Tom the Dancing Bug by Ruben Bolling for August 13, 2010

So if two men marry, who’s the husband and who’s the wife? Doesn’t marriage produce a husband and a wife?

I don’t know if that island is aptly named; a coconut isn’t much of a desert; especially without ice cream.

^And not necessarily. Sometimes a marriage produces bitter enemies.

Guess not, hugh_jainus. Welcome to the 21st century, where christian mythology is trumped by the US Constitution.

But not to worry…there are a lot of religious fundies working to overturn the Constitution, now that “strict construction” has failed them.

Jo Jo, just to reassure us, you *do* know the difference between “desert” and “dessert”, right?

150 years ago if people voted they would have kept slavery. That’s why we have a constitution and the supreme court.

is that why the minority-man was sent to die ?

murder and same-sex marriage on the same level ?

i dun thin’ so…

Myming, are you suggesting that equal rights should be abandoned if death is not the result?

Marriage is made up of two spouses. There, that wasn’t so hard, was it?

Depends how you define “spouses”, Wiwo.

Do you want to offer the christian religious definition for our government to use?

Number 1000, and it’s a good one!

Marriage, n: the state or condition of a community consisting of a master, a mistress, and two slaves, making in all, two. –Ambrose Bierce

I actually began to go downstairs to my bookshelves to find Bierce’s “Devil’s Dictionary” to look up that definition. Then I came to my senses and did a 5-second Google search. My bookshelves are going to waste.

Since many religions (if not most) consider marriage a sacrament (or at least something ordained by God), I think any attempt by government to decide who can participate violates the separation of church and state. Therefore the government needs to get out of the marriage business altogether.

I think everyone that wants the legal rights we currently give married people should file a civil union document with the government. If they want to get married too, find a church that is willing to marry them off – or have a friend, parent or shaman do it. The marriage would have no legal component; the civil union contract would have no religious meaning.

That would be the best solution, Chrisnp.

Unfortunately, the same people who use forcing-their-religious-mythology-on-others as an excuse for their anti-gay bigotry would be loathe to have the government get out of the marriage business.

Chrisnp - I agree, that’s the best solution.

Government Ruling on GM = OK Government Taxing the Church = Not OK

I guess you CAN have it both ways.

Hmmm. This is what Dictionary.com says about the definition of marriage:

“a relationship in which two people have pledged themselves to each other in the manner of a husband and wife, without legal sanction: trial marriage. ”

So who is the husband and who is the wife?

Much like everything else, they take turns. ;)

Dictionary definitions reflect usage, and do not create it. Judges may refer to dictionary definitions in their decision-making capacity, but they need not defer to them; those dictionaries do not themselves carry the weight of law. (And of course, dictionaries differ from one another in places.)

Whatever term you want to use, it has been ruled unconstitutional to deny same-sex couples the same rights, privileges, and protections under the law that opposite-sex couples enjoy. And since, in the interests of judicial economy, it is senseless to have separate but identical treatment of the two types of unions, it is pragmatic to use the term “marriage’ for both (since that’s the term already in use). No doubt many if not all dictionaries which use “husband and wife” in their current entries for “marriage” will revise in subsequent editions (as so many definitions are revised to reflect changes in usage).

A reminder: Prior to the passage of Prop. 8, the California Supreme Court had already ruled that same-sex couples had a right to be married under state law. What Judge Walker ruled on was the constitutionality of the established rights of a minority being revoked by majority vote (not on the constitutionality of same-sex marriage per se). As a button which was popular here after Prop. 8 passed asked, “When do I get to vote on YOUR marriage?”

(HAPPY #1000, Ruben!)

Hugh: “Who is the husband and who is the wife?”

The answer is: who cares? It affects things how?

They can both be the husband, both be the wife, switch every other Thursday. The semantics is up to them.

Great cartoon, Ruben!

Yeah! In California I can marry two wives!

Where did you come up with that idea, Jim?

“wrong question. who should vote on the governments qualifications to be in the union and what will be the guidelines in order to keep such a legal partnership statues?”

Wronger still. Marriage carries legal status, and the government has a right to regulate the legalities of marriage, although not the spiritual/ritual aspects.

Compare with the sacrament of baptism. Baptism confers no legal right in this country, so the government has no standing to regulate baptisms.

Fritzoid, that is why I think marriages should carry no legal status, because there are spiritual aspects that the government should not be regulating. The spiritual aspect is entwined in what constitutes a marriage and who is allowed to partake in what many hold to be a sacrament.

If there were legal civil union contracts required for all couples regardless of sexual orientation and marriages were unrelated ceremonies with no legal standing, there would not be “separate but identical treatment of the two types of unions.” There would be only one legally recognized document, which would be independent of the traditional religious/heterosexual concept of marriage.

By separating the legal document from the religious observance, we maintain the separation of church and state, and the argument about what constitutes a marriage becomes irrelevant . I fear, however, that Anthony is correct, that those self described defenders of marriage would be loath to consider the loss of its legal status. Further, I think that the GOP uses this issue to stir up their base, and finding a compromise does not benefit them.

Either way would be fine with me, Chrisnp; rather, if the legal ramifications of marriage were simply called something else, most of the same-sex couples I know would be perfectly satisfied. Simply calling them “civil unions” would be OK so long as they carried all the same privileges of civil marriage, but it makes no sense to have separate terms for the same thing.

But marriage has ALWAYS been as much a civil institution as a religious one. When my cousin, who is deeply religious, got married he and his wife sent out announcements for the church service as the “sanctification” of their marriage, the marriage per se having been achieved when the licenses were signed.

Really, if it’s the religious folks who object to sharing the word “marriage” with purely secular partnerships, let them change THEIR word. The English word “marriage” of course appears nowhere in the original texts of either the Old or New Testaments, and is used to in reference to like ceremonies from MANY traditions other than those tracing their roots to Adam and Eve.

Ok smart guy!

What causes a person to be heterosexual? Is it a gene?

What causes a person to be homosexual? Is it a gene?

What causes a person to be a pedophile? Is is a gene?

What causes a person to be a “beastiosexual” (a word I made up, but you get the idea)? Is it a gene?

Let the games begin.

Hugh, surely you can figure this out by yourself.

Answer these questions: When did you choose to be heterosexual? And what was your life like before that?

Let religion keep the word “marriage” and decide who they want to sanctify. In the eyes of the government, “civil union” is a perfectly apt term for what the laws cover. And it can apply to any 2 people who want that status.

^ I’ve seen several people make that excellent suggestion…but has anyone ever seen a legislator (at any level) propose it?

hey fritz: Somehow you got your hands on “the original text” for the Old AND the New Testament and found that the word “marriage” doesn’t appear at all??!!!! Wow! That’s impressive! However, my copy of the King James version has the word “marriage” in it 19 times. But now I can take it on your authority that in the ORIGINAL TEXT the word does not appear at all. Thanks for clearing that up for me my little chum!

No Tony2816, I can’t figure it out myself. Please, you answer those four questions for me. Especially the last 3 of those 4 questions. If you dare. Which I don’t think you can, or will.

I don’t know about all that marriage stuff.

I was wondering why not one of them has a shirt.

hugh, correct, the English word “marriage” does not appear in the original texts. It is not a word in Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, or Latin.

Marriages existed in other cultures long before they were Christianized/Judaized (and still exist in cultures where Judeo-Christianity is not predominate). When we speak of marriages in pre-Christian Rome, we use the word “marriage”. When we speak of marriages among Polynesian tribes, we use the word “marriage.” The concept did not originate with the ancient Hebrews, nor with Jesus, with the Babylonians, the Zulus, or anyone else that we can pinpoint. Pretty much every culture ever studied has had some sort of “marriage”, with different customs and status. The term is very loosely used, and the modern religious authorities don’t have proprietary interest in it.

If I may answer the questions you posed to Anthony,

“What causes a person to be heterosexual? Is it a gene?” Perhaps. There appear to be genetic factors involved, although there are also may be fetal development factors (hormone washes in utero), as well as child-developmental factors, which bring latent potentials to the fore. Whatever the cause, there appear to be some differences in brain structure that may be related to the heterosexual/homosexual divide, at least among males. In no case does it appear that people are heterosexual because they “decide” to be, any more than the majority “decides” to be right-handed, although the left-handed might learn to write with their right, and of course there are some who are naturally ambidextrous.

