Post #183,483
11/8/04 12:56:24 PM
|
Want to clarify that?
Is this a continuation of the thinking that 50something percent of people hate gay people?
They only started hating them when they weren't allowed to hate black people anymore.
And you wonder...thinking like that and speaking out like that...what really pisses off the middle 50?
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #183,489
11/8/04 1:11:54 PM
|
That's BS, and you know it
They only started hating them (gay people) when they weren't allowed to hate black people anymore.
You are saying that people didn't hate faggots back in the 1950's and earlier. Are you going to tell us next that anti-sodomy laws got passed by accident?
I've got some olds for you. (It ain't news so I ain't calling it news.) People hated faggots way back when. Plenty still do. That isn't a change.
How many? 50%? I don't know. I suspect that far fewer than that would admit to hating gays, but many more would admit to being uncomfortable around them. And many who would say that they don't hate gays will also say that they don't think that gays should actually indulge in gay behaviour. (Love the sinner but not the sin...)
So I'd guess that well over 50% would admit to positions which most gays would interpret as "hating gays" even though the people who are asked would deny hating gays.
Cheers,
Ben
I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
|
Post #183,491
11/8/04 1:26:09 PM
|
Man.
I suppose I should spell it out for you.
Its simple phrasing.
The left doesn't even know how to ask the question without doing it in a condescending, devisive manner.
That was my point in the retort above.
Clear now?
And if you ACTUALLY think that the entire voting block are "faggot hating bigots"...then be glad that you aren't among those trying to win the next election.
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #183,512
11/8/04 2:06:09 PM
|
Bill accuses others of condescention, divisivness
The projection is quite amusing. All that was missing was accusing them of being dismissive and sarcastic.
-----------------------------------------
How do you convince a Washington Journalist that you're not slapping him in the face?
Tell him you're not.
|
Post #183,523
11/8/04 2:40:02 PM
|
Nope.
But it wouldn't be the same unless you rolled out at least one ad hominem.
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #183,549
11/8/04 3:52:29 PM
|
Bill provides valuable counterpoint
although he sometimes leaves the actual statement of his point as an exercise for the reader.
Kind of like a fortune cookie.
"The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them." --Albert Einstein
"This is still a dangerous world. It's a world of madmen and uncertainty and potential mental losses." --George W. Bush
|
Post #183,551
11/8/04 3:56:19 PM
|
Sometimes that's on purpose.
and sometimes I spend a couple dozen posts paying the price for it ;-)
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #183,624
11/8/04 8:35:46 PM
|
Where to begin?
First of all in your retort you introduced a ton of negative assumptions that were not justified in what you replied to. Those assumptions fueled statements that came out of the blue. Statements like, They only started hating them when they weren't allowed to hate black people anymore.
You're the one who introduced the word "hate" to the conversation.
Furthermore when Todd restated his exact statement to lay out why he thought it applied, you thought that it was better, and you're inclined to agree. The only differences were that he laid out the case for applying his description to those people, and he laid out the mindset from which he was working. What differed between [link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=183480|http://z.iwethey.org...?contentid=183480] and [link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=183490|http://z.iwethey.org...?contentid=183490] in your view? I really don't know except that you took objection to one but not the other.
Finally as I tried to make clear, I don't think that most Americans would recognize themselves in the description, "hate gays." But I think that most gays would recognize most Americans in that description. And I described some of the reasons for that discrepancy.
Please read that and tell me whether you think my described position is true. (Not whether it is a convenient thing to say politically, just true.)
Cheers,
Ben
I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
|
Post #183,640
11/8/04 9:13:08 PM
|
Yes and no.
I think your position is largely true.
I think your description of their "perception" is probably true.
I think that perception is incorrect.
And if you can't figure out why I'm charging the speech like this (even after I've told you why) then I can't help you. No...going that far off the deep-end likely wasn't justified in response to that single post.
