ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2019 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Tuesday, May 14, 2013

The idiot whistle

Whether the subject is equality in the distribution of wealth, sex, or marriage, you can always be certain of one thing.  The appeal to equality is simply the idiot-whistle being blown to summon the support of the unthinking, it has absolutely nothing to do with the objectives of those appealing to that mythic state.

A homogamy aspect is confident enough to admit what was always obvious from the start:
It’s a no-brainer that (homosexual activists) should have the right to marry, but I also think equally that it’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist. …(F)ighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we are going to do with marriage when we get there — because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie.  The institution of marriage is going to change, and it should change. And again, I don’t think it should exist. And I don’t like taking part in creating fictions about my life. That’s sort of not what I had in mind when I came out thirty years ago.
Vladimir Ilyich had a term that accurately describes those non-activists who support "marriage equality" for reasons of fairness.  Useful idiots.  What the sexually abnormal mean by "marriage" is not what it means to most people, and by expanding the definition they are actively and admittedly seeking to destroy both the institution and the sacrament.

Labels: ,

244 Comments:

1 – 200 of 244 Newer› Newest»
Anonymous Andre May 14, 2013 1:07 PM  

Hey useful idiots, come bash someone who has the audacity to tell the truth about something.

Anonymous Not Steve Sailer May 14, 2013 1:10 PM  

I like what Steve Sailer says: "It's not going to matter to the (Christian) institution of marriage... but it will destroy the institution of the wedding..." (Not an exact quote)

Christian marriage will survive just fine, just as the church will survive. But bad news for wedding planners, bridezillas and queers dreaming of a "white wedding"... The gays are banking on getting (forced) acceptance of traditional Grandpa' Bob using the social pressure of a wedding. When weddings become "camp" they become Broadway ...an institution for fags alone, shunned from traditional culture.

Good news for Christian fathers with daughters. And Christian grooms. No more "princess for a day" wedding, just simple ceremonies between man, woman and God ...

Anonymous Sigyn May 14, 2013 1:14 PM  

This reminds me of viruses (not computer, but real ones): enter, override the host cell's DNA to do whatever the virus wants (usually make more viruses), and then kill the host cell on its way out.

Anonymous Hermit May 14, 2013 1:16 PM  

"Good news for Christian fathers with daughters. And Christian grooms. No more "princess for a day" wedding, just simple ceremonies between man, woman and God ..."

I've always liked that idea. Arguably the only more important ceremony one can go through is a baptism. A baptism is taken very seriously by most everyone involved, yet it doesn't require nearly the amount of pomp.

Blogger GF Dad May 14, 2013 1:18 PM  

Christians screwed up when they allowed the government to participate in the marriage process. Pastors became licensed agents of the state and as such can be commanded to marry whoever the state thinks should be married.
I predict that we will see a separation of wheat and chafe as churches are forced to decided whether to perform homosexual ceremonies or face giving up their pastoral licenses and tax exempt status.

Anonymous Josh May 14, 2013 1:24 PM  

I predict that we will see a separation of wheat and chafe as churches are forced to decided whether to perform homosexual ceremonies or face giving up their pastoral licenses and tax exempt status.

We're already seeing it happen in Europe.

Blogger budbrewer May 14, 2013 1:28 PM  

Thanks for the post, and for continuing to 'tell it like it is.'

Anonymous Mudz May 14, 2013 1:29 PM  

Pastors became licensed agents of the state

Wait, really? Isn't that awfully mark of the beast - ish?

Blogger GF Dad May 14, 2013 1:38 PM  

Have you ever seen a pastor say to the bride and groom, "By the power vested in me by the state of Alaaippiana, I now pronounce you husband and wife."? He is telling you where his authority to marry people comes from with that statement.
Yes it does seem a little mark'o'the beast-ish. Didn't folks leave England for North America back in the 1600s for similar reason?

Anonymous bluto May 14, 2013 1:38 PM  

Mudz,
Have you never listened to a marriage? The final proclimation, "by the powers vested in me, by God and the state of X; I now pronouce you man and wife" or something very similar.

Blogger crazyivan498 May 14, 2013 1:41 PM  

I don't see how "they" are actively destroying the sacrament of marriage. Are these activist trying to force chruches to marry gay couples? The insitition of marriage yes, they are trying to destroy it. I am not aware of gay activistist's forcing themselves on churches directly.

Anonymous Mudz May 14, 2013 1:44 PM  

I'll confess I don't know much about Pastors and the like, or other denominational quirks. I was raised as a JW.

Wow, yeah, that's just wrong in so many ways. I never even realised.

Man, have I actually heard the words, 'by the power invested in me by the state of New York' and never clicked? I think I only heard it in ironic context, though. Futurama, I think.

Well, I live in NZ, so I'll very generously cut myself a little slack. No states here.

Anonymous dh May 14, 2013 1:46 PM  

When weddings become "camp" they become Broadway ...an institution for fags alone, shunned from traditional culture.

Traditional culture = Christian culture here?

Anonymous Mudz May 14, 2013 1:50 PM  

Is this like a game of Spot the Asher? Or Tad, or whoever else it is likes to assert things like they're reciting children's nursery rhymes. Honestly, I can't keep track of who's who. Guess it doesn't matter.

Blogger JD Curtis May 14, 2013 1:52 PM  

The recently published Gay Couples Study conducted by Colleen Hoff at the Center for Research on Gender and Sexuality, San Francisco, looked at the relationships of 566 committed gay couples (males) over a three-year period. The study showed that 47 per cent of gay couples had “sex agreements” that specifically allowed sexual activity with others. An additional 8 per cent of couples were split: one person favored sex outside the relationship and the other expected monogamy. Only 45 per cent described their relationships as monogamous.

Proponents of “marriage equality” sing their refrain over and over: “Our relationships are just the same as yours.”

Not even close. While just 7 per cent of Americans believe that adultery (sexual infidelity by married, heterosexual partners) is morally acceptable, Dr Hoff’s report emphasizes that nearly 50 per cent of gays in committed relationships specifically affirm sexual infidelity. Other research shows shockingly higher rates (75-95 per cent) of non-monogamy in long-term gay relationships"

http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/open_monogamy/





Anonymous Gen. Kong May 14, 2013 1:56 PM  

whether it's homogamy, feminism, global warming or anti-racism, the stated objective rarely has anything to do with the actual objective. The unending appeals to equality are indeed just an idiot whistle, guaranteed to excite and titillate the rabbit warren.

Anonymous Weary May 14, 2013 1:58 PM  

Shut up, Tad.

Please.