“What causes a person to be homosexual? Is it a gene?” Perhaps. There appear to be genetic factors involved, although there are also may be fetal development factors (hormone washes in utero), as well as child-developmental factors, which bring latent potentials to the fore. Whatever the cause, there appear to be some differences in brain structure that may be related to the heterosexual/homosexual divide, at least among males. In no case does it appear that people are homosexual because they “decide” to be, any more than a minority “decides” to be left-handed, although the right-handed might learn to write with their left, and of course there are some who are naturally ambidextrous.

What causes a person to be a pedophile? Is it a gene? Probably not genetic. More likely psychologically based. But who knows? Perhaps a genetic connection might someday be identified. However, once again there’s no indication that anyone ever “decides” to be a pedophile. Witness how difficult it is to “cure” someone of pedophilia.

What causes a person to be a “beastiosexual” (a word I made up, but you get the idea)? Is it a gene? The word you’re looking for I believe is “zoophile”. Again, most likely psychologically based. But who knows? Perhaps a genetic connection might someday be identified. Not something one would likely “choose”, if there were an option.

Of course, it’s misleading and inflammatory (which was no doubt your intent) to equate homosexuality with either pedophilia or zoophilia. In both cases, the concept of “consent” by the desired partner is meaningless. Whatever the pathology, the destructive nature of those two acts, like rape, lies in their abuse of the object of desire, not in the desires themselves. It doesn’t matter whether the active party is convinced that “s/he was asking for it” or “s/he liked it as much as I did” (and that’s a common enough belief); it’s irrelevant, even if true. But if your 35 year-old wife dresses up like a Catholic school-girl and tells you “Oh, I’ve been so naughty, and I need my bare bottom spanked” or “Gosh, for a little doggy you’ve certainly got a big bone”, that’s between you and her.

^^^ Hugh, Fritzoid beat me to it, and also did a much better job than I would have done, so I’m going to take the easy way out and agree with what he said, although I have a feeling there may be more of a genetic component in all four cases. Like Fritz says, you wouldn’t just choose to be a pedophile or beastiosexual.

I dunno if there are any studies looking at, say, if the offspring of pedophiles have a greater chance of becoming pedophiles than the general population. Would be interesting to know.

Now then, when did you choose to be heterosexual? And what was your life like before that?

Or have you been like I was…just always heterosexual, never having to choose to be one?

^^^^^^ Jimjammer, I don’t know why not 3 or more people. For the right people, such a relationship might work. I’m sure you know, for example, that in Saudi Arabia a man can have up to 4 wives.

Not for me, though. I like the idea of having a single life partner who’s as devoted to me as I am to her. But that’s just me…I can’t speak for others.

Ironically, hugh, Janus was a god who was equally equipped for approaches from the rear as from the front.

Tony & fritz: I notice that there are plenty of “probablies and perhapses” in your “definitions”. Nothing definitive.

Translation: they’re your “opinions”.

However, in my opinion, you are close to the answer. Just as being born with two arms and two legs is physically normal, there are the same kinds of “physical malfunctions” that cause a person to be born with one arm or one leg. That’s not normal (to have one arm or one leg). Ditto with “mental” or “sexual” malfunctions: homosexuality, pedophilia, beastiality. It’s not “normal”.

It’s not as important to find out “why” someone is inclined to be sexually attracted to kids than it is to know it’s flat out not right. Both are important, but let’s start with the FACT that it is not “normal” and is wrong. Ditto with the other two sexual desires. All we can say is something went wrong somewhere in their development. “Mother Nature” herself dictates that if heterosexuality vanished, so would the other 3 sexual malfunctions — as well as all living things.

And to allow two pedophiles to “marry” and adopt kids is absolutely positively wrong. Ditto with the other two sexually malfunctioned states. Because, as you both state, there’s no definitive proof that those sexual malfunctions are not learned behavior.

And to answer your question: I’ve always been a heterosexual and have always felt as such.

And I thank God in heaven for that blessing.

You’re quite wrong when you say homosexuality isn’t normal, Hugh.

What would be abnormal would be to find a human population that has no homosexuality. It’s always been with us, and will always be with us.

Your attempts to put it in the same class as pedophilia and your beastiosexuality requires you to pretend not to notice that homosexuality involved two consenting partners.

Given that humans have been mostly heterosexual at a steady rate throughout recorded history, and are rapidly approaching 7 billion people, forgive me for rolling my eyes at your fears that we’ll become extinct if we don’t hate gays.

“And to answer your question: I’ve always been a heterosexual and have always felt as such.”

So you agree that sexual preferences is not a choice. Noted.

“And I thank God in heaven for that blessing.”

You don’t have to publicly display your religion for our benefit, Hugh. Your obvious hatred of gays marked you as a fundie christian already.

You sound exactly like Charlie555.

Actually, Hugh, Fritzoid has taken the time to give you answers based on current research, not merely his opinions. You have certainly limited yourself to your opinions. As to homosexuality being abnormal, I would like to point out that unlike pedophilia; it is not listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), which catalogues recognized psychological disorders. It used to be, but it was removed over 35 years ago, as science learned more about it. So not only are your opinions unsupported by research, they are flat out rejected by the psychiatric community as a whole.

And that’s not an opinion

Tony, Tony, Tony! You don’t get it my friend. All I’m talking about is “sexual desire”. And then you throw in an unrelated issue: “consenting adults”. I’m talking strictly and solely about “sexual desire”. Where does that “desire” come from? Where does the homosexual “desire” come from? Answer: the same place the pedophilia desire comes from. Now don’t throw in unrelated issues like “consenting adults”. Where does the desire come from?

You say this: “What would be abnormal would be to find a human population that has no homosexuality. It’s always been with us, and will always be with us.”

It also would be abnormal to have ALL humans born physically “perfect”. That has never happened and never will. Just as there have ALWAYS been pedophiles and those abnormal people who are sexually attracted to animals. Just because it has always been around does not make it “right”. Mother Nature dictates that a reproducing heterosexual populous is “normal”. All other sexual desires are not. They are mental issues.

“And then you throw in an unrelated issue: “consenting adults””

Not unrelated. It was necessary to point out a vital difference between homosexuality and pedophilia…a difference you obviously want us to ignore because it destroys your attempts to equate the two.

“Where does the homosexual “desire” come from?”

From the same place heterosexual desire comes from.

“Just because it has always been around does not make it “right”.”

Just because it’s against your religious mythology doesn’t make it wrong. Why do you insist on hating one man for loving another? They’re not doing anyone any harm.

“They are mental issues.”

The fact that you state this right after Chrisnp’s post shows you aren’t going to let facts get in the way of your bigotry.

This, from Tony: “Why do you insist on hating one man for loving another? They’re not doing anyone any harm.”

Unrelated. I love men too, even though I’m a man: I love my dad, my brothers, my male friends. But I don’t have a sexual desire to “be intimate” with them. It’s a psychological malfunction. Just as a sexual desire for animals or kids is. Period.

And who brought religion up? You did. I was talking “Mother Nature”. Nature itself teaches that sexual desire, other than heterosexual, is not “normal”.

I have plenty of friends who are homosexual. I have plenty of friends who are “a little off” mentally too. I have a couple relatives who have dementia. All three groups of people suffer from a mental malfunction. It is what it is my friend.

“It’s a psychological malfunction.”

As has already been pointed out, no, it isn’t. Why do you feel the need to keep claiming it is? It’s just a normal variant.

You know, in the past, being left handed was thought (by fundie christians, no doubt) to indicate demonic possession, and lefties were forced to try to make their right hands dominant. Turns out it’s just a normal variant, like being homosexual. No treatment, religious or otherwise, required.

“And who brought religion up? You did.”

Oh. I thought it was you, when you added “And I thank God in heaven for that blessing” to the conversation.

“Nature itself teaches that sexual desire, other than heterosexual, is not “normal”.”

I’m pretty sure we’ve already been over this. It is “normal” and natural for a small percentage of humans to be gay.

“I have plenty of friends who are homosexual.”

They must love it when you tell them they have a “mental malfunction” and a “psychological malfunction” and “mental issues”. They must be very forgiving to remain your friends.

Dude! Murderers are a normal variant too! That doesn’t make it right! When some crazy whacko ax murderers his family, he has a mental malfunction. Plain. Simple. Something ain’t right upstairs.

And just because someone believes in God, does that make them “religious” —- part of a “religion”? You’re predisposed to your own prejudices.