In the additive, though, it should be more understandable >if< you are beginning to understand what drove voters this election. If you are no nearer that understanding let me know...I'll gladly keep this up.
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #183,648
11/8/04 10:13:44 PM
|
Can I play?
Let's see. Bill makes a statement that is plausibly true. A strict reading of the words he used can't be said to be horribly out of line with reality. But "everyone" on the other side of the debate "knows" what he "really means" by it, and gets really worked up by it.
Now in this case, he's using the code words designed to get liberals all worked up, to the point they really want to participate. Whether it's really his position doesn't matter. Whether his position is strictly defsensible doesn't matter. What matters is that by using the right buzzwords and playing the right tune, he's got people worked up and interested in expressing an opinion.
What might happen if someone who really does this for a living decides to play the same tune, but in a minor key, and using their opponents' words for lyrics?
Do I win the kewpie doll, Bill?
===
Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link|http://DocHope.com|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats].
[link|http://DocHope.com|http://DocHope.com]
|
Post #183,670
11/8/04 11:51:57 PM
|
"Code words"
Gotta love those neo-con code words ;-)
My training in this posting methodology came at the hands of a former member and nemesis.
But if you really want a kewpie doll....
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #183,907
11/12/04 12:29:24 AM
|
Yup, Brandioch would nail you at the outset.. stead o' in
dribbles.
I prefer the nibbling to death by ducks.. as antidote to your nibbling to death by scripted imprecision.
(Especially in your seeing no major distinction between Kerry and Shrub - now There's a Rorschak if there ever were one, sans inkblots: ab=ba; digital Laffer Curve R'Us)
|
Post #183,652
11/8/04 10:47:50 PM
|
We part company at the third sentence
At least in part.
I believe that a lot of people who say that they don't hate gays, but will admit to being uncomfortable around them, really are homophobic but won't admit it to themselves. Not all. But enough that I'd guess that over 50% of the population is homophobic.
Note that I consider you homophobic if you claim to love gays but think that it is wrong to allow them to have gay sex. Which the position that many evangelicals take.
Cheers,
Ben
I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
|
Post #183,669
11/8/04 11:48:19 PM
|
And I think you overestimate...
...the numbers. Because I think the majority don't care >up to a point<. That point is where it becomes an open issue..at which point they become uncomfortable just as they would a discussion of any other sexual issue in public.
Liken the above to the simple statement "you can do whatever you want, I don't need to know about it".
But thats generally not good enough for the activist..who will push and push until they get to the point where the person says "enough". Then we get to your point...where that cry of "enough" is all that is need to bring about the...
"See, I told you you >really do< hate gays".
I'm not denying that homophobes exist...or that evagelical folks consider the behavior unnatural...they certainly are there...but I don't think they are there in the numbers you think...and I don't think that it had as much to do with the election results as is being made of it.
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #183,767
11/9/04 12:17:26 PM
|
And here's my belief
I agree with you about sexuality. And to me the point where it is inappropriate for a homosexual should be the same as the point where it is inappropriate for a heterosexual. Neither should be fucking in public.
Therefore if heterosexuals get to say that they are married, then homosexuals should as well.
Cheers,
Ben
I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
|
Post #183,816
11/9/04 5:59:47 PM
|
To what end?
Therefore if heterosexuals get to say that they are married, then homosexuals should as well. So they can then say they're divorced? So they can pay more taxes? Go after the specifics...what is it about "marriage" that is being sought? Go after those benefits/curses/whatever. You see, I don't think these are the only objectives. I don't think its just equal rights being sought. It if is, then the movement does itself a disservice by attacking "the traditional" head on. I think there's a baser level acceptance being sought...and simply the act of seeking that "approval" creates a backlash. Look, I hate to be the one to say that a group needs to be more PC to accomplish its objectives....(but I just did). If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #183,833
11/9/04 7:59:43 PM
|
Benefits and obligations go hand in hand
If you can get married, then you can get divorced. Under the same terms as heterosexuals. The law should give equal treatment.
