and family stability. Looking at the divorce statistics, I'd have to conclude that isn't working. May as well end all of it and return marriage to strictly a religious issue and let the religions decide who they want to marry.

[Mister D]

Tax breaks and other government perks for marriage were designed to encourage marriage and family stability. Looking at the divorce statistics, I'd have to conclude that isn't working. May as well end all of it and return marriage to strictly a religious issue and let the religions decide who they want to marry.

That this escapes so many of us (i.e. the state's obvious interest in marriage) is truly incredible.

[Blackrook]

You people are so completely ignorant when you talk about the state not recognizing marriage. That would completely destroy all rights people have within the family. Wives would not inherit from husbands. Men would not be presumed to be the fathers of their wives' children. Children would not inherit from their father. Husbands and wives would not have the rights to make medical decisions.

This sort of ignorance is so profound, and yet I see it all the time on internet forums. There are simply so many stupid people on the internet they cannot be counted.

[Green Arrow]

You people are so completely ignorant when you talk about the state not recognizing marriage. That would completely destroy all rights people have within the family. Wives would not inherit from husbands. Men would not be presumed to be the fathers of their wives' children. Children would not inherit from their father. Husbands and wives would not have the rights to make medical decisions.

This sort of ignorance is so profound, and yet I see it all the time on internet forums. There are simply so many stupid people on the internet they cannot be counted.

Amazingly, marriage was in better shape before it became a state function than after.

Why do you hate traditional marriage?

[Blackrook]

Amazingly, marriage was in better shape before it became a state function than after.

Why do you hate traditional marriage?
You are incredibly ignorant. Marriage has ALWAYS been recognized by government or the state or the tribe or whoever is in charge. It is NOT a private arrangement between two people, it is a matter that concerns everyone. There has never been a society where marriage didn't come with certain rights and responsibilities, imposed by society.

And while we're on the topic, why aren't you married to the woman you are shacking up with? Are you too immature to take on the responsibilities of being a husband?

[Codename Section]

You are incredibly ignorant. Marriage has ALWAYS been recognized by government or the state or the tribe or whoever is in charge. It is NOT a private arrangement between two people, it is a matter that concerns everyone. There has never been a society where marriage didn't come with certain rights and responsibilities, imposed by society.

And while we're on the topic, why aren't you married to the woman you are shacking up with? Are you too immature to take on the responsibilities of being a husband?

So the Old Testament is lying?

[Mister D]

So the Old Testament is lying?

About what?

[Blackrook]

So the Old Testament is lying?
This is getting more and more stupid.

Marriage has never been a purely religious institution. It has always been a legal institution as well. And there are many marriages which are only legal, with no religious element to them since they were not performed in churches.

A purely religious marriage, not recognized by the law, would have no meaning. The law would not require the husband to support his wife. The law would not presume the wife's children belong to the husband. The security of the children would not be assured.

[Blackrook]

The fact is, homosexuals don't need marriage. The purpose of marriage is to protect women who give up their careers to have children. Homosexuals do not have children. They should not be allowed to adopt children, because children should be adopted by normal people. Letting sexual perverts adopt children is immoral, and God will punish our nation for it.

[Peter1469]

You people are so completely ignorant when you talk about the state not recognizing marriage. That would completely destroy all rights people have within the family. Wives would not inherit from husbands. Men would not be presumed to be the fathers of their wives' children. Children would not inherit from their father. Husbands and wives would not have the rights to make medical decisions.

This sort of ignorance is so profound, and yet I see it all the time on internet forums. There are simply so many stupid people on the internet they cannot be counted.
And there you go. Hence what homosexuals want- whatever you see ^^^.

All of that can be accomplished through contract law. Why do you need the State to cover it for you?

[kilgram]

...you aren't answering the question, if we can't discriminate against homosexuals over their sexual preference how can we discriminate against pedophiles?...we aren't talking about the act, we are talking about the preference...
??????????????

How can you compare that? :-S

Well, expected from you.

[Green Arrow]

You are incredibly ignorant. Marriage has ALWAYS been recognized by government or the state or the tribe or whoever is in charge. It is NOT a private arrangement between two people, it is a matter that concerns everyone. There has never been a society where marriage didn't come with certain rights and responsibilities, imposed by society.

And while we're on the topic, why aren't you married to the woman you are shacking up with? Are you too immature to take on the responsibilities of being a husband?

Actually, according to the Bible, marriage is a covenant between two people and god. Nothing in there about government and for thousands of years humans got by fine without government in marriage.

Further, I am married to my wife.

[Green Arrow]

About what?

It states quite clearly that marriage is a covenant between two people and god.

[kilgram]

America will soon pay through the nose for gay marriage. Its going to cost this country billions upon billions.
Before the push for gay marriage 3% of the country was homosexual.
In the future and not the long term, you will see same sex heterosexuals marrying by the dozens to share health care, insurance and leave Social Security and Medicare to survivors. WHY NOT!!!!!!!! Id damn sure do it I wasnt married and had no intenion. Dont be so naive to not think this is going to occur then snowball.

GOD FORBID if I ever wind up an old man single, I am going to marry a 20 yr old male kid and hope I live two years so he collects my two pensions FOR LIFE and gets my SS and Medicare 45 yrs from now

If you naive libertarians and progressives dont think thats going to happen, you should live in fla goin the VFWs and Moose and Elks club and listen to the seniors talking about it already.
????????

What the fuck are you talking about?

[Green Arrow]

????????

What the fuck are you talking about?

He doesn't know.

[kilgram]

Amazingly, marriage was in better shape before it became a state function than after.

Why do you hate traditional marriage?
Marriage has been always the same.

I don't know USA, but in Spain the rate of marriage failures were similar, just they couldn't get divorce because it was illegal. The pression from family to continue an unstable marriage was thousand times higher than now.

If something fails, the most normal end it and not continue something that is not working out.

[Blackrook]

And there you go. Hence what homosexuals want- whatever you see ^^^.

All of that can be accomplished through contract law. Why do you need the State to cover it for you?
You're a lawyer, so you know that no package of contracts could possibly cover everything marriage covers.

Could a man and a woman agree that the survivor gets the other's pension?

No, and that's just one example.

Could a man and a woman agree that they can jointly file for bankruptcy?

No, and that's a second example.

And you can't contract for sexual services, even in California. See, Marvin v. Marvin.

[Mister D]

It states quite clearly that marriage is a covenant between two people and god.

Look, this was a lame attempt to avoid the facts:

1) the state has always been involved in marriage at least for all of recorded history.

2) marriage has always served a social function not a private one.

Rook is right about that.

[Blackrook]

Actually, according to the Bible, marriage is a covenant between two people and god. Nothing in there about government and for thousands of years humans got by fine without government in marriage.

Further, I am married to my wife.
Unless you are living in a common law marriage state, you are not married to a woman simply because you live together and tell people you are married. Tennessee is not a common law marriage state.

If you had any class at all, you would marry the woman. I'm sure she wants you to ask her, but you're too much of a heel.

[Green Arrow]

Look, this was a lame attempt to avoid the facts:

1) the state has always been involved in marriage at least for all of recorded history.

2) marriage has always served a social function not a private one.

Rook is right about that.

It's not an attempt to avoid the facts, it's mockery. Blackrook is a religious extremist that is always preaching god's judgement because America doesn't follow the Bible. I'm pointing out that the Bible does not jive with Blackrook's overwhelming need for big government.

[patrickt]

I don't understand the demand that it be the word marriage. If, however, the federal government wants to reward some couples who are married they should reward all couples.