And you conveniently avoid what the government should do on a wholesale basis if a group of people protested for the “right” to marry a 1000 other people. Why stop at a thousand. Where does it stop. The homosexual marriage issue has brought us to that slippery slope. Enjoy the ride my friend! It’s you and your fellow liberals who have brought us to this point. When the traditional “family” disintegrates, so does society. It’s the domino affect.

That’s “progress” I guess. But the wrong kind.

“Murderers are a normal variant too!”

Repeat after me: TWO CONSENTING ADULTS. Trying to link homosexuality with murderers won’t work any better than trying to link them to pedophiles.

“And just because someone believes in God, does that make them “religious””

Well, yes, yes it does. By the way, did you capitalize “God” for any particular reason?

“And you conveniently avoid what the government should do on a wholesale basis if a group of people protested for the “right” to marry a 1000 other people”

You know, Hugh, it makes little sense for you to say I’ve avoided polygamy, given that I addressed that very issue to make Jimjammer happy earlier in this very thread. But I will point out now that it’s an entirely different subject. Go ask all those homosexual friends of yours how many of them want to marry multiple people.

“When the traditional “family” disintegrates”

Are you saying that if we allow gays to marry, I’ll have to divorce my wife?

Or are you saying you want a Constitutional amendment banning divorce?

Or are you saying that you want to force gays to marry someone of the opposite sex they don’t love, just so you can smugly feel like you’ve done them a favor?

Just what is your point, Hugh?

Hugh_jainus, you can’t claim that murder is a “normal variation” of human behavior and in the same breath label it as a psychological malfunction. You are blatantly contradicting your own argument. I haven’t read the DSM, but I’m pretty sure murdering your family with an ax falls under the definition of some sort of psychosis, and can’t be equated with sexual/romantic attraction for an adult of your own gender.

As for your fears of a polygamy/incest/pedophilia/beastiality lobby, where are they? There’s been some sort of organized movement in the western world, however small, for non-criminalization of homosexuality since the 19th century. Where are the hordes of people clamoring for the beastiality or polygamy equivalent of GLAAD or LAMBDA?

Boy, when people start deciding not to have traditional families because gay people can have legally recognized unions, I will personally deliver my apologies to you. As gay marriage is already legal in at least 5 states, and I personally know 8 “traditional” couples among my own set of friends–some of whom reside in the above-mentioned 5 states–currently planning their weddings, I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for that apology. You’re just indulging in irrational paranoia for the sake of your own bigotry.

Fritz, Anthony, Chrisnp: heroes (or at least rational people) can be hard to come by, but you guys are worthy candidates in my book.

Thanks, Jo Jo.

As far as where Hugh gets his info, it seems to me it’s from the same fundie-christian web sites that Charlie555 and Freedom/Striper77 use. If you go read the stuff on those sites, it’s pretty much identical to the thoughts reproduced here by them.

Hugh, I’m wondering how you define “natural” versus a “mental malfunction.” If the lesson you learned from “mother nature” is that sexuality is just for procreation, then isn’t a desire for heterosexual oral sex or even cuddling after intercourse unnatural since it does not lead to a baby? Isn’t it therefore a mental malfunction? Wouldn’t polygamy be more natural than monogamy, since it increases the chances of offspring? How about premarital sex? After all, animals don’t marry.

If your definition of “natural” comes from the Bible, just come out and say it. I can respect people’s religious beliefs, provided those beliefs don’t include blowing people up…or forcing others to live by their ideas of morality.

The idea of same sex marriage disintegrating the traditional family is bizarre to me. How exactly does that work? “Oh no, Dear! Two men were allowed to get married! Now we will have to divorce and our kids will end up drug addicts!” Is the traditional family really that fragile?

As for the slippery slope, was the slippery slope of allowing black people and white people to marry back then responsible for same sex marriage debate today? If that is the case, hurray for the slippery slope! Do you really think that just because same sex couples are recognized today, the gates of Sodom and Gomorrah will be flung open tomorrow?

As a side note, Anthony – Hugh is right about one thing; you have been giving off a certain irreligious vibe since your first post in this thread, although he has long since revealed himself to be a proper target for those feelings.

Postscript: Jo Jo, thank you for that kind comment. It seems like the last few posts were made while I was composing mine. Sounds like we are wrapping this up

It’s difficult to speak out against anti-gay bigotry and be pro-christian/Mormon at the same time, Chris, since it seems 99% of the anti-gay comments are rooted in those religions.

Understood :)

Nope. I’ve never been to a so-called fundie-christian webstie in my life. Ever.

“Consenting adults” makes it ok? How about Adultery? Is that ok? That generally requires two consenting adults.

I can plainly see that you are too far left to have a change of mind. So be it. “Time” will be the teacher in this case. We’ll see how this whole gay marriage thing plays out. Logic dictates the result. And it ain’t gonna be pretty! And I’ll just be a spectator.

And to answer your question: In the English language, you always capitalize proper nouns Hence: God.

The “Sodom and Gomorrah” analogy is fairly accurate. But even that didn’t happen over night. It was a process. It was the last domino. Assuming you believe the story. Which you may not and it’s ok with me. Everyone should have the right to believe what they want to believe (whatever that belief is, that IS their religion). As long as it doesn’t involve slamming jets into buildings, I say go for it.

gapin_ganus: “’Consenting adults’ makes it ok? How about Adultery? Is that ok? That generally requires two consenting adults.”

Adultery is consensual, yes, and by the way is not illegal. What adultery DOES involve, however, is violation of a commitment to fidelity that one or both parties have made to some third party (or parties). If neither party is married, it is not adultery, it’s simply fornication. There’s not even a Commandment against that. Adultery is grounds for divorce, and always has been, even before “no-fault” divorces became the norm.

“Open marriages”, where one or both parties is free to seek sexual fulfillment from third parties with the knowledge and consent of the spouse, are in my opinion unlikely to lead to a strong and lasting marriage, but are not unknown and are also, by the way, not illegal.

As far as polygamy goes (or for that matter polyandry), it was noted above that the relationships tend to be inherently unequal. Anybody who’s ever tried to organize a three-way knows that there’s always a danger that one of the participants is going to end up upset at being neglected.

Thanks fitzoid, you beat me to it. Adultery is sin in many religions, but not a crime in most states, and that’s the way it should be. In states where it is a crime, it is seldom prosecuted.

Hugh, Anthony’s remark about your capitalization is that by making it a proper noun, you did invoke the Judeo-Christian God. God with a small “g” would have referred to any deity.

Oh, and just as you’ve never been to a fundie-Christian website, I’ve never been accused by anyone who knows me of being “far left” ;)

No need for you to visit those sites, Hugh, as it seems you have the same info as they do down pat.

You didn’t spell it out for the slower-witted of us: Just how does allowing gay marriage cause the end of traditional marriage?

Since I’m in California, where gay marriages are going to start up again next Thursday, are you suggesting that I’ll have to divorce my wife? Or that I’ll suddenly be consumed with the desire to leave her and marry some guy? That would be most upsetting. Fortunately, the last time California had gay marriages, I didn’t hear of any “traditional” marriages breaking up. Did you?

Seriously, could you explain just how this works?

Regarding “Everyone should have the right to believe what they want to believe (whatever that belief is, that IS their religion)”, I agree with the first part, but not the second. The belief of atheism is obviously not a religion. That would be like saying good health is a disease.

But it occurred to me a long time ago that it wouldn’t be a good idea take away a (fundie) christian’s religion, since on multiple occasions I’ve been told that their religion is the only source of their morality. Take away the religion, and, well, not someone you’d want next door, right?

(Oh, yeah, regarding the capitalization of God, I’m aware of the rules of English. But the fact that you used the proper noun form rather than just a generic “god” proves my point that when you said “And just because someone believes in God, does that make them “religious” —- part of a “religion”?”, that it in fact the answer is Yes…otherwise you wouldn’t have used the proper noun form.)

Anthony: “I dunno if there are any studies looking at, say, if the offspring of pedophiles have a greater chance of becoming pedophiles than the general population. Would be interesting to know.”

I know studies have shown that those who were molested as children are far more likely to molest children themselves, later on. To the extent that not all child molestors are true pedophiles (molesters may get off on the power relationship, while pedophilia often involves actual “romantic love” directed towards children; and not all those who are diagnosably pedophiles act on it), that may not be what you’re asking. But it certainly lends support to the idea that “choice” is not a factor (at least in the desires, as opposed to action upon them).