Anonymous Josh May 14, 2013 2:02 PM  

One wonders why anyone of a "traditional" bent would care about the nature of someone elses wedding. Whether camp of staid, it's not their wedding.

Are you in favor of legalizing polygamy?

Anonymous OK May 14, 2013 2:03 PM  

[b][marriage] is being redefined along lines that better accommodate the reality of modern sentiment toward coupling, families and home.[/b]

This sentence doesn't mean anything. George Orwell wept.

Anonymous Lysander Spooner May 14, 2013 2:03 PM  

Liberty or Equality.

Choose wisely.

And, don't mate the State Bro'.

Anonymous The Jew May 14, 2013 2:04 PM  

"whether it's homogamy, feminism, global warming or anti-racism, the stated objective rarely has anything to do with the actual objective."

Yes. Because those that argued for equal access to public facilities for all races really didn't want the opportunity to choose their own seat on the bus or sit wherever they wanted in a restaurant.

Holy cow, you are dumb.

Anonymous George Orwell May 14, 2013 2:07 PM  

"Beautiful thing, the destruction of words."

Anonymous Josh May 14, 2013 2:07 PM  

Yes. Because those that argued for equal access to public facilities for all races really didn't want the opportunity to choose their own seat on the bus or sit wherever they wanted in a restaurant.

So a black restaurant owner should be forced to serve food to the local kkk klaven, and a gay restaurant owner should be forced to serve the westboro baptist folks?

Anonymous Lulabelle May 14, 2013 2:08 PM  

Crazy Ivan:
"London: Churches in Britain may face legal action if they do not agree to the prime minister's plans for same-sex unions, a media report said on Tuesday.

Legal advice sent to David Cameron has warned that churches could be sued under human rights legislation if they refuse to allow the services to proceed, the Telegraph reported.

If the Church of England refuses to conduct gay marriages, it can be challenged in the European Court of Human Rights.

The warnings have been written by leading human rights lawyer Aidan O'Neill.

Churches that refuse to marry homosexuals may also be banned from using council facilities such as village halls.

Teachers could also face disciplinary measures under equality laws if they refuse to promote same-sex marriages.

Same-sex marriage has been fast-tracked by Cameron despite strong opposition within his party and from some religious groups.

Recently, more than 1,000 Catholic priests signed a letter, arguing that the change could lead to new discrimination against Christians.

A House of Commons vote on the Equal Marriage Bill is planned before mid-February."

Notice the part about teachers.


Anonymous Not Steve Sailer May 14, 2013 2:08 PM  

"One wonders why anyone of a "traditional" bent would care about the nature of someone elses wedding. Whether camp of staid, it's not their wedding. "

Exactly, JewTad. My point is Christians will stop caring about weddings. Thus gaywads like yourself lose out, as now nobody will soon care if two drag queens prance down an aisle -- anymore than they care about what horrible show is now on Broadway. It becomes camp. A parody.

Straight people stop having weddings (as traditionally envisioned) and instead go toward a simple, personal marriage ceremony involving themselves, perhaps their parents, and a pastor.

Anonymous Josh May 14, 2013 2:09 PM  

Stop asking dumb, irrelevant questions.

It's neither dumb nor irrelevant. You said that the notion of marriage should change.

Answer the question. Do you support legalizing polygamy?

Anonymous Sigyn May 14, 2013 2:12 PM  

What the dreadful opponents of same sex marriage never admit is that this redefinition does not have any impact on the lives led by heterosexual couples that choose the institution or have chosen the institution.

If you don't mind never having any close friends of the same sex, sure, no harm to anyone. It's already annoying as hell when everyone assumes that any man and woman who are friends also have benefits going on.

This is already going on as a result of mainstreamed gay porn, in fact. It's almost expected nowadays that girls will make out with each other at the drop of a hat and guys will do BJs and worse on each other when drunk.

I'm in no hurry to multiply that effect, thank you.

Anonymous Porky May 14, 2013 2:13 PM  

♫ Who is the gaucho, amigo?

Why is he standing in your spangled leather poncho ♪♫

And your elevator shoes? ♫

Anonymous Not Steve Sailer May 14, 2013 2:14 PM  

Right now, weddings are packed with enormous social pressure. Imagine a man with two daughters, one straight, one a butch lesbo. If he pays/attends/supports the wedding for the straight daughter, he will face social pressure to do the same for Ms. and Ms. Crewcut. Thus by supporting his dyke daughter's wedding he is forced to "support" her degenerate lifestyle.

The minute they figure this out in the sticks, the institution of weddings is done. People stop going to weddings. People throw away invitations, without any fear of social consequences. They don't bring gifts or send money. The institution dies.

Anonymous Loki of Asgard May 14, 2013 2:18 PM  

Are you in favor of admitting that one shouldn't care one bit how what another person's marriage looks like

Feminism demands that one care, to the point of bringing the government's power to bear. They wish all manner of moneys spent in order to make all marriages perfectly egalitarian.

With that in mind, I ask: Why do you hate women?

Blogger foxmarks May 14, 2013 2:19 PM  

Even this, the destruction of marriage, is only a waypoint. Next will come the destruction of parenthood.

Same-sex marriage confirms that the relationship is founded on whim and lust. Commitment need endure only as long as the feelings last.

When this coupling is legalized as normal and granted equality as a model for parenthood, that parent-child relationship endures only as long as the whims of the parents. When you buy your baby instead of making one from the union of flesh, all you’re doing is adopting a high-maintenance pet.

Go long in orphanage stock.

Blogger IM2L844 May 14, 2013 2:20 PM  

The state sanctions a whole bunch of crap I disagree with. This is no different. Some state sanctioned social contract between two homosexuals will never be an actual marriage in the sight of God and nobody will ever force me to call it one. Butt sex and/or peter puffing does not sufficiently qualify as a consummating acts that physically join a couple as one. That's never going to change. Holy matrimony? I don't think so.

Anonymous Noah B. May 14, 2013 2:20 PM  

The simple idea of equality in the eyes of the law -- an ambitious and unrealizable goal on its own -- has been perverted into the idea that government should work to create social equality through intervention in economic and private life.

For those in power this is just a convenient excuse to obtain even more power, and by now it should be obvious that government intervention in private life has typically achieved results completely contrary to its originally stated objectives.

Anonymous Josh May 14, 2013 2:24 PM  

This is already going on as a result of mainstreamed gay porn, in fact. It's almost expected nowadays that girls will make out with each other at the drop of a hat and guys will do BJs and worse on each other when drunk.

Whoa. Full stop.

Girls making out with each other is entirely different than gays sucking each others dicks.