I don't disagree that gays really would like equal treatment from everyone. However doing that through the government means regulating expressions of personal opinion. I'm a lot more leery of that.
I also agree with you that any attempt by a disliked minority to assert themselves will result in a backlash. However I disagree that it is a useless endeavour, some will prove sympathetic who otherwise would never have thought about it. Whether that is worthwhile though, is harder to say.
But giving them equal treatment from the government is a no-brainer for me. While I understand that some object, and I intellectually understand why, at a gut level I can't even begin to sympathize with that position.
Cheers,
Ben
I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
|
Post #183,842
11/10/04 2:26:19 PM
|
We both agree...
...that equal treatment under the law is a no brainer.
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #183,490
11/8/04 1:20:29 PM
|
OK
The people who voted to ban gay marriage
1) Most likely don't know any gay people
2) If they meet any they are going to pretend they don't exist and get away
3) But they still want to tell the people they don't know and won't associate with how to live their lives.
I buy the "right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" clause as well as the "your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose" test.
Anything beyond that is meddling in people's lives and unamerican.
----
And you wonder...thinking like that and speaking out like that...what really pisses off the middle 50?
I like to think the middle 50 is a "live and let live" group. Am I wrong? It seems like trying to ban waltzes and polka because I believe that dancing should be to a 4/4 beat.
"The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them." --Albert Einstein
"This is still a dangerous world. It's a world of madmen and uncertainty and potential mental losses." --George W. Bush
|
Post #183,494
11/8/04 1:33:12 PM
|
Better.
And I'm inclined to agree with you.
Concerning to me are the states that voted against civil union as well because it will make the effort of legisltation more difficult.
Of major concern, the right to inherit, the visitation rights, the financial rights all would pass with majority in my opinion. Its when they are all tied together and associcated with "marriage" that you get that reactionary style vote...becasue then you get the mental pictures of folks on the steps in the "religious style" ceremonies.
Its that level of "flaunting", if you will...that many people have a problem with. Hell, alot of Americans have problems with public displays of >hetero< affection, ferchrissakes.
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #183,519
11/8/04 2:29:33 PM
|
That sentence is too long
Hell, alot of Americans have problems with public displays of >hetero< affection, ferchrissakes.
That is better written as, Hell, alot of Americans have problems.
HTH,
Ben
I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
|
Post #183,521
11/8/04 2:39:05 PM
|
Thats a universal
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #183,584
11/8/04 5:42:11 PM
|
Marriage should be meaningless then...
... in the legal sense, anyway.
If you want a religious marriage, fine. But it will bestow no legal rights upon you. For gay and hetero alike, you'll be forced to have a "civil union" if you want all the rights conferred therein.
When a hetero couple says they're married, "Yeah, so, are you legally bound?"
thanks
mx.
"I'm man enough to tell you that I can't put my finger on
exactly what my philosophy is now, but I'm flexible."
-- Malcolm X
|
Post #183,588
11/8/04 5:50:21 PM
|
This, I agree with.
Imric's Tips for Living
- Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
- Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
- Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
|
Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
|
|
Post #183,589
11/8/04 5:51:25 PM
|
Shrug...they'll lose in the end anyway.
The rights aspects - visitation, inherit and financial can all be handled with simple (standard) contracts. Some Constitutional issues, confidentiality between husband and wife, aren't easy to fix but don't come up that often.
What will happen (what I've called for anyway) is to change the approach of Gays and Lesbians. Forget aiming merely for marriage. Aim instead to create a convenant (with a different name) that is 'higher' than marriage - harder to enter into and harder to break out of. (Example: upon 'divorce' all mutually owned funds are given to charity rather than divided amount the participants).
Give it 5 years. With divorce rates as they are, anyone who wants to prove that they are 'committed' to each other will slowly drift to this new convenant: homosexual or hetrosexual.
|
Post #183,730
11/9/04 9:10:31 AM
|
Re: Shrug...they'll lose in the end anyway.