I had two friends who were together for 35 years. For me, they were a couple but they got none of the couple benefits. Two men where I worked invited me to celebrate their 25 years together. They were a couple, too.

If we can't afford the benefits the government is giving couples the solution would be to change the benefits. I don't think saying some couples will get them and some won't is reasonable.

Of course, when gays discover the misery and costs associated with divorce they might have second thoughts.

[Blackrook]

Look, this was a lame attempt to avoid the facts:

1) the state has always been involved in marriage at least for all of recorded history.

2) marriage has always served a social function not a private one.

Rook is right about that.
Thank you.

Having taken a course in family law, I think I know a bit more about marriage than the typical retard who posts to an internet forum.

And I learned even more about marriage in canon law, which is the law of the Catholic Church.

Marriage has not always been the same, even in the Catholic Church.

[Mister D]

It's not an attempt to avoid the facts, it's mockery. Blackrook is a religious extremist that is always preaching god's judgement because America doesn't follow the Bible. I'm pointing out that the Bible does not jive with Blackrook's overwhelming need for big government.

Code brought it up not you. It was a transparent attempt to dodge Blackrook's point about the state and marriage. The state did suddenly intrude on the institution of marriage. It's always been there.

[Green Arrow]

Code brought it up not you. It was a transparent attempt to dodge Blackrook's point about the state and marriage. The state did suddenly intrude on the institution of marriage. It's always been there.

Well, we both did, but okay.

[Blackrook]

It's not an attempt to avoid the facts, it's mockery. Blackrook is a religious extremist that is always preaching god's judgement because America doesn't follow the Bible. I'm pointing out that the Bible does not jive with Blackrook's overwhelming need for big government.
You are an ignoramus. The Bible contains thousands of laws, on every topic, including marriage.

[Bob]

Demanded of you? What have homosexuals demanded of you? I'm curious?

Why do homosexuals allege they have demands?

[Dr. Who]

Unless you are living in a common law marriage state, you are not married to a woman simply because you live together and tell people you are married. Tennessee is not a common law marriage state.

If you had any class at all, you would marry the woman. I'm sure she wants you to ask her, but you're too much of a heel.
That is really none of your business Blackrook. Who are you to infer what his wife wants or doesn't want or whether they are or are not legally married? Do you know either of them? The classy thing to do is MYOB. People's private lives are NOT up for discussion on this forum unless they invite you to discuss it. You have not been so invited.

[Blackrook]

Homosexuals have always had lots of power, even before the gay rights movement.

Gays practically run Hollywood. Between the gay Mafia and the Jewish mafia, it is better to belong to one or the other if you want a job as an actor.

Gays run the fashion industry.

Gays have a powerful network in the military, especially the Navy.

Gays have a secret network and help each other out in business, law, medicine, science, much like Jews.

If you're gay AND Jewish, you have two networks helping you out.

[Blackrook]

That is really none of your business @Blackrook (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=899). Who are you to infer what his wife wants or doesn't want or whether they are or are not legally married? Do you know either of them? The classy thing to do is MYOB. People's private lives are NOT up for discussion on this forum unless they invite you to discuss it. You have not been so invited.
OK, then I'd like to report that Green Arrow insulted my wife, and I want an apology.

[Mister D]

Code brought it up not you. It was a transparent attempt to dodge Blackrook's point about the state and marriage. The state did not suddenly intrude on the institution of marriage. It's always been there.


Typo in original.

[Bob]

Keep your religious beliefs to yourself. No one else cares, and society shouldn't and won't revolve around them.


What religion are homosexuals?

[Dr. Who]

OK, then I'd like to report that Green Arrow insulted my wife, and I want an apology.

How so?

[Codename Section]

Code brought it up not you. It was a transparent attempt to dodge Blackrook's point about the state and marriage. The state did suddenly intrude on the institution of marriage. It's always been there.

It wasn't. The Hebrews were nomadic tribes, no "state" until Saul and David and they got married. Marriage is a religious institution, not a state institution.

[Green Arrow]

What religion are homosexuals?

A variety. I've encountered Jews, Christians, Buddhists, and atheists/agnostics most commonly.

[kilgram]

Homosexuals have always had lots of power, even before the gay rights movement.

Gays practically run Hollywood. Between the gay Mafia and the Jewish mafia, it is better to belong to one or the other if you want a job as an actor.

Gays run the fashion industry.

Gays have a powerful network in the military, especially the Navy.

Gays have a secret network and help each other out in business, law, medicine, science, much like Jews.

If you're gay AND Jewish, you have two networks helping you out.
How ridiculous you can arrive to be?

[Green Arrow]

OK, then I'd like to report that Green Arrow insulted my wife, and I want an apology.

I have never insulted your wife. You may be immature enough to resort to that kind of attack, but I'm not.

[Green Arrow]

It wasn't. The Hebrews were nomadic tribes, no "state" until Saul and David and they got married. Marriage is a religious institution, not a state institution.

In fact, Codename Section, early Jewish marriages were just a simple contract between the man and his wife, and during the time of the Judges, that contract was upheld.

[Mister D]

It wasn't. The Hebrews were nomadic tribes, no "state" until Saul and David and they got married. Marriage is a religious institution, not a state institution.

You're really pouring on the lame tonight. Tribes, nomadic or otherwise, have hierarchies. There was a "state" in the sense that there was authority which is the only sense in which you guys ever use the term. Moreover, marriage was social not private like I said. All the time. Everywhere.

Again, the state has always been involved, marriage has always been social, and I'll add that this call to get the state out of marriage is almost as inane as gay marriage itself.

[Mister D]

In fact, @Codename Section (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=866), early Jewish marriages were just a simple contract between the man and his wife, and during the time of the Judges, that contract was upheld.

Were they? The evidence for this is what exactly?

[Mister D]

Of course that's obviously untrue because if the contract were between any two people it would be between the groom and the bride's father. Semitic societies are pretty patriarchal.

[Blackrook]

I have never insulted your wife. You may be immature enough to resort to that kind of attack, but I'm not.
When I said marriage that men entered marriage to get sex, you said "Maybe that's the way it is in your marriage, but not in mine."

In other words, you called my wife a whore.

[Green Arrow]

Were they? The evidence for this is what exactly?

Ketubah (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketubah)

I'm not sure if the government of Israel is involved now with this, but historically the only involvement outside the family was the rabbi.

[Green Arrow]

When I said marriage that men entered marriage to get sex, you said "Maybe that's the way it is in your marriage, but not in mine."

In other words, you called my wife a whore.

No, I didn't. I said YOU might have gotten married just for sex, but I didn't.

[Green Arrow]

Of course that's obviously untrue because if the contract were between any two people it would be between the groom and the bride's father. Semitic societies are pretty patriarchal.

The contract was between the bride and groom, but the bride's father signed it on her behalf. It's actually a bit screwy, but you know.

[Mister D]

Ketubah (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketubah)

I'm not sure if the government of Israel is involved now with this, but historically the only involvement outside the family was the rabbi.

This is about a prenuptial agreement.

[Blackrook]

No, I didn't. I said YOU might have gotten married just for sex, but I didn't.
I never said I got married JUST for sex. But you're a liar if you're saying that's not the big motivator for men.

At least I'm honest enough to admit the truth, which is that men want sex.

I'm not sure what game you're playing.

[Green Arrow]

This is about a prenuptial agreement.

You're right, godammit. I got the wrong word. Give me a bit and I'll find something on the actual marriage contract.

