Thursday, August 28, 2014


11 comments:

Anonymous said...

Two of my best friends at early 60s Grayslake HS were .... peculiar. They knitted in class. Spoke, acted & looked differently. Shared my passion for Broadway musicals. Were "fey".

Tho I knew, theoretically, of non-hetero sex (the short story "Wings" is tragic), I didn't make the connection. Far as I know, in my Eisenhower era US, Dan & Chuck were never harassed or bullied.

There's a Dennis Quaid movie about a 50s era executive who learns, to his horror, he's gay. Alan Turing. Wilde. Draconian punishments until recently.

I read "And The Band Played On" by Randy Shilts. Gay himself (he died of Aids), he unflinchingly described incredible, hair-raising excesses that led to the Crisis.

I like gays, and think they deserve decent respect. Tho I was nearly Raped by a Chicago cop, that has no bearing.

But demolishing the universal unit of society is too much. Royal Incest, polygamy, & sex slavery have more provenance. Civil Unions, fine.

Euphemistically normalizing, even Valorizing gay sex may be deleterious to the young.

IMHO, gays deserve all the rights and prerogatives of fellow citizens. Save one. --- Rich Lara

Anonymous said...

"Throughout human history gays have often been subjected to vicious persecution. The situation has been better in some places at some times; worse in other places at other times."

This was especially in the case of traditional Jewish culture.

But not in Greek culture where it was tolerated or even enforced in brutal Sparta.

Also, narcissistic and vain homos throughout history catered to the rich & powerful and were often part of the ruling elites. And homos in power used their advantages to molest and abuse others.

The recent rise of homo power is the result of capitalism, consumerism, hedonism, and narcissism.
Our society places great value in money and privilege, and homos have lots of it.
Also, Jewish elites who are predominant in the media favor homos since both groups are members of elite minorities.

Anonymous said...

A sterile man marrying a woman is like fitting a dead light bulb into the socket. It doesn't work, but it's still true enough that a bulb belongs in a socket.

A homo marriage is like fitting a light bulb with a light bulb. Whether the bulb works or not, the very idea of pairing a bulb with a bulb is absurd.

Anonymous said...

We ought as a society to discourage homosexual copulation, especially of the male variety, for all we're worth. To speak about "homosexuals" as a class being "persecuted" is a category error.

If you would live, and see length of days and your children's children, then you'd best agree with Leviticus and call male sodomy an abomination.

Ares Olympus said...

re: In truth, the issue of same-sex marriage has never arisen. It’s not that the wish has been repressed. It’s that no one ever thought of it.

Wow, that took a lot of words to denounce gay marriage, but I think its arrogant to say "no one ever thought of it" unless you happened to be a mind-reader of the 70 billion people who ever existed.

Myself, I rather think fight for civil gay marriage is an overstep, but domestic partnership seems a valid request given a couple is acting as an economic unit, and if any given religion wants to recognize gay marriage, then they can be recognized as married within that community.

Polygamy is a more interesting question. Strangely a man can marry one woman, have children, and he could have children with another woman at the same time, and that's not against the law, even if grounds for divorce. But having the man marry both women if they are both adults and both willing, that's the only thing that's illegal.

Ares Olympus said...

Anonymous @9:40am, Leviticus 20 has lots of things to say.
http://tinyurl.com/phzpcpg

Some people worry about "Sharia law" influencing our country, but they really ought to worry about "Jewish law"!

I bet it is probably a traumatizing experience to live in a culture that stones people to death. I don't suppose they had an "innocent until proven guilt" clause to their laws?

drtceline@gmail.com said...

Thank you for a very thoughtful article. Regarding the additional issue of gays adopting , I ask, "Do we exist to serve the needs of children, or do children exist to serve ours?"

dfordoom said...

Homosexual "marriage" has nothing whatever to do with reducing alleged persecution of homosexuals. The sole intention of homosexual "marriage" is to undermine and eventually destroy the institution of marriage. It is being pushed by people who do not believe in marriage at all.

Anonymous said...

Ares Olympus @August 28, 2014 at 2:46 PM:

Would you rather live under Jewish Leviticus law or under Sharia law? Pick one, and "neither" is not an option for the sake of argument, given the moral equivalency you have posed in your comment. Enough with the intellectual dalliances. Choose.

Please recognize that Judeo-Christianity is an easy target for cowards. When the Islamists come to your town with Sharia, you will have nowhere to hide. You will submit (convert) or face the sword. You'll wish for Christian philosophy, morality and ethics when that day comes.

Anonymous said...

Ares Olympus @August 28, 2014 at 2:46:
American society tried to offer homosexuals civil unions as an accommodation. This has been roundly rejected by homosexual activists and their liberal political supporters, and criticized as "anti-gay." Why? Because gay "marriage " has always been about moral, social and quasi-spiritual equivalency -- never about what marriage is really about as the mist fundamentally social institution society has. Most heterosexual liberals are fighting for the cause because it is deemed "liberal," or because they have a family member who is gay, or know two homosexual people who "love each other." Such arguments make no sense whatsoever, are purely subjective and emotional, devoid of considerations required to run a civil society.

Who believes it is optimal for a child to have two mommies or two daddies? And again, please refrain from placing a moral delineation of "Well, if the child is to have a bad mommy or a bad daddy, I'd rather..." because you CAN'T make that distinction absent of suggestive theory and subjective judgment. It's all completely subjective and suggestive of equivalency. Homosexuality is NOT equivalent in the context of child-rearing. Sure, the child may say "That's my mom and she happens to be a lesbian," or "That's my dad, and he happens to be gay," and are we to suppose that serves as justification? What kind of child denies their parents? Does such denial happen? Yes, among heterosexual parents, too, when the child despises them (most often for the adolescent time being). However, let's be clear: children can blindly accept their parents, too, because that's all they know. But what if there's another person in the house, as part of the "committed" homosexual relationship or "marriage?" Is such an arrangement in the best interest of the child(ren)? We can ask the same thing of a step-parent or a live-in boy/girlfriend. Is such an arrangement in the best interest of the child(ren)? Most often, it's fervently held to be in the best interests of the adults! And somehow that's enough. And hearing the current partner is "better-than" (the bio-parent) is hardly a comparable/superior outcome.

So when will the great "equivalency" occur between heterosexual marriage and homosexual "marriage?" They will become equivalent when a mommy and a daddy are GLAD their son or daughter is gay. Not tolerant, accepting or content knowing their child is gay, but GLAD their child is gay. Not happy their child has found a same-sex soul mate, but GLAD their child has found a soulmate of the same sex, without disappointment that the couple is same-sex. Most sane persons will admit such a feeling of joy is impossible. They are correct. With effort, same-sex relationships take some getting used to, requiring long talks, back-flips, and often significant preparation and bargaining to get there. And that's not just to overcome child ignorance and adult prejudice. With less than 2% of the population being homosexual (according to 2014 HHS data), it's hardly "normal." Some parents do get to acceptance (and even celebration) because they love their children, and accept them as they are. But I doubt, in their heart-of-hearts, that they're GLAD this has come to pass. And there's a reason for that. It's not natural, it's awkward, and it requires some relationship re-ordering across the family line. And if the homosexual "married" couple have (through sperm-based intervention from or with an "other") or adopt a child, it's not a normal upbringing for that child. It's an uphill challenge for everyone involved. And no grandparent wants an uphill challenge for their child, especially not their grandchild.

Unknown said...

Contrary to popular opinion, marriages are not made in heaven. They take work. Lots of work. Successful marriages are created not just "divined."
http://bit.ly/YWHcpb