Anonymous Josh May 14, 2013 2:25 PM  

You'll notice that the difference here is that the crazy KKK dude and the lunatic christian are neither naturally crazy nor a lunatic. The black woman is naturally black. You don't see the difference?

Doesn't matter, answer the question. Either you support property rights or you don't.

Anonymous Josh May 14, 2013 2:26 PM  

Why? Isn't marriage intrinsic to a christian lifestyle??

Weddings and marriages aren't the same thing.

Anonymous Josh May 14, 2013 2:28 PM  

I don't care one way or another primarily because it is of no importance. Now stop asking stupid questions.

Why do you hate equality?

Blogger ajw308 May 14, 2013 2:30 PM  

Sound like Islam to me in that they are allowed to lie, but only if it furthers their cause.

Nope, there's no dots here to connect. Please move on.

Anonymous OK May 14, 2013 2:30 PM  

"the crazy KKK dude and the lunatic christian are neither naturally crazy nor a lunatic"

Distinction without a difference. Prior restraint. NEXT.

Anonymous Mudz May 14, 2013 2:30 PM  

Obviously false. If marriage was to be redefined so that only only homosexual marriages were permitted it would certainly affect straights.

Choose your phrasing carefully.

Anonymous Mudz May 14, 2013 2:30 PM  

^ @ The Jew

Anonymous OK May 14, 2013 2:32 PM  

"What matters is that if Susie and Amanda down the street get married, that impacts the quality of your marriage in no way whatsoever."

This is the worst argument ever. Straw man. Stop being retarded or go away.

Anonymous Not Steve Sailer May 14, 2013 2:32 PM  

"Why? Isn't marriage intrinsic to a christian lifestyle?"

This is hard to wrap your queer mind around, but the Christian marriage has dick to do with white dresses, champagne, dancing and other outward pageantry which makes homosexual's heart race with envy...

As Josh noted, marriage ≠ (not equalto ) weddings.

Tad, don't you have a pole to smoke somewhere rather than bothering us with yet another fake name?

Anonymous Josh May 14, 2013 2:33 PM  

Can the gay marriage provide them with grandchildren absent in vitro technology?

Anonymous Andre May 14, 2013 2:34 PM  

"This is already going on as a result of mainstreamed gay porn, in fact. It's almost expected nowadays that girls will make out with each other at the drop of a hat and guys will do BJs and worse on each other when drunk."

Whoa, holy crap. Where the hell do you even live?

Anonymous Mudz May 14, 2013 2:35 PM  

Or not.

Funny how 'or' statements work.

Anonymous Anon1 May 14, 2013 2:36 PM  

WTF, I thought this Tad/Asher/Question/Jew tard was banned here?

Anonymous OK May 14, 2013 2:36 PM  

"Or as long as the love and respect last....you know, like marriages between straight people."

So unbelievably clueless. Just precious. So wrong on so many levels.

Anonymous jay c May 14, 2013 2:36 PM  

Have you ever seen a pastor say to the bride and groom, "By the power vested in me by the state of Alaaippiana, I now pronounce you husband and wife."

I attended a wedding once where the pastor said "By the power vested in my by God and by Joe and Mary..." I almost shouted amen.

Blogger James Dixon May 14, 2013 2:37 PM  

> Are these activist trying to force chruches to marry gay couples?

A few are. Most aren't yet, but they will. Protests to the contrary are lies.

> The notion that marriage can't be redefined is just that: A notion.

Redefining a dog as a cat doesn't work too well, but then you've been warned before.

Blogger Joshua_D May 14, 2013 2:38 PM  

Not Steve Sailer May 14, 2013 2:32 PM

Why? Isn't marriage intrinsic to a christian lifestyle?"

"This is hard to wrap your queer mind around, but the Christian marriage has dick to do with white dresses, champagne, dancing and other outward pageantry which makes homosexual's heart race with envy...

As Josh noted, marriage ≠ (not equalto ) weddings.

Tad, don't you have a pole to smoke somewhere rather than bothering us with yet another fake name?


Gays don't want marriages for the wedding ceremony and the pageantry. Gays want to redefine marriage because they long to be accepted as "normal".

Oh, and Shut up, Tad.

Anonymous Not Steve Sailer May 14, 2013 2:38 PM  

"What's more likely..."

You've got zero credibility here. Zero facts. Opinions are like arseholes. And nobody cares about your where your opinions have been, believe me.

Anonymous Mudz May 14, 2013 2:39 PM  

You aren't forced to come into the 21st century.

Might want to rethink that one.

You aren't forced to support anything.

Then you may leave, conscience satisfied.

Anonymous Not Steve Sailer May 14, 2013 2:40 PM  

"Gays don't want marriages for the wedding ceremony and the pageantry. Gays want to redefine marriage because they long to be accepted as "normal"."

You don't think one is related to another? That's their folly. They think having a wedding will get them what they want. Plus the homo mind is drawn to elaborate social occasions for the same reasons it's drawn to Broadway.

Blogger foxmarks May 14, 2013 2:41 PM  

“you know, like marriages between straight people.”

Which is why I wrote that SSM *confirms* the transformation of marriage from an everlasting promise before God into an ephemeral dalliance with the state.

Even as society has suffered the tragic consequences of easy divorce, at least parents were still connected legally, socially and morally to their offspring. But what do we do with the product of Glory Hole #7 when his two daddies decide they want to dissolve the whole family?

Blogger Joshua_D May 14, 2013 2:41 PM  

The Jew May 14, 2013 2:36 PM

Exactly! What do you care anyway. You aren't forced to marry anyone. You aren't forced to come into the 21st century. You aren't forced to support anything. And whatever kind of weird, kinky, strange or normal marriage you have is impacted not at all if Susie and Amanda get married and touch each other.


So you do support polygamy, and bestiality and perhaps pederasty. Hooray! What's it to you or me or anymore whether a man wants to marry a man, or two women and a man, or his three dogs, or his grandson?!? Right? Right?!? Equality for all!

Anonymous Lysander Spooner May 14, 2013 2:44 PM  

A gay man against gay marriage, pretty good arguments:

http://youtu.be/CDU9kMtVVuE


Also one for gay marriage, but he is pretty ghey.

Anonymous Anon1 May 14, 2013 2:44 PM  

Tad: Same shit, different username.

Everyone else: STOP FEEDING THE TROLL

Anonymous bob k. mando May 14, 2013 2:45 PM  

The Jew May 14, 2013 2:24 PM
Why? Isn't marriage intrinsic to a christian lifestyle??




every bit as intrinsic as it is to, say ...

JEWISH lifestyles.

dumbass.

Anonymous Anon1 May 14, 2013 2:45 PM  

"What do children and grandchildren have to do with who can get married."