What arouses us sexually, whether it arises from pathology or experience, is determined very early on, and once those stimulus/response pairings are set they’re nearly impossible to shift.

(For a good cinematic treatment of pedophilia, you might check out the movie “The Woodsman”, with Kevin Bacon. Very good movie.)

^ “I know studies have shown that those who were molested as children are far more likely to molest children themselves, later on.”

That doesn’t show genetics, though. I’m thinking that if there’s a genetic cause, it might be something passable between generations.

Or it might just be a mutation…

I did read an article that claimed there were likely to be quite a large number of potential pedophiles that do not give in to their urges. Arriving at an idea of how many isn’t really possible because those people are loathe to identify themselves, because even the label of pedophile without the act would ruin their lives. Sad, because it means they won’t seek help and must struggle alone with it.

^^ Yeah, I aknowledged that it probably didn’t answer the question you were asking, Anthony. For the reasons Chrisnip gave, it’s simply unlikely that there are enough acknowledged, non-abused, non-offending pedophiles out there for a data pool. There are support groups for adults who were molested as children, and of course children who have been molested are generally given as much counselling as deemed appropriate (including follow-up).

Interestingly (to drop pedophilia and return to homosexuality), not long ago I read of a study which suggested that the chances of a male being homosexual rise noticably if his mother had earlier borne two or more sons. Something about the changes in hormone cycles during pregnancy. Obviously, that doesn’t mean that if you have two or more older brothers you’re automatically going to be gay, or that nobody without brothers will be gay, but it’s an odd statistical bump (as I recall, there was no corresponding rise in lesbianism among girls with multiple older sisters).

It’s those sort of studies that must be completely ignored by those who claim that sexuality is a choice.

Although, as Hugh was kind enough to point out, in his case, like mine, sexuality was not a choice. It was just a recognition.

Wonder why the anti-gay people can’t accept that the same is true for homosexuals?

Last question for you Tony: you hit the nail on the head with your last post. Following through with the same logic, I ask in all sincerity for you to apply that same reasoning to this:

When do pedophiles or “beastiosexuals” (my term) recognize their sexual attractions? And – most importantly — how did that germ get there?

Whatever your answer is, I will apply it to homosexuality.

And….a last question for you Tony supporters:

If you are a man married to a woman and your wife gives birth to a baby, when you look down upon your child on the day she is born, in your heart-of-hearts, do you “hope” that she is heterosexual or homosexual? Or would it TRULY not matter to you either way?

I’m interested in someone answering that question.

^^ I dunno, Hugh. Might be genetic, might be otherwise. I think you’d be better off asking a pedophile or “beastiosexual”.

However, since you and I both have acknowledged that we have always recognized our sexuality, I rather think that pedophiles and “beastiosexuals” might have a similar answer.

So go ahead and apply whatever to homosexuality, and explain why we should use your answer to hate homosexuals, rather than grant them the same marriage rules that heterosexuals enjoy…to be able to marry the partner they love.

^^ Hugh asks, “Or would it TRULY not matter to you either way?”

Hugh, I’d honestly hope my children would be heterosexuals, solely so they wouldn’t have to endure the hatred of people like you. If not for that, I honestly wouldn’t care.

Now, since I’ve once again answered your questions, would you be willing to extend me the same courtesy for the question I’ve asked you, and you’ve ignored?

You didn’t spell it out for the slower-witted of us: Just how does allowing gay marriage cause the end of traditional marriage?

Since I’m in California, where gay marriages are going to start up again next Thursday, are you suggesting that I’ll have to divorce my wife? Or that I’ll suddenly be consumed with the desire to leave her and marry some guy? That would be most upsetting. Fortunately, the last time California had gay marriages, I didn’t hear of any “traditional” marriages breaking up. Did you?

Seriously, could you explain just how this works? I acknowledge you’ve had a rough evening here, trying to rationalize your bigotry to multiple posters, but I’m sure this shouldn’t be too much of a challenge for you, given the number of times you’ve told us how gay marriage will be the end of “traditional marriage”, so I’ll keep checking back here in the hopes of benefiting from your wisdom.

hugh, When I was just a little boy, I asked my mother “What will I be?” “Will I be handsome? Will I be rich?” Here’s what she said to me: “Que sera, sera, whatever will be, will be. The future’s not ours to see, Que sera, sera.”

We have hopes for our children, as we have hopes for ourselves. In cases where the results are beyond our control, those hopes are irrelevant, and can in fact be damaging if they turn into expectations that cannot be met.

As Anthony said, why would we hope our children are born to a lifetime of hatred and condemnation? (That’s the same reason why it’s so unlikely that someone would “choose” to be gay.) We hope they will be happy, healthy, and fulfilled. None of those are incompatible with homosexuality.

“But my religion and sense of superiority tell me that homosexuals cannot be happy. Therefore I will do everything I can to keep them unhappy, which is further evidence that homosexuals cannot be happy.” And yet, they are happy nonetheless.

I’ve stated before that I live in San Francisco, and I’m straight. Contrary to the widespread perception, heterosexuals in San Francisco still vastly outnumber homosexuals. But on a community level (there are of course still exceptions), we simply don’t care whether the man or woman standing next to us on the bus, or selling us our television, or fixing our plumbing, or teaching our children, or performing our surgeries, is gay or straight. It’s a non-issue (unless we’re personally attracted to that individual, and are thinking of asking for his/her digits). Gay couples hold hands walking down the Embarcadero, as do straight couples. Gay couples kiss each other goodbye when they’re dropped off at work, as do straight couples. If the thought of seeing that causes your gorge to rise, the problem is with you, not them. The reason Gay Pride parades make such good propaganda for the mouth-breathing fundamentalists is that it shows that there are homosexuals out there who aren’t properly consumed by shame and self-loathing, which they see as a direct slap in the face of the Book of Leviticus, and St. Paul (Jesus never said a word on the subject, except maybe “It is not what goes in a man’s mouth which defiles him, but what comes out of it”).

No doubt even you, hugh, have heard stories of parents who’ve disowned their gay children. “Coming out” to your parents is one of the hardest things many lesbians and gay men have ever had to do. It’s hard on the parents, it’s hard on the child. But fortunately, many parents of gay children end up being fully acceptant of their offspring as they are. For many, it’s much easier now than it would have been 30 years ago, because understanding of homosexuality is more widespread (although you, hugh are proof enough that there is still a lot of ignorance out there). In some cases, the parents have known or suspected long before the child is his- or herself ready to raise the subject.

Love your children for who they are, not for who you want them to be.

Hell, my Mom was a Music major in college, and taught woodwinds professionally before she had kids. My siblings and I began music lessons early (in my case, cello, French horn, and guitar (serially, not simultaneously)), and I’m sure it was a huge disappointment to her that none of us ended up being concert musicians. But she loves me with my cartooning and my Shakespeare, and supports me in the fulfillment of myself as I am, even though I’m not who she might have “hoped” I’d be.

Anthony, there might be something worth learning about pedophilia in twin studies. No doubt some of those who have been diagnosed as pedophiles (either with or without criminal action) have identical twins, and I would imagine somebody has thought of examining the twin. Twin studies can be useful in identifying genetic/biological links to traits (either positively or negatively), even if they don’t necessarily demonstrate heritability.

I’ve only had close contact with one pair of identical twins in my life, and they’re both lesbians (of a fairly self-evident variety). I don’t know what the incidence among identical twins is for having different orientations, but I’m sure studies have been done.

Note however that most of the cases of poly-marriage in the USA have been ones where there is one man, several wives, and the wives are barred from full economic participation in society. This set-up ends up creating, from the State’s point of view, several “single mothers” at below poverty level incomes (since one income can’t support them all) which become burdensome to the State. I can see a compelling argument for the State to bar such.

On the contrary, this is a reason that the state should recognise plural marriage. The way that the FLDS practises it, a man divorces (civilly only, it doesn’t count as a religious divorce) his previous wife when he marries a new wife. So now suddenly you’ve got a ‘single’ mother in the eyes of the state who’s entitled to welfare benefits. But she’s really still married, both by her family’s religious standards and by the ruling that any outside anthropologist would make. If the state recognised plural marriage, then they could also count her as still married, and stop what really amounts to fraud (however poetically just) on the part of the FLDS.

(FLDS = Fundamentalist Church of Latter-day Saints, not to be confused the mainstream LDS church, which banned plural marriage over 100 years ago and today leads the fight against same-sex civil marriage.)