[Green Arrow]

I never said I got married JUST for sex. But you're a liar if you're saying that's not the big motivator for men.

At least I'm honest enough to admit the truth, which is that men want sex.

I'm not sure what game you're playing.

Sex is not a factor in marriage. You can have all the sex you want outside of marriage. Marriage is about finances and (less important these days) love.

[Dr. Who]

When I said marriage that men entered marriage to get sex, you said "Maybe that's the way it is in your marriage, but not in mine."

In other words, you called my wife a whore.
He said maybe. That is an equivocal statement. Not an accusation. You made a statement to which he did not agree - in fact you are the one who insulted your wife - he did not.

[Codename Section]

You're really pouring on the lame tonight. Tribes, nomadic or otherwise, have hierarchies. There was a "state" in the sense that there was authority which is the only sense in which you guys ever use the term. Moreover, marriage was social not private like I said. All the time. Everywhere.

Again, the state has always been involved, marriage has always been social, and I'll add that this call to get the state out of marriage is almost as inane as gay marriage itself.


Yeh, yeh, yeh don't need the snark, D.

Government is codified. Tribal systems are tribal systems. Religions held these powers apart from those governments they resided under. Marriage as a state contract is relatively new. You know it, I know it.

Let's just get honest this was handled by priests not government entities since the beginning and quit splitting hairs when it doesn't go your way.

[Codename Section]

Muslims and orthodox Jews in Israel do not put marriage in the hands of the state. It is in the hands of imams and rabbis.

[Peter1469]

You're a lawyer, so you know that no package of contracts could possibly cover everything marriage covers.

Could a man and a woman agree that the survivor gets the other's pension? Yes, through a living trust or similar arraignment.

No, and that's just one example.

Could a man and a woman agree that they can jointly file for bankruptcy? Why would they want to?

No, and that's a second example.

And you can't contract for sexual services, even in California. See, Marvin v. Marvin.

[IzzyB]

You can't get military survivor's benefits.

[Peter1469]

You can't get military survivor's benefits.

It may not be long now.

And you couldn't pass social security benefits as well.

[Chloe]

You're right, godammit. I got the wrong word. Give me a bit and I'll find something on the actual marriage contract.
Green Arrow you weren't wrong, the Ketubah is a Jewish marriage contract and also resembles a type of prenuptial agreement because of some of the things that it says. It's just not really an enforceable type of contract from a states point of view, and for the most part it's more ceremonial/symbolic than anything.

[Kabuki Joe]

You don't see a difference between a pair of adults engaging in consensual sex and some weirdo feeling up manipulated children?


...50 years ago homosexuals were considered weirdos...you liberals have opened up a door you shouldn't have but it's too late now...

[Kabuki Joe]

We have laws against pedophilia. And we have largely eliminated our laws against homosexual behavior. Even the military has ended consensual sodomy as a crime.

...as I said, we aren't talking about committing something illegal, we are talking about a sexual preference...there was a discussion on this a while back that was just like a car accident, as much as it creeped me out the guy had a point...the law should only come into play if an adult in breaking the law, not if he's thinking about it...remember the link that posted a while ago where the APA is in the process of changing pedophilia from a mental illness to a sexual preference?...once that happens there will be some major changes in our society...

[Mister D]

@Green Arrow (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=868) you weren't wrong, the Ketubah is a Jewish marriage contract and also resembles a type of prenuptial agreement because of some of the things that it says. It's just not really an enforceable type of contract from a states point of view, and for the most part it's more ceremonial/symbolic than anything.

It doesn't resemble a prenuptial agreement. It is a prenuptial agreement if his source is any indication.

[Kabuki Joe]

If you want to take away all those privileges and let no one have them then I'm fine with it, but if I only get them if I marry a man instead of a woman or hell if I have to get married to get them at all it pretty much screams unfair.


...it's not about "privileges", it's about the term...we have had this discussion a whole bunch of times and the gays don't want civil union with the exact same privileges as marriage, they was to be able to say they are married...

[Chloe]

Homosexuals have always had lots of power, even before the gay rights movement.

Gays practically run Hollywood. Between the gay Mafia and the Jewish mafia, it is better to belong to one or the other if you want a job as an actor.

Gays run the fashion industry.

Gays have a powerful network in the military, especially the Navy.

Gays have a secret network and help each other out in business, law, medicine, science, much like Jews.

If you're gay AND Jewish, you have two networks helping you out.

You are a ridiculous person, and you have created a ridiculous thread. I'm actually embarrassed for you right now.

[Kabuki Joe]

Tax breaks and other government perks for marriage were designed to encourage marriage and family stability. Looking at the divorce statistics, I'd have to conclude that isn't working. May as well end all of it and return marriage to strictly a religious issue and let the religions decide who they want to marry.


...marriage is going away just like the church...the only reason the gays are so hipped up for it is because it's new to them...everyone else is starting to shy away from it...

[Chloe]

It doesn't resemble a prenuptial agreement. It is a prenuptial agreement if his source is any indication.

A Jewish woman cannot divorce her husband even if he is breaking the agreements made in the ketubah. He has to freely offer the divorce to her, it's called a get. If it were a true prenuptial agreement that wouldn't be the case, she could divorce him for various reasons and the agreement would stand. It's symbolic. Many of the things said on the ketubah would be similar to wedding vows but with financial promises, none of which are really enforceable from a woman's point of view really unless there are very special circumstances.

[Mister D]

Yeh, yeh, yeh don't need the snark, D.

Government is codified. Tribal systems are tribal systems. Religions held these powers apart from those governments they resided under. Marriage as a state contract is relatively new. You know it, I know it.

Let's just get honest this was handled by priests not government entities since the beginning and quit splitting hairs when it doesn't go your way.

It's not snark, Code. I honestly find your ideology corrupt, dangerous, and diseased. That's not a personal remark and I hope you don't take it that way. I get called a racist all the time, for example. I deal with it. When I speak this way I do so because I care. These are important matters.

Yes, in theocratic societies priests tend to be involved. You're defining the state to suit this particular argument. Tomorrow, it will be something else.

[Mister D]

Muslims and orthodox Jews in Israel do not put marriage in the hands of the state. It is in the hands of imams and rabbis.

Yes, in the hands olf religious authorities. Hey, lets do that here. :wink:

[Kabuki Joe]

You people are so completely ignorant when you talk about the state not recognizing marriage. That would completely destroy all rights people have within the family. Wives would not inherit from husbands. Men would not be presumed to be the fathers of their wives' children. Children would not inherit from their father. Husbands and wives would not have the rights to make medical decisions.

This sort of ignorance is so profound, and yet I see it all the time on internet forums. There are simply so many stupid people on the internet they cannot be counted.


...I agree...but the problem is no one needs to get married to have sex anymore...women don't hold back until after the wedding, they give it out within the first few weeks of meeting a guy...and then they wonder why the guy stops calling after a few months...well, he's already found another cow to milk...and remember, when something is free, no one appreciates it...

[Mister D]

You can't get military survivor's benefits.

Sure you can. Marry a man.

[Kabuki Joe]

??????????????

How can you compare that? :-S

Well, expected from you.


...kilgram, what are you smoking?????...this has been rehashed too many times to remember...........and now you're offended?...put the pipe down and step away from it...

[Mister D]

A Jewish woman cannot divorce her husband even if he is breaking the agreements made in the ketubah. He has to freely offer the divorce to her, it's called a get. If it were a true prenuptial agreement that wouldn't be the case, she could divorce him for various reasons and the agreement would stand. It's symbolic. Many of the things said on the ketubah would be similar to wedding vows but with financial promises, none of which are really enforceable from a woman's point of view really unless there are very special circumstances.