"What do children and grandchildren have to do with who can get married."

"What do children and grandchildren have to do with who can get married."

Anonymous Andre May 14, 2013 2:48 PM  

The Jew, read the fucking OP before you spew your stupidity here how "there is no impact". Seriously, do you feel comfortable in the position of the "useful idiot"? Or do you simply enjoy taking it up your ass?

Seriously, you've got to be the dumbest troll in the history of the Internet.

Blogger James Dixon May 14, 2013 2:48 PM  

> Whatever Christian marriage amounts to, it has nothing to do with whether the state recognizes same sex marriages as well as opposite sex marriages.

What do you know, Tad got something right. Except of course that what the state may or may not call marriage has nothing to do with reality.

> The quality of your marriage has no impact on my marriage.

You're not married, and never will be, however much you "redefine" it. And that will always grate on you, won't it?

You like to think that if you can just redefine the word, everyone will have to accept it. That if you proclaim a lie long enough it will become the truth. But people never will and it won't.

Anonymous Mudz May 14, 2013 2:48 PM  

@ Anon1

Personally, I find him amusing. He's like a character on Everyone Loves Raymond.

Anonymous George of the Hole May 14, 2013 2:49 PM  

Tad is not very bright. He likes to stick his percy in people's polluted, puckered poopers.

Anonymous Not Steve Sailer May 14, 2013 2:49 PM  

"As long as the state is going to recognize marriages between two people, they merely want equal access to the benefits that that recognition confers upon married folk. It's simple. Stop conflating reality with your sick mind."

Contrast to Vox's post above:

"also think equally that it’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist. …(F)ighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we are going to do with marriage when we get there — because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie. The institution of marriage is going to change, and it should change. And again, I don’t think it should exist."

Anonymous Sigyn May 14, 2013 2:49 PM  

Girls making out with each other is entirely different than gays sucking each others dicks.

Yes, it is very different. Girls are more likely to be pressured into doing it because the Herd commands it, and are called "hot" when they do. See, for instance, that incident in the school where girls were compelled to kiss each other whether they wanted to or not.

Same sex marriage will increase the frequency of blow jobs among straight women and men?? Who cares?

Having problems with English, sweetie? I said "expectation", not "compulsion".

Although, considering that school business...Okay, yes. Homogamy will lead to more straight people acting gay. I care about kids being molested. Don't you care about kids being molested?

Where the hell do you even live?

In the United States. Where do you live, Mars?

Blogger James Dixon May 14, 2013 2:51 PM  

> Having problems with English, sweetie?

Tad's historically had a problem in that regard, yes.

Anonymous Andre May 14, 2013 2:51 PM  

Yeah, I pretty much must live in Mars. I've never heard of guys giving each other BJ's when drunk.

Anonymous Josh May 14, 2013 2:51 PM  

Obviously, the activist Vox quoted must have been lying about lying.

Anonymous Mudz May 14, 2013 2:52 PM  

I've probably been married for longer than most commenting here.

I don't think there's such a thing as being married for a negative number of years, so I don't see how it's possible.

Anonymous Josh May 14, 2013 2:53 PM  

Yes, it is very different. Girls are more likely to be pressured into doing it because the Herd commands it, and are called "hot" when they do.

That's because it is hot.

Blogger James Dixon May 14, 2013 2:53 PM  

> you CAN redefine what marriage is in the eyes of the state and the country.

You can redefine the word all you want. It doesn't change reality.

> But it is what it is and it's pretty much done.

So you think. I wonder if I'll live long enough for you to see how wrong you are. Not that it matters.

Anonymous Anon1 May 14, 2013 2:54 PM  

"We redefine definitions and desired outcomes and policy all the time."

Murdered Infants ---> Aborted Birthed Fetuses

Hey, he's right!

Anonymous Josh May 14, 2013 2:54 PM  

OT: RIP Angelina Jolie's boobs

Blogger James Dixon May 14, 2013 2:55 PM  

Yeah, Josh. There should be a national day of mourning or something.

Blogger Conan the Cimmerian, King of Aquilonia May 14, 2013 2:56 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Anonymous Mudz May 14, 2013 2:56 PM  

I just don't think anyone takes the concept of lesbian sex seriously. It's more like assisted masturbation, at best.

I mean, how do you putt on the green when you have no clubs?

Anonymous Tad's Brain May 14, 2013 2:56 PM  

"Gays don't want marriages for the wedding ceremony and the pageantry."

Speak for yourself, girlfriend! I'm going the full "To Wong Foo"!

Blogger James Dixon May 14, 2013 2:56 PM  

> A lunatic in our midst.

We already knew that, Tad. But you can leave any time you want, right?

Anonymous Mudz May 14, 2013 2:57 PM  

Just as I suspected....A lunatic in our midst. Keep the tin foil handy.

What are you warning me now, for? I spotted you ages ago.

Blogger Conan the Cimmerian, King of Aquilonia May 14, 2013 2:59 PM  

Mudz
I just don't think anyone takes the concept of lesbian sex seriously. It's more like assisted masturbation, at best.


Talk about gender confusion:
1. Hate teh Menz!
2. Cut hair to look like teh Menz!
3. Strap down boobz to look like teh Menz!
4. Do each other with strap ons, and be like teh Menz!

Pyschoconfusion.

Anonymous Porky May 14, 2013 2:59 PM  

There should be a national day of mourning or something.

It's just a remodel, not a scraper.

Blogger James Dixon May 14, 2013 3:00 PM  

> You haven't noticed the reality of state's recognizing same sex marriage?

What the state recognizes is immaterial if it's not reality.

> As a political battle this is OVER.

It's never been a political battle.

Blogger Conan the Cimmerian, King of Aquilonia May 14, 2013 3:01 PM  

It must be psych-emotionally devastating to be a lonely, gay, atheist.

And Tad is back.

Blogger Conan the Cimmerian, King of Aquilonia May 14, 2013 3:02 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger James Dixon May 14, 2013 3:03 PM  

> And Tad is back.

There's probably a word for those who insist on hanging around demanding attention from the ones they claim to hate. I'm just blanking on it at the moment.

Anonymous Mudz May 14, 2013 3:04 PM  

You mean when you peaked in your mommy's room and saw her being ridden like the small donkey she is?

I don't recall that. I don't even know what that means. I think you have mistaken me for a figment of your fertile imagination.

Blogger foxmarks May 14, 2013 3:05 PM  

"What do children and grandchildren have to do with who can get married."

If government has any interest whatsoever in marriage, that interest rests on the raising of offspring. An unfruitful marriage deserves no special consideration. To the gov’t it is nothing more than a pinky swear.