What will happen (what I've called for anyway) is to change the approach of Gays and Lesbians. Forget aiming merely for marriage. Aim instead to create a convenant (with a different name) that is 'higher' than marriage - harder to enter into and harder to break out of. (Example: upon 'divorce' all mutually owned funds are given to charity rather than divided amount the participants). Using your given example, what exactly are the benefits to this "higher" institution? And how would it benefit me, and why would I choose it? Speaking as a divorced person, being required to forfeit all of my "mutually owned funds" (including the house which I now solely inhabit) upon divorce doesn't sound palatable. Give it 5 years. With divorce rates as they are, anyone who wants to prove that they are 'committed' to each other will slowly drift to this new convenant: homosexual or hetrosexual. I'm sorry, but I don't necessarily see that. I have a friend who has been with the same woman for 25 years. They've been married for 19. 3 kids together. And she's just revealed that it's been a "marriage of convenience" for her. Oh, and that it's no longer convenient. So he should be forced to give away everything he's worked for over the last quarter-century? How will that help his kids, and keep them off the streets of South-Side Chicago? -YendorMike
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin, 1759 Historical Review of Pennsylvania
|
Post #184,845
11/22/04 10:30:09 PM
|
Sorry for the delay....
I've been very busy as of late... Using your given example, what exactly are the benefits to this "higher" institution? And how would it benefit me, and why would I choose it? Speaking as a divorced person, being required to forfeit all of my "mutually owned funds" (including the house which I now solely inhabit) upon divorce doesn't sound palatable.
You're arguing a logical approach to a convenant - in effect arguing what are the benefits to be gained versus the risks being taken. (That's a good thing.) Marriage is often entered into without this planning. In fact, there is the argument that marriage is entered into lightly because divorce is made 'simple'. (It's not simple, it never is, but that argument is sometimes made.) The benefit would be threefold : first the use of the name of the covenant (being able to claim that you are in said covenant) and the (hopefully) increased awareness of the significance of the convenant and (again hopefully) the decrease in divorces (or breaking of the covenant) as more people would be aware of what they are getting into and the cost of getting out of it.
I have a friend who has been with the same woman for 25 years. They've been married for 19. 3 kids together. And she's just revealed that it's been a "marriage of convenience" for her. Oh, and that it's no longer convenient. So he should be forced to give away everything he's worked for over the last quarter-century? How will that help his kids, and keep them off the streets of South-Side Chicago?
Short answer, it won't. (I didn't claim it was perfect). But, it would also prevent her from getting anything. It may give pause before the next couple thinks of "tying the knot." The financials that I suggested were just one possibility. Another might dictate counseling for both parties before entering the convenant. (However, I have no statistics that suggest that would make the arrangement more palatable to the parties in 25 years.) In short, I have no magic pill that will keep people together. Personally, I believe it morally wrong to try to keep people together when they (actually even if just one of them) don't want to be together. This will not prevent divorce. My sole argument for Gays and Lesbians to take the higher moral ground, and in doing so, could surplant both criticism for their convenants and may even attact others to them.
|
Post #183,574
11/8/04 5:25:26 PM
|
I would vote against that
1. I know gay people and at least 2 are friends
2. I work with gay folk daily
3. I dont beleive in atheists getting married either
I am married because I took vows in a religious ceremony, that marriage only holds the relationship in regards to my religious beleifs and should not have ANY impact on anyone elses frame of mind.
I do resent 2 gay people getting married in a courthouse then declaiming they are the same as me.
I would not resent any 2 gay people married in a religious ceremony by anyone wishing to do that and would respect that position and treat them as an equal couple.
The problem is not me telling people how to live, its resentment of the state telling me how I must live, I reserve the right to like who I choose, not like only those folks the state requires me to like.
regards,
daemon
that way too many Iraqis conceived of free society as little more than a mosh pit with grenades. ANDISHEH NOURAEE
|
Post #183,578
11/8/04 5:28:39 PM
|
Why should I care that *you* were married in a courthouse?