IOW, marriage and a ketubah are two different things. That's all that concerns us here.

[Kabuki Joe]

He doesn't know.



...you win again...

[Codename Section]

It's not snark, Code. I honestly find your ideology corrupt, dangerous, and diseased. That's not a personal remark and I hope you don't take it that way. I get called a racist all the time, for example. I deal with it. When I speak this way I do so because I care. These are important matters.

Yes, in theocratic societies priests tend to be involved. You're defining the state to suit this particular argument. Tomorrow, it will be something else.

Which ideology is "corrupt dangerous and diseased"? That man does not need an all powerful central state? Or that people should be allowed to live their lives with personal choice?

I've always defined the state as a centrally governing body with a monopoly on force and involuntary participation. Religion is voluntary. Tribes are voluntary. I do not participate or have the choice to voluntarily participate in this system.

It's not rocket science. Force and involuntary action is the state. Free will and voluntary participation is anarchism, religion, and tribal governance.

[Chloe]

IOW, marriage and a ketubah are two different things. That's all that concerns us here.

Well yes, marriage is different from a ketubah. The ketubah is just a Jewish wedding contract that goes hand in hand with the secular governments marriage license. A Jewish couple would have both, and they are both contracts.

[Codename Section]

Yes, in the hands olf religious authorities. Hey, lets do that here. :wink:

Do you think I have a problem with that? Marriage is a religious institution, not a state run one.

[Kabuki Joe]

Sex is not a factor in marriage. You can have all the sex you want outside of marriage. Marriage is about finances and (less important these days) love.


...what?...you realize that most marriages end when the sex does...

[Mister D]

Which ideology is "corrupt dangerous and diseased"? That man does not need an all powerful central state? Or that people should be allowed to live their lives with personal choice?

I've always defined the state as a centrally governing body with a monopoly on force and involuntary participation. Religion is voluntary. Tribes are voluntary. I do not participate or have the choice to voluntarily participate in this system.

It's not rocket science. Force and involuntary action is the state. Free will and voluntary participation is anarchism, religion, and tribal governance.

OK so it's a "centrally governing body with a monopoly on force and involuntary participation"? It's also different than pre-modern forms of government at least in terms of Western Civilization? Do I have that right? Are you sure? OK then the "state" has not been involved in marriage for all of recorded history. That's because the "state" is a modern phenomenon. I stand corrected.

[Mister D]

Do you think I have a problem with that? Marriage is a religious institution, not a state run one.

It's a cultural institution and, yes, I think you have a huge problem with that. You don't want the benefits that marriage entails which of course makes marriage meaningless. Revisit Rook's earlier point about abolishing marriage.

[Bob]

It's a cultural institution and, yes, I think you have a huge problem with that. You don't want the benefits that marriage entails which of course makes marriage meaningless. Revisit Rook's earlier point about abolishing marriage.

Make no mistake, this boils down to money. When democrats pass laws that grant cash or tax savings, homosexuals want to be cut in.

But how about polygamy? What stops them now that you want homosexuals included.

Then close relatives will want to marry to collect the same benefits.

I suppose it can't end at just homosexuals.

[Codename Section]

OK so it's a "centrally governing body with a monopoly on force and involuntary participation"? It's also different than pre-modern forms of government at least in terms of Western Civilization? Do I have that right? Are you sure? OK then the "state" has not been involved in marriage for all of recorded history. That's because the "state" is a modern phenomenon. I stand corrected.

You can ask me a question without all the added stuff.

There is a difference between governance and government, between government and a state, and there is a difference between religion and state, although they can all act similar. Before there was a state there was marriage. There is all sorts of archaeological evidence of rituals binding people together and it was done by priests.

Family has always been the domain of religion.

[Codename Section]

It's a cultural institution and, yes, I think you have a huge problem with that. You don't want the benefits that marriage entails which of course makes marriage meaningless. Revisit Rook's earlier point about abolishing marriage.

I want some of the benefits that marriage entails. I don't think that the state should grant 1000+ privileges and obligations to that union and then define it that it exclusive.

There are religions practicing voluntary polygamy and they are excluded. I think if religion came first, religion should define it and I'm sure that doesn't make all homosexuals happy either unless they join the unitarians, I guess.

[Peter1469]

...I agree...but the problem is no one needs to get married to have sex anymore...women don't hold back until after the wedding, they give it out within the first few weeks of meeting a guy...and then they wonder why the guy stops calling after a few months...well, he's already found another cow to milk...and remember, when something is free, no one appreciates it...

why would we need to get married to have sex?

Puritans anyone?

[Peter1469]

The only real benefits are passing on your estate and non-contractual benefits (like social security).


I want some of the benefits that marriage entails. I don't think that the state should grant 1000+ privileges and obligations to that union and then define it that it exclusive.

There are religions practicing voluntary polygamy and they are excluded. I think if religion came first, religion should define it and I'm sure that doesn't make all homosexuals happy either unless they join the unitarians, I guess.

[Gerrard Winstanley]

...50 years ago homosexuals were considered weirdos...you liberals have opened up a door you shouldn't have but it's too late now...
Though it was shunned, at no point was homosexuality held tantamount to rape / exploitation. Pedophilia always has been.

[Green Arrow]

...what?...you realize that most marriages end when the sex does...

Considering only about half of all marriages end, no, "most" marriages don 't end because of sex. You could only really make the claim that most of the marriages that end ended because the sex stopped, but you'd have to prove that claim.

[Gerrard Winstanley]

It's not an attempt to avoid the facts, it's mockery. Blackrook is a religious extremist that is always preaching god's judgement because America doesn't follow the Bible. I'm pointing out that the Bible does not jive with Blackrook's overwhelming need for big government.
There you're very wrong. All religions form the basis of a quasi-totalitarian belief system. Taken literally, as Blackrook undoubtedly does, the Bible could be read as comprehensive life instruction through a 2000 year-old Judaic prism.

[Green Arrow]

There you're very wrong. All religions form the basis of a quasi-totalitarian belief system. Taken literally, as Blackrook undoubtedly does, the Bible could be read as comprehensive life instruction through a 2000 year-old Judaic prism.

I'm just talking about the marriage issue. Stoning people for working on the wrong day is obviously stupid tyranny :tongue:

[Gerrard Winstanley]

I'm just talking about the marriage issue. Stoning people for working on the wrong day is obviously stupid tyranny :tongue:
At any rate, it endorses massive government in all walks of life.

[Codename Section]

There you're very wrong. All religions form the basis of a quasi-totalitarian belief system. Taken literally, as Blackrook undoubtedly does, the Bible could be read as comprehensive life instruction through a 2000 year-old Judaic prism.

God, unlike the state, has yet to smite anyone in a while, therefore I believe Jesus was an anarchist.

[Peter1469]

Considering only about half of all marriages end, no, "most" marriages don 't end because of sex. You could only really make the claim that most of the marriages that end ended because the sex stopped, but you'd have to prove that claim.

I did see an interesting article not long ago that basically said, if you fight and then have sex your relationship is still strong. If you fight and don't have sex any longer your relationship is over.

[Kabuki Joe]

why would we need to get married to have sex?

Puritans anyone?


...you don't anymore...the women call it ridding themselves of chains, and the men say "hallelujah"...it's a great time to be a male if you want free sex but for a female that wants traditional marriage and family, not so great...