So, in this sense, same sex couples can be equal. The people in them are not special. They don’t deserve any more privileges than single people.

Anonymous Mudz May 14, 2013 3:05 PM  

I suppose when you're gay, something might as well be.

Blogger IM2L844 May 14, 2013 3:05 PM  

OT, but interesting in a beginning of the end sort of way:

Divisions Hamper Europe's Plans to Tackle Failing Banks

Shut up, Tad!

Blogger Conan the Cimmerian, King of Aquilonia May 14, 2013 3:06 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger James Dixon May 14, 2013 3:07 PM  

> You lose.

You like to think so, don't you? Enjoy your "victory" while it lasts, Tad. Times change and eternity waits.

Blogger Conan the Cimmerian, King of Aquilonia May 14, 2013 3:08 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Anonymous Andre May 14, 2013 3:13 PM  

Every time someone goes "Shut up, Tad!", it reminds me of the Big Lebowski.

"Shut the fuck up, Donny! You're out of your element!"

Anonymous Sigyn May 14, 2013 3:15 PM  

I just don't think anyone takes the concept of lesbian sex seriously.

Homo's homo, unless you'd like to rewrite the definition to include "only if everyone takes it seriously".

That's because it is hot.

You also think it's morally okay to pay someone else to fornicate until you get off, so I'll take your opinion for what it's worth.

Yeah, I pretty much must live in Mars. I've never heard of guys giving each other BJ's when drunk.

Common fare in slash-fictions. I've heard of it happening in real life rarely, though I'm not sure if it was a dodge to avoid accountability.

Anonymous Mudz May 14, 2013 3:18 PM  


Talk about gender confusion:
1. Hate teh Menz!
2. Cut hair to look like teh Menz!
3. Strap down boobz to look like teh Menz!
4. Do each other with strap ons, and be like teh Menz!

Pyschoconfusion.


I find them adorable. Birds with broken wings. (All the lesbians I know are the teensy variety.) Plus, I consider them a direct challenge to my man-aura. :D I have reason to believe that lesbians are pretty much just girls in recession.

Anonymous Mudz May 14, 2013 3:19 PM  

Homo's homo, unless you'd like to rewrite the definition to include "only if everyone takes it seriously".

Sure. I wasn't commenting on the legitimacy of it, merely explaining their limitations, and why men aren't as bothered by it. Besides the fact that they're the opposite gender.

Anonymous Andre May 14, 2013 3:21 PM  

"Common fare in slash-fictions."

Wikipedia: "Slash fiction is a genre of fan fiction that focuses on interpersonal attraction and sexual relationships between fictional characters of the same sex."

Makes sense.

Anonymous RT May 14, 2013 3:21 PM  

"Rieff’s landmark 1966 book The Triumph Of the Therapeutic analyzes what he calls the “deconversion” of the West from Christianity. Nearly everyone recognizes that this process has been underway since the Enlightenment, but Rieff showed that it had reached a more advanced stage than most people—least of all Christians—recognized.

Rieff, who died in 2006, was an unbeliever, but he understood that religion is the key to understanding any culture. For Rieff, the essence of any and every culture can be identified by what it forbids. Each imposes a series of moral demands on its members, for the sake of serving communal purposes, and helps them cope with these demands. A culture requires acultus—a sense of sacred order, a cosmology that roots these moral demands within a metaphysical framework.

You don’t behave this way and not that way because it’s good for you; you do so because this moral vision is encoded in the nature of reality. This is the basis of natural-law theory, which has been at the heart of contemporary secular arguments against same-sex marriage (and which have persuaded no one).

Rieff, writing in the 1960s, identified the sexual revolution—though he did not use that term—as a leading indicator of Christianity’s death as a culturally determinative force. In classical Christian culture, he wrote, “the rejection of sexual individualism” was “very near the center of the symbolic that has not held.” He meant that renouncing the sexual autonomy and sensuality of pagan culture was at the core of Christian culture—a culture that, crucially, did not merely renounce but redirected the erotic instinct. That the West was rapidly re-paganizing around sensuality and sexual liberation was a powerful sign of Christianity’s demise.

It is nearly impossible for contemporary Americans to grasp why sex was a central concern of early Christianity. Sarah Ruden, the Yale-trained classics translator, explains the culture into which Christianity appeared in her 2010 book Paul Among The People. Ruden contends that it’s profoundly ignorant to think of the Apostle Paul as a dour proto-Puritan descending upon happy-go-lucky pagan hippies, ordering them to stop having fun.

In fact, Paul’s teachings on sexual purity and marriage were adopted as liberating in the pornographic, sexually exploitive Greco-Roman culture of the time—exploitive especially of slaves and women, whose value to pagan males lay chiefly in their ability to produce children and provide sexual pleasure. Christianity, as articulated by Paul, worked a cultural revolution, restraining and channeling male eros, elevating the status of both women and of the human body, and infusing marriage—and marital sexuality—with love.

Christian marriage, Ruden writes, was “as different from anything before or since as the command to turn the other cheek.” The point is not that Christianity was only, or primarily, about redefining and revaluing sexuality, but that within a Christian anthropology sex takes on a new and different meaning, one that mandated a radical change of behavior and cultural norms. In Christianity, what people do with their sexuality cannot be separated from what the human person is."

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/googletopia-revisited-therapeutic-rite-philip-rieff/

Anonymous Josh May 14, 2013 3:21 PM  

Common fare in slash-fictions

Key word being fiction.

That's almost as bad as that feminist on Jezebel citing battlestar galactica as an example of women in combat.

Anonymous Josh May 14, 2013 3:23 PM  

You also think it's morally okay to pay someone else to fornicate until you get off, so I'll take your opinion for what it's worth.

When did I say that? Paying for porn is the definition of malinvestment and poor resource allocation.

Anonymous VD May 14, 2013 3:24 PM  

I don't care one way or another primarily because it is of no importance. Now stop asking stupid questions.

No, Tad, you're going to shut up. You not only don't get to tell others what do here, you don't even get to comment here anymore. I warned you if you didn't respect your ban, you'd be gone for good. Now, go away and continue terminating your gene pool.

You really are an astonishingly annoying little fairy.

Blogger Nate May 14, 2013 3:29 PM  

"Homo's homo, unless you'd like to rewrite the definition to include "only if everyone takes it seriously"."

Actually its not. There is a biblical argument to be made that women laying with women is not even close to the same thing as men laying with men.

Sigyn... love ya kid... but you're out in left field here.

Anonymous Mudz May 14, 2013 3:33 PM  

Huh. I just looked up Romans, and it seems you have a case, Nate.