===
Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link|http://DocHope.com|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats].
[link|http://DocHope.com|http://DocHope.com]
|
Post #183,583
11/8/04 5:34:25 PM
|
I wasnt, I dont beleive in state marriages for anyone,
that way too many Iraqis conceived of free society as little more than a mosh pit with grenades. ANDISHEH NOURAEE
|
Post #183,634
11/8/04 9:05:12 PM
|
We've been down this road before
Here are some questions for you anyways. I know that you don't think that I'm really married (I'm an atheist, married in a civil ceremony only). Where in the following chain of cases do you draw the line between what you accept as marriage and what you don't? Why do you draw the line there? It is OK to say that one case is not clearly on one side or the other, in that case please state when it would be a marriage to you and when it wouldn't be a marriage. - Married in a church by a priest of your brand of Christianity.
- Married in a church by a priest a different brand of Christianity (some brand you don't fully agree with, eg Catholic or Southern Baptist).
- Married by a priest of a different brand of Christianity (some brand you don't fully agree with, eg Catholic or Southern Baptist).
- Married by a rabbi. (Christianity minus Christ.)
- Married in a traditional muslim ceremony. (Sort of Christianity plus a lot of stuff)
- Married in a traditional Hindu ceremony. (Note that Hindus do not believe in anything resembling Christian notions of God. But they have lots of gods.)
- Married in a traditional Buddhist ceremony. (Buddhists do not generally accept anything resembling our notions of deities.)
- Married in a Wiccan ceremony. (The practice and beliefs of Wicca in the USA is..fluid. And then some.)
- Declare themselves to be married.
Any further responses from me will depend on knowing what criteria you use. Cheers, Ben I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
|
Post #183,676
11/9/04 12:04:19 AM
|
married by Ashton Brown would suffice
and you are close enough for a rematch
as for your list even your last example means more to me than a civil marriage in the courthouse/state rep/state anything
do I accept that you are married? Yes, she Hasnt left you yet.
Do I wish you would regular it?
Yes call ash, declare yourself married by personal fiat I regard that different.
Since in person you delared yourself by fiat (last year or the year before, dont remember) you are/have been "married" in my eyes
that automagically invokes the "rule of the North"
you cannot woo a sexual encounter with any woman you ever met while you have ever met the "husband"
unless she is a "hottie" and you wish to assert your claim via fisticuffs except when the husband is obviously pussy whipped and the woman is a cunt then all bets are orf
we can ifdef from there but that is baseline
regards,
daemon
that way too many Iraqis conceived of free society as little more than a mosh pit with grenades. ANDISHEH NOURAEE
|
Post #183,678
11/9/04 12:09:20 AM
|
Speaking of Ashton... (new thread)
Created as new thread #183677 titled [link|/forums/render/content/show?contentid=183677|Speaking of Ashton...]
"It's not where a person stands in time of comfort and security, but rather where they stand in times of strife and controversy that determine true friends."
(Quote sent to me by a true friend, author unknown).
|
Post #183,680
11/9/04 12:12:53 AM
|
more I think about it the more
you should tell me to fuck off, it aint my business to determine wether you and "your wife" are married, its a declaration that as a free American I must acceptuntil you declare otherwise,
apologies,
regards,
daemon
that way too many Iraqis conceived of free society as little more than a mosh pit with grenades. ANDISHEH NOURAEE
|
Post #183,765
11/9/04 12:12:45 PM
|
In which case...
if two gay men who are old enough to know what they are doing hold a ceremony and declare themselves married, would you now be inclined to say that that's their business and they are now married until events prove otherwise?
Because that is my position right there. Given that the state cares to treat marriages differently than non-marriages, I think that the state should treat gay marriage like heterosexual marriage.