[Kabuki Joe]

Though it was shunned, at no point was homosexuality held tantamount to rape / exploitation. Pedophilia always has been.


#1 - ok, the NORMAL pairing is heterosexual

#2 - anything that doesn't go along with NORMAL would be considered ABNORMAL

#3 - you figure it out from here

[Peter1469]

...you don't anymore...the women call it ridding themselves of chains, and the men say "hallelujah"...it's a great time to be a male if you want free sex but for a female that wants traditional marriage and family, not so great...

There are a lot of reasons men shy away from traditional marriage these days.

[Kabuki Joe]

Considering only about half of all marriages end, no, "most" marriages don 't end because of sex. You could only really make the claim that most of the marriages that end ended because the sex stopped, but you'd have to prove that claim.


...god you are an idiot...

[Green Arrow]

I did see an interesting article not long ago that basically said, if you fight and then have sex your relationship is still strong. If you fight and don't have sex any longer your relationship is over.

Naturally, because sex provides intimacy and familiarity. There's also science involved but I don't do science so you'll have to ask someone else about that aspect. It's something to do with endorphins.

[Green Arrow]

...god you are an idiot...

As I thought, you don't have an argument. You're talking out of your ass.

[Captain Obvious]

Jupiters cock I think.

[Gerrard Winstanley]

#1 - ok, the NORMAL pairing is heterosexual

#2 - anything that doesn't go along with NORMAL would be considered ABNORMAL

#3 - you figure it out from here
Fuck the norm. Is anybody getting hurt? No.

[Gerrard Winstanley]

...god you are an idiot...
Of all the things you can say about @Green Arrow (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=868), he's no idiot.

[Ransom]

Of all the things you can say about @Green Arrow (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=868), he's no idiot.

As has become the norm, Winstanley, you're wrong about this too.

[Gerrard Winstanley]

As has become the norm, Winstanley, you're wrong about this too.
Oh, wait, you're just talking shit again.

[Adelaide]

The ability to have the same privileges as an opposite sex couple seems to be the end goal. I don't think gays and lesbians want world domination, although that could be kind of fun/awesome.

[sotmfs]

...no, they want you to think of them as "normal" which they aren't...

Really?You know what homosexuals want?They informed you that they want to be thought of as normal?
I think you do not know what they want and you do not care.

[sotmfs]

...it sure makes you look good saying that... :) ...one small tidbit you need to add to this, "as long as I agree with it"...that needs to go right in between LIFE and AND...
No ,you do not have to agree with anything you do not want to agree with.

[sotmfs]

Related to NORMAL http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/normalSynonymsaverage (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/average), common (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/common), commonplace (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/commonplace), cut-and-dried (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cut-and-dried) (also cut-and-dry (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cut-and-dry)), everyday (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/everyday), garden-variety (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/garden-variety), ordinary (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ordinary), prosaic (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/prosaic), routine (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/routine), run-of-the-mill (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/run-of-the-mill), standard (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/standard), standard-issue (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/standard-issue), unexceptional (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/unexceptional), unremarkable (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/unremarkable), usual (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/usual), workaday (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/workaday)Antonymsabnormal (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/abnormal), exceptional (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/exceptional), extraordinary (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/extraordinary), odd (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/odd), out-of-the-way (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/out-of-the-way), strange (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/strange), unusual




#1 - ok, the NORMAL pairing is heterosexual

#2 - anything that doesn't go along with NORMAL would be considered
(http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/unusual)abnormal (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/abnormal), exceptional (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/exceptional), extraordinary (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/extraordinary), odd (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/odd), out-of-the-way (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/out-of-the-way), strange (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/strange), unusual (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/unusual)
#3 - you figure it out from here
(http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/unusual)

[sotmfs]

...you aren't answering the question, if we can't discriminate against homosexuals over their sexual preference how can we discriminate against pedophiles?...we aren't talking about the act, we are talking about the preference...

Consenting Adults versus non-consenting children.Children can not make decisions adults are allowed to make.

[sotmfs]

...you don't anymore...the women call it ridding themselves of chains, and the men say "hallelujah"...it's a great time to be a male if you want free sex but for a female that wants traditional marriage and family, not so great...

You don't anymore? You never did,unless you chose not to have sex until you were married.

[Kabuki Joe]

As I thought, you don't have an argument. You're talking out of your ass.


...I said:


...what?...you realize that most marriages end when the sex does...


...you said:


Considering only about half of all marriages end, no, "most" marriages don 't end because of sex. You could only really make the claim that most of the marriages that end ended because the sex stopped, but you'd have to prove that claim.

...when a relationship comes to the point that there is no sex anymore, regardless of what lead to the couple not wanting to have sex with each other anymore, the marriage is over...so...like I said, "most marriages end when the sex does"...the "no sex" isn't the cause of a bad relationship, it's the end effect of a bad relationship...is this really that complicated you idiot?...god you make my head hurt...

[Kabuki Joe]

Fuck the norm. Is anybody getting hurt? No.


...so you admit homosexuality isn't normal?...

[Kabuki Joe]

Of all the things you can say about @Green Arrow (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=868), he's no idiot.


...I agree...he's way past idiot...

[Kabuki Joe]

Really?You know what homosexuals want?They informed you that they want to be thought of as normal?
I think you do not know what they want and you do not care.

...yes I do...they want what we all want, to play house...but it's abnormal to play house with same-sex couple...look at what I said, ABNORMAL...I didn't say BAD, or WRONG, or EVIL, just ABNORMAL...

[Kabuki Joe]

Related to NORMAL http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/normal

Synonymsaverage (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/average), common (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/common), commonplace (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/commonplace), cut-and-dried (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cut-and-dried) (also cut-and-dry (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cut-and-dry)), everyday (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/everyday), garden-variety (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/garden-variety), ordinary (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ordinary), prosaic (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/prosaic), routine (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/routine), run-of-the-mill (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/run-of-the-mill), standard (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/standard), standard-issue (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/standard-issue), unexceptional (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/unexceptional), unremarkable (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/unremarkable), usual (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/usual), workaday (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/workaday)Antonymsabnormal (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/abnormal), exceptional (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/exceptional), extraordinary (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/extraordinary), odd (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/odd), out-of-the-way (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/out-of-the-way), strange (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/strange), unusual




#1 - ok, the NORMAL pairing is heterosexual

#2 - anything that doesn't go along with NORMAL would be considered
(http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/unusual)abnormal (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/abnormal), exceptional (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/exceptional), extraordinary (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/extraordinary), odd (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/odd), out-of-the-way (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/out-of-the-way), strange (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/strange), unusual (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/unusual)
#3 - you figure it out from here
(http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/unusual)


...and this somehow disproved what I said?...

[Kabuki Joe]

Consenting Adults versus non-consenting children.Children can not make decisions adults are allowed to make.


...we are talking about the sexual preference not the act...so you are ok with discriminating against a sexual preference?...

[Kabuki Joe]

You don't anymore? You never did,unless you chose not to have sex until you were married.


...look around my liberal friend, pre-marital sex is now the standard so why should I buy the cow when the milk is free?...

[Peter1469]

...I agree...he's way past idiot...

Warning: Stop calling members names please

[sotmfs]

...look around my liberal friend, pre-marital sex is now the standard so why should I buy the cow when the milk is free?...

Why?Because you believe pre-marital sex is wrong.Nothing wrong with that.You choose.

[patrickt]

What do homosexuals want? I mean, what's the end game?