But I don't thionk it's a stretch to say that lesbian intersexual relationships, to what extent they're possible, are immoral.

Transexuals on the other hand. They're equated. Which raises the question, how the heck did girls have sex change operations back then?!? Or does 'natural use' mean something else?

Anonymous Josh May 14, 2013 3:34 PM  

Plus...science has shown that chicks are attracted by other chicks at a much higher rate than men are attracted by other men.

Blogger crazyivan498 May 14, 2013 3:34 PM  

Lulabelle

Point taken on England. I was thinking of only the United States forgeting the rest of the world.

Anonymous Mudz May 14, 2013 3:36 PM  

@ Josh

Actually, I just think they have lower social inhibitions on that score. More to do with getting attention, than actual attraction.

Anonymous Mudz May 14, 2013 3:37 PM  

Wait, what do you mean, 'science has shown'? Probably should clear that up first.

Blogger Nate May 14, 2013 3:39 PM  

"But I don't thionk it's a stretch to say that lesbian intersexual relationships, to what extent they're possible, are immoral."

I don't even know to what extent they are even possible. Apparently lesbian sex is something akin to communal masturbation.

I wonder if this is a function of the greek language?

Blogger James Dixon May 14, 2013 3:39 PM  

Vox, feel free to nuke my responses to Tad if you want.

Anonymous Clay May 14, 2013 3:39 PM  

Them girls. Just a wine bottle away from a romp on the couch.

Blogger Nate May 14, 2013 3:40 PM  

"Actually, I just think they have lower social inhibitions on that score. More to do with getting attention, than actual attraction."

Bzzt.

Attention Whoring is a popular pass-time for sure. But you should never conclude that they aren't attracted to each other.

They are.

Everyone likes tits. This is indisputable fact.

Anonymous Josh May 14, 2013 3:42 PM  

Wait, what do you mean, 'science has shown'? Probably should clear that up first.

Peer reviewed studies. The gold standard of science.

Anonymous Loki of Asgard May 14, 2013 3:42 PM  

Nate, you are always amusing, but I have just barred Sigyn from returning to this thread due to the emotional turmoil she has experienced. I will do so at any time I judge her excessively perturbed. She is in rather a delicate condition, you know.

((And on a side note, I will correct my own wife when I think she is in error.))

Anonymous Josh May 14, 2013 3:42 PM  

Everyone likes tits. This is indisputable fact.

Except fags.

Anonymous Porky May 14, 2013 3:46 PM  

Nate: There is a biblical argument to be made that women laying with women is not even close to the same thing as men laying with men.

Once you've made the crucial biblical case for Brazilian fartporn, everything else is elementary.

Anonymous Mudz May 14, 2013 3:48 PM  

I don't even know to what extent they are even possible. Apparently lesbian sex is something akin to communal masturbation.

Probably to the same extent of letting a greasy old professor stick his fingers in your butt.

Bzzt.

Attention Whoring is a popular pass-time for sure. But you should never conclude that they aren't attracted to each other.

They are.


I've only been present at one real-life girl-making-out-with-other-girl-at-party, but this is the overall impression I have from the girls I know. She was a girl who said she used to be sort of but not really, a little semi-bi.

Which I'm pretty sure sums up most girls without any sort of moral predisposition on the subject.

Maybe they do get in-situ attracted. Makes no difference. They do it because the idea is appealing, not necessarily the person herself.

Anonymous Josh May 14, 2013 3:48 PM  

Porky,

I'm sure your collection of said Brazilian fart porn is e exquisite and carefully curated.

I'm also sure nobody wants to hear you talk about it.

Anonymous Mudz May 14, 2013 3:49 PM  

(I"m making a broad generalisation with a single 'type' of girl I know. So take it to that extent only.)

Anonymous CLK May 14, 2013 3:50 PM  

VD says "...seeking to destroy both the institution and the sacrament."

There should be no civil marriage at all ... all couples (M-F, M-M, F-F, dog-cat -- what ever the current thing is) should have to execute a contract of civil union that among other things defines the sunset provisions, responsibility of parties etc. Its a standard form, you fill it out, send in your $50 fee and 4 weeks latter there a little card in the mail. Its a legal contract with legal rights etc...

If a Catholic, Protestant etc wants the religious marriage sacrament they can have it when they want it. The government should have no involvement in marriage sacrament at all.

My marriage is between my wife, me and God..

Anonymous Loki of Asgard May 14, 2013 3:50 PM  

Them girls. Just a wine bottle away from a romp on the couch.

...chicks are attracted by other chicks at a much higher rate than men are attracted by other men.

Everyone likes tits.

Do pardon, but am I hearing "women's inclinations" used as an argument for declaring something moral or not?

Anonymous Porky May 14, 2013 3:51 PM  

Excellent rejoinder, Josh. Now finish your juice box and take nap time.

Anonymous Loki of Asgard May 14, 2013 3:53 PM  

I'm also sure nobody wants to hear you talk about it.

He was speaking of Nate. Quite the memorable conversation, that.

Anonymous Porky May 14, 2013 3:55 PM  

He was speaking of Nate. Quite the memorable conversation, that.

Indeed. You won't find that kind of discussion featured on Biologos.org.

Blogger Nate May 14, 2013 3:59 PM  

"Nate, you are always amusing, but I have just barred Sigyn from returning to this thread due to the emotional turmoil she has experienced. I will do so at any time I judge her excessively perturbed. She is in rather a delicate condition, you know."

Disturbing delicate conditions is not my intent. Do express regrets on my behalf.

Blogger Nate May 14, 2013 4:00 PM  

"Do pardon, but am I hearing "women's inclinations" used as an argument for declaring something moral or not?"

Nope. Two unrelated claims are being discussed.

Blogger Nate May 14, 2013 4:01 PM  

"I've only been present at one real-life girl-making-out-with-other-girl-at-party, but this is the overall impression I have from the girls I know. She was a girl who said she used to be sort of but not really, a little semi-bi."

No. She was plain ol' bi.

They all are.

Take it from someone with... considerably more experience in such things.

Blogger Nate May 14, 2013 4:02 PM  

"He was speaking of Nate. Quite the memorable conversation, that."

You nearly googled brazilian fart porn didn't you?

admit it.

Anonymous Sleipnir May 14, 2013 4:03 PM  

Now, now, Loki...perhaps we should leave the morals to the mortals.

Anonymous Mudz May 14, 2013 4:05 PM  

Oh, totally, the clue for me was when she made out with another chick. I'm saying that's the rationalisation that seems to permeate a certain level of young girl.

But sure, I'll accept your greater experience, and then happily ignore it. My brain works, beatch.