Drklassen, I hope I didn’t give the impression that I think all Christians are anti-gay. What I said was the reverse, that most anti-gay people are Christians (and Jewish/Mormon/Muslim, etc.)

My point was that if you took away all the anti-gay people who base their views on their own religion, there’d be very few anti-gay protesters left.

Hey boys! I’ve been away on assignment with my job! (Someone has to work to pay taxes for the dems!)

A ray of sunshine:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100816/apon_reus/usgaymarriage_trial

Yes, Mabel! There is a God!

As of now, it’s still illegal for “gheys” to marry in California!

Oh. One more thing. If one of you boys sees Barney Fwank, tell him to check this out:

http://realclearpolitics.com/polls/

You do the math!

Hugh, your http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100816/aponreus/usgaymarriagetrial link gives a 404 Page Not Found error. Try it again, perhaps with tinyURL.com?

BY the way, you told us all that “I’m interested in someone answering that question”, yet you completely ignored the answers given to you. Too difficult?

Now, since I’ve once again answered your questions, would you be willing to extend me the same courtesy for the question I’ve asked you, and you’ve ignored?

You didn’t spell it out for the slower-witted of us: Just how does allowing gay marriage cause the end of traditional marriage?

Since I’m in California, where gay marriages are going to start up again next Thursday, are you suggesting that I’ll have to divorce my wife? Or that I’ll suddenly be consumed with the desire to leave her and marry some guy? That would be most upsetting. Fortunately, the last time California had gay marriages, I didn’t hear of any “traditional” marriages breaking up. Did you?

Seriously, could you explain just how this works? I acknowledge you’ve had a rough evening here, trying to rationalize your bigotry to multiple posters, but I’m sure this shouldn’t be too much of a challenge for you, given the number of times you’ve told us how gay marriage will be the end of “traditional marriage”, so I’ll keep checking back here in the hopes of benefiting from your wisdom.

Given your track record, I won’t hold my breath waiting for a reply.

Ok Tony, my gay little friend, here’s a response to your cacophony of ramblings:

Of course, for liberals, such as yourself, you always look out into the world and see situations and say to yourself “How is this going to affect ME?” If the theoretic or apparent answer is “it won’t”, then you say “Go for it”. However, a clear thinking person (translation: a conservative) sees the same situation and says “How will this affect the people involved?” You see, a conservative is more likely to believe the “Am I my brother’s keeper?” philosophy than a liberal. Homosexuality is a dead end for those involved. In the long run, it will reap harm to those involved. And when one member of society is harmed, we all are.

The floods in Pakistan? Do they affect your marriage? Solve the conundrum, my slow-witted friend.

hugh, gay marriage will not affect me, nor will it affect Anthony. Neither of us is gay. It’s those IN FAVOR of Prop. 8 who have been trying to argue that recognizing gay marriages will affect their own marriages. One of the reasons Walker ruled as he did was that, even when directly asked, the proponents of Prop. 8 were unable to show how the straight majority would in any way be harmed by recognizing same-sex marriage.

If your argument is that “homosexuals must not be indulged in their homosexuality, for their own good”, that battle has been fought, and your side lost. Even if you can legislate against homosexual acts (and it’s now the law of the land that you can’t), it would not result in a decline in the number of homosexuals in the world, any more than outlawing left-handedness would result in a drop in left-handed babies. It’s not a disease, it can’t be “cured”, and the majority of homosexuals would not want a “cure” if it were available.

“In the long run, it will reap harm to those involved. And when one member of society is harmed, we all are.”

I agree with the SECOND part of your statement, which is why I support gay rights. If one “undesireable” minority is oppressed, what’s to stop them from coming after ME if they don’t like my looks? “When they came for the Jews, I did not speak, because I was not a Jew.” (Of course, many of those who believe that gays will burn in hell for all eternity believe the same about Jews, citing the same Book.)

It is precisely “those involved” who are the strongest advocates for same-sex marriage. Despite repeated questions from Anthony, you’ve never once answered the question of how opposite-sex marriages would in any way be affected by recognition of same-sex marriage.

And to equate the extension of marriage privilege to same-sex couples with the floods in Pakistan is not only inflammatory but absurd. The suffering of homosexuals is the result of the institutionalized and entrenched intolerance of peoplle like yourself. Remove the hatred, and you remove their suffering. “Judge not, lest ye be judged.” “Let he among you who is without sin cast the first stone.” “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” How would you feel if YOU were told that you were damned to hell for loving whom you love? I sincerely doubt the Pakistanis are saying “It’s our flood, it’s our business, we LIKE it, so butt out”, but if they did, the rest of the world would probably take that into account.

Finally, “it is illegal for gays to marry in California” misstates the status quo. Gay marriages were performed prior to the passage of Prop. 8, and those marriages are still recognized by the State of California. That goes for those marriages performed IN California, as well as any performed elsewhere prior to its passage. Also, Judge Walker’s ruling still has the force of law, until and unless it is overturned. Resumption of the performance of same-sex marriages has been stayed pending a 9th Circuit hearing. Frankly, it’s not illegal for same-sex couples to marry, it’s that California registrars are not presently authorized to perform same-sex marriages.

You know, I’d be far more inclined to ask gay people how they feel about love and marriage, rather than accepting the opinions of someone like you, Hugh.

Similarly, you don’t speak for me when you tell me that I’ll be “harmed” by gay marriage. No, I won’t.

Also, you need to work on your analogies. Trying to use the floods in Pakistan doesn’t quite work.

Wow…impressive response, Fritzoid.

I can only look forward to Hugh’s response.

So Hugh has just admitted that he wants to ban gay marriages for the good of the gays involved. Remember this, folks! Some day on another subject, Hugh will say that he is in favour of freedom, and this will be a lie. He has just admitted that he cares nothing for freedom, because he knows better than other people what is good for them. (At least, he cares nothing for the freedom of people unlike himself, which is typical of conservatives.)

By the way this is Hugh’s link. He would probably do better to quote from it, since it’s just a big fat summary, and I’m not sure which point he wanted to draw to our attention. Unless, Hugh, you agree that Prop 8 is ‘unconstitutional to the core’ (first paragraph)?

(Of course, many of those who believe that gays will burn in hell for all eternity believe the same about Jews, citing the same Book.)

Mostly, they cite the first half of the book to show that gays will burn in hell, then cite the second half to show that Jews will burn in hell. When searching for answers, it’s important not to mess up and read the wrong part, or you’ll get the wrong answer!

Wow, why on earth would a bigot like Hugh want to link with posts like, “”The evidence at trial regarding the campaign to pass Proposition 8 uncloaks the most likely explanation for its passage: a desire to advance the belief that opposite-sex couples are morally superior to same-sex couples,””

Sure you got that link right, tobybartels?

Toby: adjust your meds. Again.

Tony: I’m surprised you didn’t jump all over Fritzoid for quoting the Bible. And I see that he picks and chooses portion of the Bible that he likes. And he leaves out the portions that warn against homosexuality.

Let me put this as plain as I can: homosexuality has nothing to do with “love”. It has as much to do with “love” as being left-handed does. It is strictly and solely about sex with the same sex. As I’ve said before, I am a man and love other men (father, brother, uncles, grandfathers, etc). But if I have the “desire” to crawl in bed with them, it’s because something went wrong in my head. I do not hate people who are gay any more than I do for other mentally ill people. I don’t hate them. I don’t hate alcoholics, just the disease. And an alcoholic is the last person to believe they have a problem.

But I know everything I’ve said is just bouncing off your thick skulls. It’s VERY difficult to talk to libs. Why? Because liberalism itself is a disease — a mental illness. YOu’ll deny it, just as an alcoholic denies he’s got a problem. No doubt both Tony & Fritoid voted for our current Dear Leader. No doubt both of you are cheering on the Imams who want to build a Mosque at ground zero. Libs. They’re all the same.

BTW: It looks like the gays in California are going to have to wait to have sex until Prop 8 is reversed (which it won’t be). Ha! What a joke!

“And he leaves out the portions that warn against homosexuality.”

Yeah, and he left out all the parts in Leviticus and Deuteronomy warning against all sorts of random activities, Hugh. Do you need us to enumerate them?

“Let me put this as plain as I can: homosexuality has nothing to do with “love””

That’s as plain a proof that you’re a bigot as anything, Hugh. No further proof necessary.

“But if I have the “desire” to crawl in bed with them, it’s because something went wrong in my head.”

