Sacred Unions
February 28, 2004 | 17 Comments
As I noted here, the argument that marriage is a sacred institution established by God is has been only one that President Bush has offered in his crusade against gay marriage. John Darby of World Wide Rant offers a delightful refutation, noting, inter alia, that some of the heterosexual unions permitted by the Bible wouldn’t likely be defended by the President today.
February 29th, 2004 @ 10:06 am
When Lincoln was asked “How many legs does a dog have, if you call a tail a leg?”, he supposedly replied “Four, because calling a tail a leg does not make it a leg”.
March 1st, 2004 @ 10:30 pm
The American Anthropological Association has responded to another of Bush’s arguments against gay marriage. In his State of the Union address, Bush called heterosexual marriage “one of the most fundamental, enduring institutions of our civilization.” Anthropologists say that if he’d taken even one semester of anthropology, he’d know that’s not true:
Here’s the link.
March 1st, 2004 @ 10:34 pm
Damn it, sorry for the double post. Got an error message the first time.
March 2nd, 2004 @ 7:32 am
When Lincoln was asked “How many legs does a dog have, if you call a tail a leg?”, he supposedly replied “Four…”
The former president was quite right, or course. Until a dog loses a leg or two; then it starts to play fast and loose with the arithmetic. The thing about dogs is, they’re not tied to some kind of absolutist philosophy about their existence. And they love math problems.
March 2nd, 2004 @ 7:32 am
When Lincoln was asked “How many legs does a dog have, if you call a tail a leg?”, he supposedly replied “Four…”
The former president was quite right, or course. Until a dog loses a leg or two; then it starts to play fast and loose with the arithmetic. The thing about dogs is, they’re not tied to some kind of absolutist philosophy about their existence. And they love math problems.
March 2nd, 2004 @ 7:32 am
When Lincoln was asked “How many legs does a dog have, if you call a tail a leg?”, he supposedly replied “Four…”
The former president was quite right, or course. Until a dog loses a leg or two; then it starts to play fast and loose with the arithmetic. The thing about dogs is, they’re not tied to some kind of absolutist philosophy about their existence. And they love math problems.
March 2nd, 2004 @ 7:32 am
When Lincoln was asked “How many legs does a dog have, if you call a tail a leg?”, he supposedly replied “Four…”
The former president was quite right, or course. Until a dog loses a leg or two; then it starts to play fast and loose with the arithmetic. The thing about dogs is, they’re not tied to some kind of absolutist philosophy about their existence. And they love math problems.
March 2nd, 2004 @ 7:32 am
When Lincoln was asked “How many legs does a dog have, if you call a tail a leg?”, he supposedly replied “Four…”
The former president was quite right, or course. Until a dog loses a leg or two; then it starts to play fast and loose with the arithmetic. The thing about dogs is, they’re not tied to some kind of absolutist philosophy about their existence. And they love math problems.
March 2nd, 2004 @ 7:32 am
When Lincoln was asked “How many legs does a dog have, if you call a tail a leg?”, he supposedly replied “Four…”
The former president was quite right, or course. Until a dog loses a leg or two; then it starts to play fast and loose with the arithmetic. The thing about dogs is, they’re not tied to some kind of absolutist philosophy about their existence. And they love math problems.
March 2nd, 2004 @ 9:23 am
KAF!!!!!!!
ggoddammittt, kid….where the fuck have you been?
glad to see you are alive!!!!!
March 2nd, 2004 @ 3:15 pm
Not to mention that, until christianity and all of it’s tightassedness (no pun intended) came along, homosexuality was common practice among the greeks, romans and many other societies (have you ever read japanese history, poetry, or literature?).
Humans are not the only species that practice it either. Dolphins (who, it is now known, have sex for pleasure) do it all the time. Chimpanzees (our ancestors) do it as frequently as a social greeting (“hey George… UH!”. “Hey Charlie… OOO!).
I am by no means “anti-gay”. I believe everybody has a place in the universe. And of course there are perfectly reasonable biological explainations as for homosexuality. I do not believe, though, that it should be made a part of societal culture, as it seems the new-age culture wants to make it. Teaching young adults about it in sex-education in school (the onus is on the parent), and having TV programs peppered with everything from insinuation to blatancy (ie: the show “Oliver Bean” has a character that is an obviously gay 11 year old… sick!) is just plain wrong. If I had children, and they happened to catch an episode of “will and Grace” I would be extremely angry to have to spend the next year explaining things in such a way that they don’t question their own sexuality (assuming they’re at the age of sexual discovery). Puberty is far too confusing as it is. A child’s questions should, of course be answered if they come to you, but inquiry about it shouldn’t be encouraged. If someone is gay fine, but keep it to yourself.
If you believe in god, fine, keep it to yourself and out of my personal life. Don’t come to my door, don’t say “god bless you” to any stranger that comes along (something I find offensive), don’t make me pay taxes towards faith-based organizations, and don’t make me swear to god in court (I wouldn’t mean it, which would mean I could lie to the court as much as I want with impunity – not that I’ve been to court).
March 2nd, 2004 @ 3:19 pm
It also seems to me, that since homosexuality has come into the forefront over the last decade or so, young people have taken to “sexual experimentation” almost as a trend (peer pressure’s a BITCH!!). That’s kind of what I was trying to get at.
March 2nd, 2004 @ 5:27 pm
I am glad there is finally a site for all us gay men to discuss the issues we have. Sex should not be an issue between two men. We have the right to get married and have sex whenever we want with whoever we want. Age should not be an issue either. If a man wants to do it with a young boy he should be able too. I should be able to do an animal too if I so desire. All laws are created by religion and stupid.
March 2nd, 2004 @ 5:50 pm
WOA!!
Did you just say “young boys” and mean it? COME ON!!
Oh, you were just joking. Right? RIGHT?
I mean the animals have rights too, but a young boy is still under the legal guardianship of the parent(s), so it is therefore unconstitutional. Not to mention SICK!
But alas, this isn’t a MAMBLA meeting.
Finally, a site where us Canadians can talk about round baccon and maple syrup!!
March 3rd, 2004 @ 2:23 pm
Chimps are not our ancestors, Kaptain. They’re our cousins.
March 3rd, 2004 @ 2:27 pm
Chimps are not our ancestors, Kaptain. More like siblings or cousins.
March 3rd, 2004 @ 4:02 pm
I see what you mean, though I was talking about pre-homosapien chimps. If we’re direct descendants of them doesn’t that makes them ancestors All living beings came from the same single celled amoeba, correct? And new studies show that all homosapiens come from the same common ancestor, no? But yes, todays chimps are a branch of the same tree and our cousins. Siblings of their, and our ancestors.
You can’t refute the one constant though; they still like ta bugger each other at parties!!