No, they aren't all bi. Some of them are dead.

Anonymous Mudz May 14, 2013 4:06 PM  

My non-offensive smiley-face was deleted, and now I fear I have made a terrible breach.

Anonymous Josh May 14, 2013 4:06 PM  

SleipnirMay 14, 2013 4:03 PM
Now, now, Loki...perhaps we should leave the morals to the mortals


BAHAHAHA.

Thread winner, ladies and gents

Anonymous Andre May 14, 2013 4:13 PM  

RT, thank you for the very nice read.

Anonymous Vidad May 14, 2013 4:19 PM  

Nate "No. She was plain ol' bi. They all are. Take it from someone with... considerably more experience in such things."

Damn. You're bi?

Now I'm feeling weird about the nickname you gave me and all...

Anonymous Jack Amok May 14, 2013 4:19 PM  

This is hard to wrap your queer mind around, but the Christian marriage has dick to do with white dresses, champagne, dancing and other outward pageantry which makes homosexual's heart race with envy...

Yeah, but the big ceremony with all the couple's friends and family attending, drinking and feasting at the family's expense and pledging to support the union... That stuff matters. Or should anyway. In a society of people with a smidgen of honor, attending a wedding obligates you to help the couple stay together. No encouraging the wife to "get her groove back" in five years. No tolerating Little Becky Homewrecker fishing for the husband. No advising either to bail on their vows for anything but the most heinous reasons (and perhaps not even those, depending on your churching).

Anonymous Josh May 14, 2013 4:26 PM  

Damn. You're bi?

Now I'm feeling weird about the nickname you gave me and all...


He's got your back

Anonymous Anonymous May 14, 2013 4:27 PM  

He's got your back

That deserves an ick, or a squee...I must consult my scalz-ology.

Blogger foxmarks May 14, 2013 4:32 PM  

“should have to execute a contract of civil union”

But are all such contracts equal? Since breach of this contract can involve significant externalities (disposition of children and property), the people and/or society may have an interest in issuing such standing only to certain contracting parties. Or in limiting the extent of state-paid enforcement of certain provisions depending on the nature of the parties and their agreement.

Equality is a false idol. Changing the venue in which we appeal to it doesn’t solve the problem.

Anonymous Daniel May 14, 2013 4:35 PM  

Nate's Bi for Vi was my favorite Dr. Seuss book as a kid.

Anonymous Asher May 14, 2013 4:37 PM  

@ anon1

That anyone could possibly conflate myself and Tad is evidence of the intellectual poverty in these comment sections. Rabbit.

Anonymous Loki of Asgard May 14, 2013 4:44 PM  

Now, now, Loki...perhaps we should leave the morals to the mortals.

You know, if the rumours were true, this would be disrespect to one's father.

However, they are not, so I shall have you sent to the knackery when I conquer Asgard. Twice the hooves means twice the glue, and I have a fair number of books to repair.

Anonymous Daniel May 14, 2013 4:47 PM  

Blessed are the intellectually poor, for they shall find Asher and Tad in conflate delicto.

Blogger James Dixon May 14, 2013 4:54 PM  

> That anyone could possibly conflate myself and Tad is evidence of the intellectual poverty in these comment sections.

Conflate does not equal equate, Asher. But I keep forgetting you have this problem with definitions.

Anonymous Loki of Asgard May 14, 2013 4:54 PM  

Blessed are the intellectually poor, for they shall find Asher and Tad in conflate delicto.

There is a filthy joke in this, but I shan't tell it.

Blogger crazyivan498 May 14, 2013 4:54 PM  

Everyone likes t**s. This is indisputable fact.

Except f**s.

Not true, I knew some gay guys who loved them. They would watch those day time shows about the witches, with the chick from who's the boss.

Anonymous Anonagain May 14, 2013 5:13 PM  

How utterly typical of a narcissist to claim that mistaking his mighty banned asshole self with another lesser banned asshole is direct evidence of intellectual poverty.

But it is really hilarious is that for all his claims of intellectual poverty, the little narcissist obviously cannot tear himself away from VP's comment section, or resist making a complete idiot of himself with delusions of grandeur.

Anonymous Susan May 14, 2013 5:14 PM  

To get back to the original subject which was, I believe, gays forcing churches to marry them or face legal trouble, churches aren't the only ones in the hot seat here. There are a lot of bakeries and florists who are going to be seeing legal trouble over gays wanting marriage.

Nate, I would be interested in seeing your 'Biblical case' for lesbians not being addressed the same way as men. As far as I can tell Rom. 1:24-27 covers both. Lev. 20:13 covers bi pretty harshly. Not trying to get into a big debate here, but I am curious as to what references you are using to build your case.

Anonymous Asher May 14, 2013 5:27 PM  

@ James Dixon

No, I used the term properly. Several commenters, here, have asserted that Tad and I are the same person. Not only are different people but we have completely different writing styles, methods of arguing and positions on various things.

These comment sections are intellectually pathetic and even equating Tad and myself, much less conflating, is evidence for that.

Anonymous Josh May 14, 2013 5:30 PM  

THE TRAIN IS FINE Y'ALL

Anonymous Taddington A. Mann May 14, 2013 5:32 PM  

"Do you support legalizing polygamy?"

Today, no. But in a couple years I will, and at that time I'll act as if I always did, and I'll be outraged - positively outraged - that anyone could be so barbaric as to oppose it.

Anonymous Josh May 14, 2013 5:34 PM  

Nate, I would be interested in seeing your 'Biblical case' for lesbians not being addressed the same way as men. As far as I can tell Rom. 1:24-27 covers both. Lev. 20:13 covers bi pretty harshly. Not trying to get into a big debate here, but I am curious as to what references you are using to build your case.

Lev 20:13 is referring to dudes. So is Rom 1:27

Blogger IM2L844 May 14, 2013 5:34 PM  

Damn. You're bi?

I think Vox turned him.

Now he likes earnings based assets AND debt based assets.

Blogger tz May 14, 2013 5:38 PM  

<a href="http://www.theamericanconservative.com/justin-raimondo-vs-jonathan-rauch-on-same-sex-marriage/>A Gay Libertarian speaks sense</a>

Israel does not have "civil marriage".

Those who believe that Caesar/Nero/Diocletian should define marriage should be institutionalized.

I don't think the institution of civil marriage should exist, but then I tend to be uncivil.

Anonymous FP May 14, 2013 5:46 PM  

"Girls making out with each other is entirely different than gays sucking each others dicks."

Try walking in on two sisters who were drunkenly kissing each other because "its what guys like to see" while at a family Christmas party. The kids of the older sister being about 40 feet away in another room playing with their new toys. Their mother (Dad's girlfriend) was in the same room at the kitchen cleaning up.