The fact that the only thing stopping you from hopping into bed with other men is an incestuous relationship is duly noted, Hugh.

“I don’t hate alcoholics, just the disease.”

Go ahead and give us the proof of that, Hugh.

Oh, wait, you can’t…because homosexuality hasn’t been considered a disease for many years. Sorry about that.

“No doubt both of you are cheering on the Imams who want to build a Mosque at ground zero. Libs. They’re all the same.”

Okay, so you’re against our Constitution. No big surprise there.

Yes, I pick and choose what I like from the Bible. I believe it contains much wisdom, but I do not believe it is the Word of God. I also can quote those bits of Nietzsche, Freud, Socrates, Montaigne, Shakespeare, Darwin, Twain, Dostoyevsky, Steinbeck, or Alfred E. Neuman with which I agree, and disregard those bits with which I disagree. Wisdom is where you find it. I also give greater weight to the words of Jesus than to the words of Paul, who never even met Jesus.

I take none of the writings of men (or women) at face value. I filter, judge, and assimilate, to form my own worldview, rather than swallowing whole what someone else tells me I should believe.

Do you believe the Bible is the Word of God? ALL of it? Do you eat pork or lobster, catfish or rabbit? Do you wear cotton and wool at the same time? Do you light fires (or use electricity) on the Sabbath, whether you keep a Saturday Sabbath or a Sunday Sabbath?

Do the words of Jesus which I cited to you have any meaning to you at all? How about “Why do you point out the mote in another’s eye, and ignore the beam in your own?”

Jesus was silent on the subject of homosexuality. He reserved his greatest denunciations for pious hypocrites.

“Let me put this as plain as I can: homosexuality has nothing to do with “love”. It has as much to do with “love” as being left-handed does. It is strictly and solely about sex with the same sex.”

It’s clear that you don’t have any gay friends (and, as I posted elsewhere, I’m uncertain whether you have any friends at all).

We use the same word, “love”, for at least four different things: romantic love, brotherly love, familial love, and lust. None of these is alien to homosexuals, any more than to heterosexuals. If homosexual attractions were simply about lust, why would gay marriage even be an issue? Why would one man want to tie his life to another, forsaking all others? Look into the physiology of bonding reactions in the brain. They’re different between men and women, and they’re different among individual men and individual women, but the same spectrum of responses occurs among homosexuals as among heterosexuals.

If you don’t believe homosexuals can LOVE one another in the same way heterosexuals can, you’re either tremendously sheltered, willfully blind, or more than a little stupid. Which of these three do you cop to? There aren’t any other options.

Fritzy: Since you are so fond of the words of Jesus, ponder these in your heart. Because they were written for you —- and people like you. —————————————————————————–

John 8:43-45 43 Why do ye not understand my speech? Even because ye cannot hear my word.

44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

45 And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not.

2 Timothy 3:7

7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. —————————————————————————–

You are blind and deaf my little chum. The reason? You have the mental disease called: liberalism.

Seek help. Now.

Spend a little time here and tell your pal Tony to do likewise. You can thank me later:

http://www.moonbattery.com/

Interesting. Hugh ignores every point and question directed at him…and runs back to his bible.

Insults instead of substance.

And remember, Hugh, if you have a broken leg, I don’t need a crutch.

hugh, I’ve already told you I have no problem picking and choosing from the Bible. You seem to do the same, but do not acknowledge it.

Again: “Judge not, lest ye be judged.” “Let he among you who is without sin cast the first stone.” “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” “Why do you point out the mote in another’s eye and ignore the beam in your own?”

How about “It is not what goes into a man’s mouth that defiles him, but what comes out of it”?

Hey boys, this is FUN! We might get to the century mark if we keep this up! First person to get us to the 100 comment mark wins a mountain bike! On me!

Speaking of transportation: I’m going way out on a limb here my liberal little friends, but I’m guessing one or both of you (Tony & Fritzy) drive a Prius and you have an Obama bumper stick on it. Still! First one of you to grow a pare first and peal that puppy off your back bumper wins an all-expense paid vacation to your favorite vacation spot: San Francisco! Yeah baby!

But seriously folks:

Both of you are beyond hope. You have eyes to see, but you can not see. You have ears to hear, but are stone deaf. You think consenting adults can have intimate relations under any circumstances.

Answer this, if you will: How about if a father and son, both clearly accountable adults, want to get married and “do there thing” in the sack. Would that be ok in your little world? Would you yell for their “right” to do it? And don’t tell me “it’s illegal”, that won’t fly. The higher “law” is: is it moral and right? And how did you arrive at your answer?

Squirm boys.

Answer. If you can!

The father marrying his son would be as illegal as a mother marrying her son. Incest between adults, whether heterosexual or homosexual, might be illegal in some, most, or all states (but I doubt it’s ever successfully prosecuted). By far the most common form of incest is father/daughter (you know, Like the patriarch Lot in Genesis), although in the case of adults it most likely began when the daughter was a minor; there you’ve got incest and child abuse, but by GOD at least it’s not homosexuality!

For your information, I don’t drive a car at all. I have a big black 750 motorcycle. It’s Japanese, though, so you probably still think it’s wussy. Mostly I take public transportation. Not for ideological reasons, really; it’s just cheap and convenient.

I wouldn’t be interested in winning a trip to San Francisco, either. I already live here. You should come by yourself sometime, but please leave your protest signs with Rev. Phelps. (Leave your car at home, too; you’ll never find parking downtown.)

Guilty as charged, except I don’t own “a” Prius. I own three of them…one of each generation.

And will probably buy a fourth next year.

VERY interesting question about the father-son pairing, though, Hugh. Bans against incestuous pairings are based on a solid biological basis (if you don’t know what that is, Hugh, just ask), although even that reason evaporates statistically when you get to cousins or beyond.

Since a father-son pairing wouldn’t have to worry about genetics…wow…what would be the reason against it?

As abhorrent as it sounds to my gut, to be perfectly honest, at the moment I’m having a hard time coming up with a legitimate reason to ban it…

Help? Something I haven’t thought of?

(By the way, Hugh, once again your questions have been promptly answered…and your goading “Squirm boys. Answer. If you can!” was completely unnecessary. If you go back through the thread, you’ll see all questions have been answered without such childishness. But there are plenty of questions to you in this thread to whose only response has been to see you running away with your tail between your legs. Perhaps since we’ve answered yours, yet again, you could return the favor? Christianity has a version of the Golden Rule, right?)

Hey Anthony, if you win hugh’s prize and he gives you a trip to S.F, let me know. I don’t know if your idea of fun is the same as mine, but I probably know of some places you won’t find in the guidebooks…

Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! We HAVE a winner! What do we have for ‘im Johnny???!!

Let me explain again Tony, cuz you’re getting close to where rational people think. But first, I can’t BELIEVE that you own not one, not two, but THREE friggin Prius’s! Un-freaking-real! MAN I’m good! AND, ladies and gentlemen….he’s getting a fourth one! How many of them have an Obama bumper sticker on them? And how low will his approval rating have to go before you crawl out your bedroom window at 3:00am and scrap it off the back bumper??!!

But I digress. The nail you hit (and, “the money quote”):

“As abhorrent as it sounds to my gut….”

Exactly Tony! But all we’re talking about are two “consenting adults” who “love” each other. Would YOU fight for their right to get married? Even though your “gut” says “This just ain’t right”. My point is: there are a TON of people whose gut tells them that two homosexuals should not marry, for the same reason: It just does not sit well in our gut….or our brain. Matter o’ fact the majority of California voters had their gut say “no” to homo marriages.

Just because incest is illegal (and thankfully it is) shouldn’t make it “wrong”, should it? And by whose “standard” of right and wrong do we go by? The father and sons? I think we should go by the father and son’s standard, except it should be: the Father and the Son.

Punchline: that “gut feeling” you have is our God-given instinct telling us the difference between right and wrong. It is “the Light” which all people have within. However, that light can be extinguished, over time, by our refusing to heed its voice.

I watched a PBS special years ago on homosexuality among aborigines. Guess what? They couldn’t find any! The chiefs of the tribes, they’d never heard of it. They thought it was more or less a “joke” the interviewers were telling them. ——————————————— Fritzy: I say keep your 750 Honda (or whatever). Cool bike. But if you’re ever in the mood to buy a Prius, call your pal Tony! It comes with its very own Obama bumper sticker! —————————————— This is still fun boys! If I met you on the street, I’d just shake your hand for the fun we’ve been having! Let’s see if we can get to 100 comments tonight! Your move!