Cheers,
Ben
I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
|
Post #183,781
11/9/04 1:24:28 PM
|
already said that a couple of posts up :-)
that way too many Iraqis conceived of free society as little more than a mosh pit with grenades. ANDISHEH NOURAEE
|
Post #183,823
11/9/04 6:56:02 PM
|
Re: In which case...
This might almost be the place to bring up marriage being exclusively between man and woman...
Um. Based on what criteria? Appearance? Plumbing? (Current or at birth?)
Although not terribly common, what to do with indeterminate gender?
Maybe count chromosomes? Measure hormone balance?
How about the ability (or desire) to breed?
Should get interesting when someone ABnormal requires that the terms be defined.
CraigB
|
Post #183,826
11/9/04 7:40:16 PM
|
It could always be made more complicated.
Howdy. It looks like you've been around here a long time, #129. You should post more. :-)
Gender can be complicated. That's one of the reasons why I think concentrating on gender is missing the big picture.
My view is that society should support families. It should encourage people to get together to support each other, take care of each other, raise children (if so inclined), etc. The difficulty comes in defining a family.
There's a long history of ship's captains, and judges, and even priests marrying people. That seems to me to be a tradition worth preserving.
Up until recently, and even now in some societies, multiple simultaneous wives were not uncommon. The US decided that was a bad thing, so it's not allowed now.
There are financial and social benefits bestowed on marriage. There are also personal, financial, and psychological benefits to being married.
My grandfather and his sister lived in the same house after their spouses died. They were a family even though they weren't married to each other. It was better for both of them to stay together rather than live separately. I think society should encourage that when possible. I think they should be able to claim the same tax deduction that a married couple could. I think they should be able to have the same survivor benefits of a spouse without the necessity of a will (though everyone should have a will). Etc.
So how should a "family" be defined so that it fits with all of this? Maybe two adults living together who make a commitment to each other. It could be fairly simple ((e.g. my grandfather, his sister, and my uncle (who helped care for them)), or get complicated (an adult man with 2 unrelated women? 3 adult men with 5 unrelated women?). Should the government get out of the secular marriage business? No, I don't think so. Should marriage be redefined? No, I don't think so but might be persuaded. I think though that by conferring benefits on families rather than married couples would take care of a lot of the problems.
My $0.02.
Cheers,
Scott.
(Who now worries about the backlash from single people...)
|
Post #183,909
11/12/04 1:10:01 AM
|
This fine Human suggestion is____entirely too___*sane*
to fly amidst a bunch of religio-zealots who have just appointed a Certified Village Idiot (and coterie of fiends) to - shepherd their Bagman-with-the-Codes for Terran Destruction, at-will.
ie Not a snowball's chance in figmentary-Xian-Hell of any such blindingly Sane legislation ever occurring!
You Silly.
|
Post #183,908
11/12/04 1:02:14 AM
|
As a Reverend in the Universal Life Church
I have in fact, married three couples. One was doomed from the first by youthful insouciance; a second lasted about 15 years and the third - persists.
As to this thread..
You cannot untangle the pernicious busybodiness of the average Murican Xian --
ill-informed about the contradictions within his so-called gospels,
suffused with the built-in Tribble-like Born-PregnantGuilty AND Sinfilled perpetually..
All wrapped-together within that smug sense of being amidst the Only-True Certainty
[Essential corollary re all others, natch: And You Aren't! ]
No Wonder there's all this dissension about the Holy State of Matrimony, esp. as practised by such hypocrites .. as dare disparage the FULLY-EQUIVALENT..
I Divorce You I Divorce You I Divorce You traditions of the non-Christers they Love-to-Despise. (ie everybody-Not-moi cha cha cha)
Sorry, but, 'rational discussion' of the strange, mean-spirited, Hugely-intolerant superstitions of The Majority -- is itself side-splitting. in a Tom Lehrer sort of way.
I Who Be
|