It looks like you've won on same-sex marriage. Pretty soon it will be legal in every state.

Congratulations, I guess, you got what you wanted.

Will you be happy after that?

Or will something new be demanded of us?

As I read the thread topic I was reminded of the day I was chatting with a friend and he kept referring to "the gay community" and voicing the opinion, thoughts, ideas, and so forth of "the gay community". I told him I wanted to have Judy, Rod, Chuck, Carla, Bill, Wayne, and Bruce come over so I could take a photo of "the gay community".

He started to grin because the point was obvious. Not only were the people I invited over each quite different from the others they seemed to have an intense dislike for each other.

The point is, is there a consensus among gay any more than there is with heterosexuals? I know for a fact that my friend and Dan Savage have no common view on what's wanted.

I'm a heterosexual. Does that mean all heterosexuals want what I want? Of course not. How about most? I doubt it. I suspect the same is true to homosexuals, the French, blacks, and construction workers.

[Kabuki Joe]

Why?Because you believe pre-marital sex is wrong.Nothing wrong with that.You choose.


...did I say pre-marital sex is wrong?...

[sotmfs]

...did I say pre-marital sex is wrong?...

That was the impression I got.No you did not say that.Did I get the wrong impression?

[Kabuki Joe]

That was the impression I got. No you did not say that. Did I get the wrong impression?

...does that answer your question?...

[Gerrard Winstanley]

...so you admit homosexuality isn't normal?...
In the same way left-handedness isn't normal.

[Kabuki Joe]

In the same way left-handedness isn't normal.

...no spin, yes or no?...

[sotmfs]

...does that answer your question?...

NO.

[Kabuki Joe]

NO.


...another person that makes concessions...

[Max Rockatansky]

...no spin, yes or no?...

Like left-handedness, and I am one, homosexuality isn't "normal" with "normal" being defined as "average". About 90% of the human population is right-handed. Most equipment is geared for right-handers such as guns, guitars and golf clubs. About 98% of the human population is straight. Most of our sexual morality is based on straights. That doesn't mean that left-handers and gays are "abnormal" as in being wrong or immoral, but some people do believe that way.

The word "sinister" is based on "favoring the left-side". We applaud a leader's "right hand man", but consider a "left-handed compliment" as an veiled insult. It's considered devious. A person labeled as "Out in left field" is considered odd, strange. It was within my life time that teachers tried to persuade students from writing left-handed. It wasn't that more before my years that more brutal techniques were used such as tying a child's left hand behind their backs or only allowing them to eat using a spoon that was sharpened on one side to prevent them from eating left-handed. Nowadays people consider such actions barbaric and find left-handers to be only a momentary curiosity, not social deviants or in league with the Devil.

However, I'm sure there will always be people who consider left-handers to be evil, "abnormal" and abominations in the eyes of God since "it's in the Bible".


Genesis 48:13-19 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Genesis%2048.13-19)
13And Joseph took them both, Ephraim in his right hand toward Israel's left hand, and Manasseh in his left hand toward Israel's right hand, and brought them near to him. 14And Israel stretched out his right hand, and laid it upon Ephraim's head, who was the younger, and his left hand upon Manasseh's head, guiding his hands wittingly; for Manasseh was the firstborn.15And he blessed Joseph, and said, God, before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac did walk, the God which fed me all my life long unto this day, 16The Angel which redeemed me from all evil, bless the lads; and let my name be named on them, and the name of my fathers Abraham and Isaac; and let them grow into a multitude in the midst of the earth.
17When Joseph saw his father placing his right hand on Ephraim's head he was displeased; so he took hold of his father's hand to move it from Ephraim's head to Manasseh's head.18And Joseph said unto his father, Not so, my father: for this is the firstborn; put thy right hand upon his head.19And his father refused, and said, I know it, my son, I know it: he also shall become a people, and he also shall be great: but truly his younger brother shall be greater than he, and his seed shall become a multitude of nations.


Matthew 25:33-34 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Matthew%2025.33-34)...41 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Matthew%2025.41)
33And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.
34Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:
…
41Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels


Matthew 6:3 (http://biblehub.com/matthew/6-3.htm) But when you do alms, let not your left hand know what your right hand does:

Ecclesiastes 10:2 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ecclesiastes+10:2&version=NKJV) A wise man's heart is at his right hand; but a fool's heart at his left.

Psalm 118:15-16 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Psalm%20118.15-16) 15 (http://bible.cc/psalms/118-15.htm) Shouts of joy and victory resound in the tents of the righteous:
“The Lord’s right hand has done mighty things! 16 (http://bible.cc/psalms/118-16.htm) The Lord’s right hand is lifted high; the Lord’s right hand has done mighty things!”

Psalm 16:11 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=psalms%2016:11) Thou wilt shew me the path of life: in thy presence is fulness of joy; at thy right hand there are pleasures for evermore

Psalm 110:1 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Psalm%20110.1) A Psalm of David. The Lord says to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool.”

[Mister D]

Like left-handedness, and I am one, homosexuality isn't "normal" with "normal" being defined as "average". About 90% of the human population is right-handed. Most equipment is geared for right-handers such as guns, guitars and golf clubs. About 98% of the human population is straight. Most of our sexual morality is based on straights. That doesn't mean that left-handers and gays are "abnormal" as in being wrong or immoral, but some people do believe that way.

The word "sinister" is based on "favoring the left-side". We applaud a leader's "right hand man", but consider a "left-handed compliment" as an veiled insult. It's considered devious. A person labeled as "Out in left field" is considered odd, strange. It was within my life time that teachers tried to persuade students from writing left-handed. It wasn't that more before my years that more brutal techniques were used such as tying a child's left hand behind their backs or only allowing them to eat using a spoon that was sharpened on one side to prevent them from eating left-handed. Nowadays people consider such actions barbaric and find left-handers to be only a momentary curiosity, not social deviants or in league with the Devil.

However, I'm sure there will always be people who consider left-handers to be evil, "abnormal" and abominations in the eyes of God since "it's in the Bible".


Genesis 48:13-19 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Genesis%2048.13-19)
13And Joseph took them both, Ephraim in his right hand toward Israel's left hand, and Manasseh in his left hand toward Israel's right hand, and brought them near to him. 14And Israel stretched out his right hand, and laid it upon Ephraim's head, who was the younger, and his left hand upon Manasseh's head, guiding his hands wittingly; for Manasseh was the firstborn.15And he blessed Joseph, and said, God, before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac did walk, the God which fed me all my life long unto this day, 16The Angel which redeemed me from all evil, bless the lads; and let my name be named on them, and the name of my fathers Abraham and Isaac; and let them grow into a multitude in the midst of the earth.
17When Joseph saw his father placing his right hand on Ephraim's head he was displeased; so he took hold of his father's hand to move it from Ephraim's head to Manasseh's head.18And Joseph said unto his father, Not so, my father: for this is the firstborn; put thy right hand upon his head.19And his father refused, and said, I know it, my son, I know it: he also shall become a people, and he also shall be great: but truly his younger brother shall be greater than he, and his seed shall become a multitude of nations.


Matthew 25:33-34 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Matthew%2025.33-34)...41 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Matthew%2025.41)
33And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.
34Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:
…
41Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels


Matthew 6:3 (http://biblehub.com/matthew/6-3.htm) But when you do alms, let not your left hand know what your right hand does:

Ecclesiastes 10:2 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ecclesiastes+10:2&version=NKJV)A wise man's heart is at his right hand; but a fool's heart at his left.