BTW: I lived in California most of my life but moved to Oregon a few years back. Love it here! Been to San Fran many times. It’s a nice place to visit, but I wouldn’t want to live there!

Oh, sorry, forgot that…no, no Obama bumper stickers. Bumper stickers aren’t my style.

Not sure what your point is about the Priora (yes, that’s apparently the plural), but I got them solely because they’re technologically advanced, comfortable and easy to drive…and I like getting 50 mpg. I’m sure you thought there was some liberal agenda behind it…but, sorry.

Regarding thinking with your gut, while I’m sure that’s your style, no, not mine. I use my brain.

Thinking with their gut is what caused California to pass a law in which the majority tried to unconstitutionally suppress a minority. Fortunately, I wasn’t part of that majority.

“Just because incest is illegal (and thankfully it is) shouldn’t make it “wrong”, should it?”

Ah, so indeed, you don’t know the biological basis of avoiding incest. I’m thinking it would be a waste of time explaining it to you, so I won’t.

(By the way, Hugh, once again your questions have been promptly answered…and your goading “Squirm boys. Answer. If you can!” was completely unnecessary. If you go back through the thread, you’ll see all questions have been answered without such childishness. But there are plenty of questions to you in this thread to whose only response has been to see you running away with your tail between your legs. Perhaps since we’ve answered yours, yet again, you could return the favor? Christianity has a version of the Golden Rule, right?)

Fritz, since I don’t have any Obama stickers to peal off, I think Hugh would disallow any such promised prizes on that technicality.

However, I will be in SF on Monday, showing around an east coast friend and his new-direct-from-Sweden wife and son-in-law, neither of which has visited the west coast, never mind SF.

Ideas?

For all I know they’ll just want the standard touristy things, but if not, there’s a walk around the Berkeley Marina, maybe through John Muir Wood, and for the city itself…?

Dude! We’re almost to 100! Come on Fritzy, where are ya pal!

Tony: If you’ll kindly move your head in an upward position and glance directly over your head, you’ll see the point of my last post flyin’ by at warp speed.

You said moments ago that your “gut” tells you that a father and a son getting married doesn’t sit well with you. Then you follow that with saying you don’t operate by “your gut” but by your brain. Which is it? Do you EVER operate by “your gut”? You should. Because that same gut feeling you have about fathers and sons marrying should be sending up red flares for homos marrying too. ————————————————————-

In other news:

You boys oughta check this out every day:

http://realclearpolitics.com/polls/ ————————————————————–

Since I was so good at knowing what kinda car you drive (No kids! he’s got a friggin’ FLEET of Prius’s!), I’ll predict that on November 3rd, you and Fritzy will be crying your eyes out in the bathtub, along with Keith “Olber-I-used-to be-a-man”, Rachel Madcow and Chrissy “the sissy” Matthews!

Have fun in San Fran! If you’ve never walked across the Golden Gate, I highly recommend it! It’s WAY cool! Just don’t do it on November 3rd! I don’t want you to get any ideas! Ha!

Almost at 100! Your move!

“Then you follow that with saying you don’t operate by “your gut” but by your brain. Which is it?”

You just answered your own question.

Speaking of that, Hugh, once again your questions have been promptly answered…and your goading “Squirm boys. Answer. If you can!” was completely unnecessary. If you go back through the thread, you’ll see all questions have been answered without such childishness. But there are plenty of questions to you in this thread to whose only response has been to see you running away with your tail between your legs. Perhaps since we’ve answered yours, yet again, you could return the favor? Christianity has a version of the Golden Rule, right?

100 !!!

Somebody owes me a mountain bike!!!!

Hugh, once again your questions have been promptly answered…and your goading “Squirm boys. Answer. If you can!” was completely unnecessary. If you go back through the thread, you’ll see all questions have been answered without such childishness. But there are plenty of questions to you in this thread to whose only response has been to see you running away with your tail between your legs. Perhaps since we’ve answered yours, yet again, you could return the favor? Christianity has a version of the Golden Rule, right?

Oh sorry Tony!

In the immortal words of Maxwell Smart:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPwrodxghrw

Never mind, Hugh. You’re just fitting into an unfortunately common stereotype of the gay-hating fundie christians on these forums, like Puppy, Charlie555 and ANandy.

One over-riding characteristic is the avoidance of questions whose answering would require you to admit things you don’t want to face.

I imagine such avoidance is an important part of “keeping the faith”.

So no surprises here.

Ok Tony. Just to make you happy.

Without me having to go back and re-read your equivalent of “War & Peace”, sum up the question I avoided. I don’t have time to go back and re-read your startling revelatory diatribes. So….give it to me straight: which one pressing question do you have that you want me to answer? Think about it and clearly state it. I’ll give it my best shot.

As far as me fitting into your idea of a common stereotype? Dude! Who’s the one who owns a parking lot full of Prius’s???! Talk about stereotypes! That car DEFINES libs! And you have a fleet of them! Seek help now!

I’ll tell you the Top Ten things about yourself that I’m certain are true, even though I’ve never met you — because all libs think alike:

1) You voted for Obama and he can do no wrong. 2) You’re against capital punishment but for abortion (go figger!) 3) Gavin Newsom is a hero. 4) Arizona is racist and people should boycott them. 5) Keith Olberman, Rachel Madcow and Chris Matthews are smart people. 6) The MSM media are neutral and unbias (i.e., ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC). 7) The Mosque should be built! 8) There is no such thing as absolute morality. Morality is relative. 9) Nancy Pelosi is doing a great job. 10) America is evil and a 2nd-rate country.

So just go down the list and check off all the ones I got right. I’m pretty good, uh? And no doubt Fritzy sees himself in that list too.

Libs are all the same. It’s the myth of finger prints.

BTW: You still owe me a mountain bike.

Why would I owe you a mountain bike? You said the mountain bike was on you, so you’ll have to get it for yourself.

Sorry to disappoint you, but politics had nothing to do with my Priora purchases. To be honest, neither did the environment. It was simply that they are nice cars with excellent gas mileage. Nothing more, nothing less.

Your list:

Yes, no. Wrong, and I’m not pro-abortion, but am pro-choice. I know very little about him. Nope, wrong again. Never watch any of the three, so I wouldn’t know. If compared to Fox (who just donated a million dollars to the Republican party), yes. I don’t care if it’s built or not, but I believe they have a Constitutional right to do so. But as Jon Stewart said, just because they can build it doesn’t mean they should…just like just because Catholic churches can be built next to playgrounds doesn’t mean they should. If by “absolute morality” you mean from your god, then correct, no such thing. No strong opinion either way. Nonsense. If you think this is a “liberal” trait, you just went down another notch.

So are you pretty good….um, not really. (By the way, you forgot to ask about the second amendment).

Hugh: “So….give it to me straight: which one pressing question do you have that you want me to answer? Think about it and clearly state it. I’ll give it my best shot.”

So you ask me ten+ questions, yet offer in return to only answer one. Well, I guess it’s a step in the right direction. Here’s a cut and paste from a couple of days ago:

You didn’t spell it out for the slower-witted of us: Just how does allowing gay marriage cause the end of traditional marriage?

Since I’m in California, where gay marriages are going to start up again next Thursday (now postponed), are you suggesting that I’ll have to divorce my wife? Or that I’ll suddenly be consumed with the desire to leave her and marry some guy? That would be most upsetting. Fortunately, the last time California had gay marriages, I didn’t hear of any “traditional” marriages breaking up. Did you?

Seriously, could you explain just how this works? I acknowledge you’ve had a rough evening here, trying to rationalize your bigotry to multiple posters, but I’m sure this shouldn’t be too much of a challenge for you, given the number of times you’ve told us how gay marriage will be the end of “traditional marriage”, so I’ll keep checking back here in the hopes of benefiting from your wisdom.

Given your track record, I won’t hold my breath waiting for a reply.

First and foremost, if you don’t have a strong feeling either way for Nancy Pelosi, you’re a raving liberal. She defines the illness known as liberlism! I bet she drives a fleet of Prius’s too!