Psalm 118:15-16 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Psalm%20118.15-16) 15 (http://bible.cc/psalms/118-15.htm) Shouts of joy and victory resound in the tents of the righteous:
“The Lord’s right hand has done mighty things! 16 (http://bible.cc/psalms/118-16.htm) The Lord’s right hand is lifted high; the Lord’s right hand has done mighty things!”

Psalm 16:11 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=psalms%2016:11) Thou wilt shew me the path of life: in thy presence is fulness of joy; at thy right hand there are pleasures for evermore

Psalm 110:1 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Psalm%20110.1) A Psalm of David. The Lord says to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool.”

I have seen some laughable exegesis but this really takes the cake.

[Captain Obvious]

Did anyone say butt sex yet?

[Max Rockatansky]

Did anyone say butt sex yet?

"Butt sex". Rump ranger. Bunk buddies. Fudge packer. I think the list of homosexual pejoratives is pretty extensive.

[Bob]

http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Max Rockatansky http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://thepoliticalforums.com/showthread.php?p=530992#post530992)
Like left-handedness, and I am one, homosexuality isn't "normal" with "normal" being defined as "average". About 90% of the human population is right-handed. Most equipment is geared for right-handers such as guns, guitars and golf clubs. About 98% of the human population is straight. Most of our sexual morality is based on straights. That doesn't mean that left-handers and gays are "abnormal" as in being wrong or immoral, but some people do believe that way.

The word "sinister" is based on "favoring the left-side". We applaud a leader's "right hand man", but consider a "left-handed compliment" as an veiled insult. It's considered devious. A person labeled as "Out in left field" is considered odd, strange. It was within my life time that teachers tried to persuade students from writing left-handed. It wasn't that more before my years that more brutal techniques were used such as tying a child's left hand behind their backs or only allowing them to eat using a spoon that was sharpened on one side to prevent them from eating left-handed. Nowadays people consider such actions barbaric and find left-handers to be only a momentary curiosity, not social deviants or in league with the Devil.

However, I'm sure there will always be people who consider left-handers to be evil, "abnormal" and abominations in the eyes of God since "it's in the Bible".


Genesis 48:13-19 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Genesis%2048.13-19)
13And Joseph took them both, Ephraim in his right hand toward Israel's left hand, and Manasseh in his left hand toward Israel's right hand, and brought them near to him. 14And Israel stretched out his right hand, and laid it upon Ephraim's head, who was the younger, and his left hand upon Manasseh's head, guiding his hands wittingly; for Manasseh was the firstborn.15And he blessed Joseph, and said, God, before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac did walk, the God which fed me all my life long unto this day, 16The Angel which redeemed me from all evil, bless the lads; and let my name be named on them, and the name of my fathers Abraham and Isaac; and let them grow into a multitude in the midst of the earth.
17When Joseph saw his father placing his right hand on Ephraim's head he was displeased; so he took hold of his father's hand to move it from Ephraim's head to Manasseh's head.18And Joseph said unto his father, Not so, my father: for this is the firstborn; put thy right hand upon his head.19And his father refused, and said, I know it, my son, I know it: he also shall become a people, and he also shall be great: but truly his younger brother shall be greater than he, and his seed shall become a multitude of nations.


Matthew 25:33-34 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Matthew%2025.33-34)...41 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Matthew%2025.41)
33And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.
34Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:
…
41Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels


Matthew 6:3 (http://biblehub.com/matthew/6-3.htm) But when you do alms, let not your left hand know what your right hand does:

Ecclesiastes 10:2 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ecclesiastes+10:2&version=NKJV)A wise man's heart is at his right hand; but a fool's heart at his left.

Psalm 118:15-16 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Psalm%20118.15-16) 15 (http://bible.cc/psalms/118-15.htm) Shouts of joy and victory resound in the tents of the righteous:
“The Lord’s right hand has done mighty things! 16 (http://bible.cc/psalms/118-16.htm) The Lord’s right hand is lifted high; the Lord’s right hand has done mighty things!”

Psalm 16:11 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=psalms%2016:11) Thou wilt shew me the path of life: in thy presence is fulness of joy; at thy right hand there are pleasures for evermore

Psalm 110:1 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Psalm%20110.1) A Psalm of David. The Lord says to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool.”


I have seen some laughable exegesis but this really takes the cake.\\

I for one found that very interesting.

When I was in the Army, one of the guys in my unit told me how he wanted to be an Army helicopter pilot, so he was able to go take some sort of test. He told me later that he was denied because even though what he did was right handed, they claimed his natural inclination was to be left handed. They took such things into account as to what arm he put a watch on or what rear pocket he put his wallet in. I am a pilot yet nobody ever told me I could not fly because of something like that. I am right handed by the way. My wallet is in my right hand rear pocket and my watch is on my left wrist. And I used to nail those landings as my instructor admitted.

I don't feel comfortable using my left hand to get my wallet should it be in the left rear pocket and I use my right hand to put my watch on.

But I did find that post by Max to be very interesting.

[Bob]

"Butt sex". Rump ranger. Bunk buddies. Fudge packer. I think the list of homosexual pejoratives is pretty extensive.

When I posted on an AOL forum, I got the boot for saying some of those terms. AOL sucks.

[Mister D]

[/I][/COLOR]

\\

I for one found that very interesting.

When I was in the Army, one of the guys in my unit told me how he wanted to be an Army helicopter pilot, so he was able to go take some sort of test. He told me later that he was denied because even though what he did was right handed, they claimed his natural inclination was to be left handed. They took such things into account as to what arm he put a watch on or what rear pocket he put his wallet in. I am a pilot yet nobody ever told me I could not fly because of something like that. I am right handed by the way. My wallet is in my right hand rear pocket and my watch is on my left wrist. And I used to nail those landings as my instructor admitted.

I don't feel comfortable using my left hand to get my wallet should it be in the left rear pocket and I use my right hand to put my watch on.

But I did find that post by Max to be very interesting.

I didn't.

[Max Rockatansky]

When I posted on an AOL forum, I got the boot for saying some of those terms. AOL sucks.A couple of Left-Wing forums are equally intolerant. You could say "cracker", "honky" and "redneck" all day long, but use a homosexual or black racial pejorative and you were censored plus thread-banned...if you were lucky.

[Max Rockatansky]

[/I][/COLOR]

\\

I for one found that very interesting.

When I was in the Army, one of the guys in my unit told me how he wanted to be an Army helicopter pilot, so he was able to go take some sort of test. He told me later that he was denied because even though what he did was right handed, they claimed his natural inclination was to be left handed. They took such things into account as to what arm he put a watch on or what rear pocket he put his wallet in. I am a pilot yet nobody ever told me I could not fly because of something like that. I am right handed by the way. My wallet is in my right hand rear pocket and my watch is on my left wrist. And I used to nail those landings as my instructor admitted.

I don't feel comfortable using my left hand to get my wallet should it be in the left rear pocket and I use my right hand to put my watch on.

But I did find that post by Max to be very interesting.

My BA was in Psychology with strong focus on Behavioral Psych. My best and longest research paper was on "Bilateral Dominance". When in both the Marine Corps and Navy, about 50% of the pilots in my squadrons (I was in four different ones) were left-handed. Flying, and other spatial relation fields like SCUBA diving, favor left-handers. That said, except for the question on my annual medical form asking handedness, it never came up in the service. My years were 1975-1997.

[Bob]

http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Bob http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://thepoliticalforums.com/showthread.php?p=531004#post531004)


\\

I for one found that very interesting.