Ok, since I’m pressed for time at the moment, here’s my clipped version response to your issue:

No, gay marriage, in and of itself, will not “cause” me, you, or any other heterosexual married person to divorce their spouse. Nor will it “cause” the traditional marriage to collapse. But it’s not about “ME”. As I’ve tried to point out countless times, a trait of a liberal mindset is: ME, ME, ME, ME! We’re not talking about YOU. Since conservatives believe in an absolute morality and liberals do not, that is where the breakdown occurs. As we (conservatives) look out into the world and respond to our God-given “gut feeling” (as you call it and I refer to as the Light within — that whispers in a still small voice: “something doesn’t seem right about this”) when we see a situation that will not be good for those involved, we hope and pray that we can do something to stop it. Similar to a child approaching a hot stove — we don’t let it happen because we know what can happen. Someone will get burned!

And to allow innocent children to be adopted into a “gay marriage”, to a conservative, that is not a good thing —- for the child. Once again, it’s not about “ME”, but about those living in that situation. Gut feeling says raising a child in a gay marriage situation just does not seem right.

Read it and weep my friend! Gotta go to work now! Someone has to pay taxes for Nancy Pelosi and Our Dear Leader!

Hugh: “And to allow innocent children to be adopted into a “gay marriage”, to a conservative, that is not a good thing —- for the child. ”

And the studies that show the opposite…we just ignore them as liberal drivel, right?

“Gut feeling says raising a child in a gay marriage situation just does not seem right.”

Tell me about the cognitive abilities of your gut neurons, compared to those in your brain, Hugh. And don’t pull your punches…I went to med school.

“She defines the illness known as liberlism! I bet she drives a fleet of Prius’s too!”

I know, you won’t answer more questions, but I can’t help but (fruitlessly) ask: Why are you so against Priora?

Hugh: “No, gay marriage, in and of itself, will not …“cause” the traditional marriage to collapse”

So when you said, earlier in this thread, “When the traditional “family” disintegrates, so does society. It’s the domino affect (sic).”, to what were you referring?

What is it that you think is causing the “traditional family” to “disintegrate”? The fact that you preceded the above prediction with “The homosexual marriage issue has brought us to that slippery slope” sure makes it sound like you’re blaming “homosexual marriage”.

Do you see now why the fact you’ve avoided answering this issue shows you have no credibility?

You tell us that homosexual marriage is causing the traditional family to disintegrate, but after 100+ posts, you finally say, “No, gay marriage, in and of itself, will not …“cause” the traditional marriage to collapse”.

One of these is a lie.

Rev 21:8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and ALL LIARS, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

Hugh: “Gotta go to work now! Someone has to pay taxes for Nancy Pelosi and Our Dear Leader!”

No rush. I understand that you’re still trying to pay for W. Bush’s stimulus package, plus still trying to make up for his deficit-enhancing tax cuts, plus all his tax-dollars-to-christian-groups programs. Go for it!

Anthony, if you want to meet downtown at about 5:00 somewhere Monday, I can easily and safely describe myself in recognizable terms. The Ferry Building itself (iconic, and easily found; hugh, make note of the spelling) would be crazy because of rush hour, but the big ugly stone fountain in Justin Hermann Plaza is right across the street, and I’d be the big ugly guy dressed in black, wearing a black cowboy-type hat. The Pyramid might even be better.

It’s not a long walk to North Beach from there, and I’ll shout the first round at my regular haunt and we can wing it from there.

By the way, hugh, I don’t go in for bumper-stickers either (not having bumpers), but I vote. I voted for Obama, I voted for Newsom (both times), and I’ve voted for Pelosi every time she’s been up for re-election. Calling me a liberal is by no means an insult, although it’s not wholly accurate (on some issues I’m quite radical, and on a few I’m a bit conservative).

Frankly, you probably would have voted for Newsom as well, if you lived here. The San Francisco Republicans (there are a few of them) usually end up holding their noses and endorsing whoever they see as the least-objectionable Democrat in City races. You’ll never get anywhere in SF politics as a social conservative (let alone as a reactionary), but being friendly to business can get you far (witness Feinstein). Even with Pelosi, any successful challenge to her would likely have to come from further left.

Thanks, Fritz. But I long ago determined that I’d never try to meet anyone from these forums.

If I were, you’d obviously be at the top of my list (along with Motive, Fennec, et al.), but still…

I’m sure you can understand, given the existence of Puppy, Charlie555, ANandy….and Hugh.

If I was by myself, sans family, I’d go for it, and we’d have a great time.

But thanks!

Ah well. If you see me elsewhere on the street while you’re here (the town’s only 7 miles by 7 miles), you’ll probably still recognize me. I stick out. Then you can say to yourself “That must be Fritz”, and I’ll neither confirm nor deny it.

Looks like you’ll have nice weather for it. This summer’s been cold even by our standards, but the sun finally made an appearance.

Dang it, if I see any “big ugly guy dressed in black, wearing a black cowboy-type hat’”, I will not be able resist asking if you are Fritzoid.

So please respond accordingly.

But barring that…any ideas what we should do? Given that we’ll have a could of early-teens, I’m thinking the Exploratorium….or the Academy of Sciences.

Exploratorium is always grand. Academy of Sciences is good too, but pricey. They’ve got an exhibit on “Extreme Mammals”, extinct and otherwise, going on at the moment, which sounds interesting (they’ve also got penguins, and how can you go wrong with penguins?).

Early-teens leaves out most of the stuff I PERSONALLY enjoy, but I’ll give it some thought.

Over in Oakland they’ve got an exhibit on the Art of Pixar that I’m dying to see myself, but I haven’t made it over there yet.

There’s the Cartoon Art Museum on Mission (around 4th St.) that you might check out, given our current forum. They’d be delighted to have your business, I’m sure.

And of course, tell your guests to dress in layers. Be as prepared for 90 degrees as 50 degrees…

I don’t care for Fisherman’s Wharf/Pier 39 much myself, but the kids might like it. If you DO go there, make sure you check out the sea lions. Huge honkin’ wild animals living right in the city…

And Alcatraz is worth the hassle, particularly if your teenagers are boys (and again, if the weather Monday is anything like today, it’ll be perfect).

Fritzy: The Ferry Building!!! The Ferry Building!?? Ha!

Makes perfect sense you’d wanna meet there! Ha!

You live in the City and you voted for all those Libs. You’re beyond hope my little chum. Here’s a piece of advice: Call in sick on Nov 3rd! And, go here and cleanse thyself:

http://www.moonbattery.com/

Sleep tight boys!

hugh, I’ve already told you that I don’t consider “liberal” an insult in the least. I don’t consider “conservative” an insult, either, although “reactionary” - trying to return to a past that never existed - seems not only fruitless but delusional. In the long run, the progressives win. What seems radical now will be conventional wisdom in 20 years, or 30 years, or 50 years.

The Ferry Building pun - I anticipated that, but I expected better of you, which is why, by bringing it forward, I attempted to forestall you. You disappointed me, but perhaps you didn’t surprise me. As has been stated often enough, neither Anthony nor I are gay. That being said, I don’t consider being mistaken for a homosexual insulting, either. (It’s inconvenient, if I’m trying to hit of a woman, but it’s not insulting.)

As far as Nov. 3 goes, don’t count your chickens. In 2004, I was convinced that the American electorate wasn’t stupid enough to return George W. Bush to a second term. In that case, I was both disappointed and surprised.

I expect that GOP gains in Congress will be about on a level of the mid-term changes in the middle of any President’s first term, but little (if any) more. The Republicans simply haven’t put forth any viable alternatives. For the most part, anti-incumbent Tea Party candidates have washed out against sitting Republicans. Those Dems who are dissatisfied with Obama are largely so because he isn’t liberal ENOUGH. The Red states will go Red, the Blue States will go Blue, The swing states will go as they go. Nonetheless, even if the difference in the balance is only a net gain of a dozen or so seats, no doubt the Republicans will claim to have struck a glorious victory, like the Klingons against the Tribbles (to get my geek on for a moment).

I’ve gotten tired of this discussion simply because you have nothing to offer except insults and provocation. You’re not even a hard stone against which to sharpen argumentative knives. If and when you’re interested in actually answering questions put to you, perhaps I’ll pay attention to you again. Until then, adieu. My your God bless you and keep you…far away from me.

I can see the state intervening when a child is involved, but it’s a bit murkier when you suggest that the state should be involved with two adults. There you are telling us that the decision of two adults is not as valid as the decision of other adults in the government.

I agree that the genetics issue is valid as a way of keeping genetic diseases at a lower level to the benefit of society, but for pairings such as father-son, or between same-sex siblings, no offspring are involved.