When I was in the Army, one of the guys in my unit told me how he wanted to be an Army helicopter pilot, so he was able to go take some sort of test. He told me later that he was denied because even though what he did was right handed, they claimed his natural inclination was to be left handed. They took such things into account as to what arm he put a watch on or what rear pocket he put his wallet in. I am a pilot yet nobody ever told me I could not fly because of something like that. I am right handed by the way. My wallet is in my right hand rear pocket and my watch is on my left wrist. And I used to nail those landings as my instructor admitted.

I don't feel comfortable using my left hand to get my wallet should it be in the left rear pocket and I use my right hand to put my watch on.

But I did find that post by Max to be very interesting.[/I][/COLOR]


I didn't.

Well, a lot of posts do not interest me. I simply check them out and move on.

Why bother saying what you said?

I find at times Max does not agree with me nor me him. But he did bring something interesting up.

[Bob]

A couple of Left-Wing forums are equally intolerant. You could say "cracker", "honky" and "redneck" all day long, but use a homosexual or black racial pejorative and you were censored plus thread-banned...if you were lucky.

I got permanently banned from a forum where the owner of the forum came out and admitted he is bi polar and really has some fucked up thinking. I tried to be nice to him and he kept looking for a fight. Then he fucked me over. It has some decent posters but some who are republicans, and I am one, sure misused the forum.

I did not know a thing about these type of diagrams. A woman on the forum got onto my case because I wanted information to learn about them.

These types. I am trying to recall what they are called.

http://www2.ferrum.edu/applit/studyg/FolkDi9.gif

[Max Rockatansky]

Well, a lot of posts do not interest me. I simply check them out and move on.

Why bother saying what you said?

I find at times Max does not agree with me nor me him. But he did bring something interesting up.

Mister D is just being contrarian because I raised a stink about the KKK. Apparently he's taken offense at that for some reason. I don't know why.

[Mister D]

Mister D is just being contrarian because I raised a stink about the KKK. Apparently he's taken offense at that for some reason. I don't know why.

no, I just found your exegesis laughable. Sorry if that offends you.

[Max Rockatansky]

I got permanently banned from a forum where the owner of the forum came out and admitted he is bi polar and really has some fucked up thinking. I tried to be nice to him and he kept looking for a fight. Then he fucked me over. It has some decent posters but some who are republicans, and I am one, sure misused the forum.

I did not know a thing about these type of diagrams. A woman on the forum got onto my case because I wanted information to learn about them.

These types. I am trying to recall what they are called.

http://www2.ferrum.edu/applit/studyg/FolkDi9.gif


It's a Venn diagram.

I'm sure moderation of many forums would be better if the pay were better. :D

Obviously the owner and/or the Admin of forum has a lot of input into how it is run, who is selected as mods and the general slant, if any, of the forum. Some lean left, some lean right, some (like this one) don't lean. It just like a good boxing referee who says "I want a clean fight. Shake hands. Now fight!"

[Max Rockatansky]

no, I just found your exegesis laughable. Sorry if that offends you.

I'm not offended at all. It's expected of you.

[Mister D]

I'm not offended at all. It's expected of you.

It should be. I take what you say seriously. If I shouldn't let me know.

[Bob]

My BA was in Psychology with strong focus on Behavioral Psych. My best and longest research paper was on "Bilateral Dominance". When in both the Marine Corps and Navy, about 50% of the pilots in my squadrons (I was in four different ones) were left-handed. Flying, and other spatial relation fields like SCUBA diving, favor left-handers. That said, except for the question on my annual medical form asking handedness, it never came up in the service. My years were 1975-1997.

This must have been early in 1963 over in Germany when he told me that. Maybe he was bull shitting me. I think he was angling for being a warrant officer pilot. Were you a pilot and/or officer?

As a pilot, I can't see any way that either hand would be an advantage.

Why would somebody rule him out for being a right handed who they claimed actually should be a left hander?

When I trained to be a pilot, the instructor always had me flying left seat. And once licensed, I always flew left seat.

What is strange is once I landed, and in my car, I noticed I was slightly pulling on my steering wheel as I went up hills. It does no good in driving cars to pull or push your steering wheel. LOL

[Bob]

It's a Venn diagram.

I'm sure moderation of many forums would be better if the pay were better. :D

Obviously the owner and/or the Admin of forum has a lot of input into how it is run, who is selected as mods and the general slant, if any, of the forum. Some lean left, some lean right, some (like this one) don't lean. It just like a good boxing referee who says "I want a clean fight. Shake hands. Now fight!"

Well, thank you very much. I kept thinking vedic. I knew that was wrong. I graduated high school in 1956 and had never run across venn diagrams. And it was not because of my math since I went clear up into calculus. But she made a big deal out of my not having heard of venn diagrams. I learned a lot about them when I decided to look into them.

Oh yes, Jim had total control over his forum. He had some moderators whom I got along well with. It was him being an ass is all but as he was bi polar as was his son, I tried to cut him some slack. I had no problem with his forum other than maybe 3-5 real bad asses who it seemed to me, Jim let do what they wanted to do. The woman that jumped on me about Venn diagrams was or had been a teacher in Chicago and she made a big fucking deal out of my ignorance. I took a semester of psychology in college but let it go at that. I also asked my kids if they heard of Venn diagrams and they said they had. So I suppose it was the era of when I went to school.

I thought Jim leaned right and we had no problems over politics. But when one of his pets jumped all over me, at first I handled it myself. Then he got on me and I told him I was defending. He says, well tell him and he will handle it. Trouble is, I saw no evidence he handled it. Anyway, some he let go wild and some he booted.

I told some of his posters by mail about another good forum where the activity is just too little and he banned me.

I told him, hell I had told the new forum about his forum too. But he banned me for telling people by PM of a different forum.

What I like here is that some can sort of fight and when there are warnings, they are in that pink block box so they stick out. Also, I don't see threats to ban posters.

[Max Rockatansky]

This must have been early in 1963 over in Germany when he told me that. Maybe he was bull shitting me. I think he was angling for being a warrant officer pilot. Were you a pilot and/or officer?Both, but not by choice. My dad started out as Army enlisted, then went to OCS in 1958, became an armor officer then, in 1963, a pilot. He retired in 1975. My plan was the Army WOC program: High school, WOC school, flight school, Vietnam. That's how gung ho I was. That program shut down in 1973 and I graduated HS in 1974. The only way to be a military pilot was the officer route. That meant college. Also, unlike WOs, officers are officers first, pilots second. That sucked for me.


As a pilot, I can't see any way that either hand would be an advantage.

Why would somebody rule him out for being a right handed who they claimed actually should be a left hander?

When I trained to be a pilot, the instructor always had me flying left seat. And once licensed, I always flew left seat. It's not the hand that makes the difference, but the brain. We're cross-wired with Left brain controlling right side and Right brain controlling left side. The brain halves are different with the Left brain being more segmented and structured into language, math, etc and the Right brain being more holistic with more non-linear/non-logical functions like spatial relations, ideas, etc. Since most Left-handers use this type of Right brain, they have a slight advantage at spatial relations and intuition. Some Left-handers (very rare) are "mirror-image Right handers" where the brain functions are flipped but identical as regular Right-handers except for the mirror-image part.

The pilot seat thing is merely a toss-up for standardization. The aircraft commander/PIC of a helicopter sits in the right seat for the simple reason the first helicopters were single pilot and it was easier to construct a collective in the center of the helicopter. The tradition carries forward to this day.