Anonymous Josh May 14, 2013 6:05 PM  

I'm clearly going to the wrong Christmas parties...

Anonymous Daniel May 14, 2013 6:14 PM  

Try walking in on two sisters who were drunkenly kissing each other because "its what guys like to see" while at a family Christmas party. The kids of the older sister being about 40 feet away in another room playing with their new toys. Their mother (Dad's girlfriend) was in the same room at the kitchen cleaning up.

...cleaning up what?

And was the name of their act, the Aristocrats?

Anonymous Red Comet May 14, 2013 6:16 PM  

Traditional culture = Christian culture here?

True of every culture that created Western civilization. Unless of course you want to argue that Commie Land or Muzzie Land were better places to live at any point in history anywhere.

Blogger Nate May 14, 2013 6:56 PM  

"Lev 20:13 is referring to dudes. So is Rom 1:27"

Yep. This.

Blogger James Dixon May 14, 2013 6:57 PM  

> No, I used the term properly.

Well, like I said, you have a problem with definitions.

> Several commenters, here, have asserted that Tad and I are the same person.

A couple have, yes. I guess a least 3, so that might qualify as several.

> Not only are different people but we have completely different writing styles, methods of arguing and positions on various things.

Yes, you do. Which has absolutely nothing to do with the comparison.

> These comment sections are intellectually pathetic and even equating Tad and myself, much less conflating, is evidence for that.

Whoosh. Oh well, I should know better by now.


Anonymous Mudz May 14, 2013 6:57 PM  

@ 'Asher'

I don't know why you think that would concern anyone. I neither see any difference, or care.

After that comment, I'll quite happily assume you're both the same person, until further notice. Unless you're wearing Asher's skin for just a special one-time occasion.

@ Susan

Yeah, actually it's pretty hilarious, but skipping carefully over the tempation to make some obvious jokes that would get me a ticket straight to hell, it looks like God doesn't even think lesbians are a thing. Perhaps just raising one divine eyebrow at the subject, one might be bold enough to think.

I could be wrong of course, but I think it supports my thesis that lesbians can't actually have sex.

Blogger Nate May 14, 2013 7:02 PM  

"You know, if the rumours were true, this would be disrespect to one's father."

Actually if rumours are true... then this would... some how... be disrespecting one's... mother?

Blogger Nate May 14, 2013 7:04 PM  

"Damn. You're bi? "

This is why Vox says your sense of humour is obvious.

Anonymous Asher May 14, 2013 7:08 PM  

@ James Dixon

Yes, you do. Which has absolutely nothing to do with the comparison.

Then what is the basis for the comparison?

I don't know why you think that would concern anyone. I neither see any difference, or care.

That you cannot see any difference is evidence for how intellectually pathetic is the average comment on this blog. BTW, you also happen to disagree with James Dixon, as he admitted that myself and Tad share no writing and arguing style nor any positions. Yet, you still cannot see "any difference".

It's fucking pathetic and why the Right is in such tatters.

Blogger Nate May 14, 2013 7:10 PM  

"Yeah, actually it's pretty hilarious, but skipping carefully over the tempation to make some obvious jokes that would get me a ticket straight to hell, it looks like God doesn't even think lesbians are a thing. Perhaps just raising one divine eyebrow at the subject, one might be bold enough to think."

A careful reading is pretty clear. Whatever it is that two chicks do... it isn't really considered sex in the biblical sense.

I really need to study it more... One has to look at the greek words used and what other words could have been used instead but weren't. I don't know that there actually is a greek word for "gay". There is a greek word for "men having sex with other men". There is a word for "women who have sex with either men or women". But I don't think there is a word for "women who only have sex with women" or a word for "anyone who has sex with someone of their same sex".

Anonymous Mudz May 14, 2013 7:12 PM  

That you cannot see any difference is evidence for how intellectually pathetic is the average comment on this blog. BTW, you also happen to disagree with James Dixon, as he admitted that myself and Tad share no writing and arguing style nor any positions. Yet, you still cannot see "any difference".

It's fucking pathetic and why the Right is in such tatters.


Still not feeling it. And why would I care that I disagree with James Dixon? Or care about the 'Right' for that matter.

Actually, it just indicates that you two don't strike me as remarkably distinct people. This could be because one of you is much the same as the other, or simply because you both didn't stand out enough for my memory to make specific character notes.

I like how you drew an average from me alone. Makes me feel rather special. I'm a blog thread unto myself.

Anonymous Mudz May 14, 2013 7:15 PM  

@ Nate

I would be very interested to see what you turn up, so I hope you pop a link over here when you have.

If there's a word for 'bi' there should be a word for lesbian. I mean, Lesbos is actually a Greek word isn't it? Um, I think. Or maybe it's just an island.

Anonymous MrGreenMan May 14, 2013 7:20 PM  

OK, I'll bite:

You've focused a lot on Romans 1:27. The original remark from Susan was for the whole sexual immorality expository lump, Romans 1, verses 24-27.

My go-to version, the ASV 1904, seems to have something to say about women being guilty of sexual sin for anything sexual beyond normal intercourse with a husband:

"26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile passions: for their women changed the natural use into that which is against nature:

27 and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another, men with men working unseemliness, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was due."

Most translations appear to even group 26 and 27 into a single sentence, so trying to make 1:27 stand alone and be silent about women seems about the same as trying to shove Eph 5:21 into the subsequent instead of proceeding paragraph.

It sure looks like you've come up with a convenient reading for your particular pet sins. Further, given how much Juvenal talked about women's sexual immorality as an epidemic in the Roman Empire in that time, it seems unthinkable that Paul is talking about anything but the whole behavior of extra-marital sexual expression of women here - lesbianism, polyandry, hook-up culture, everything.

(If you play the Greek word intonation/connotation game on this one, then I'm going to assume you're one of those agape/phileo people, who fetish the Greek language, and I'll just put you in that crazy category. Pick the range of English language translations available - 1:26 does not support the idea that God winks at female sexual abnormality.)

Anonymous Godfrey May 14, 2013 7:21 PM  

It's all part of the agenda to reduce population levels.

We're all manipulated and managed like livestock.

Anonymous Asher May 14, 2013 7:22 PM  

@ Mudz

it just indicates that you two don't strike me as remarkably distinct people.

What a freaking bizarre comment. First, the default is to consider distinct persons distinct, unless one is given cause to consider otherwise.

you both didn't stand out enough for my memory to make specific character notes.

You and I once had a lengthy back and forth on some topic where you admitted that you had gotten to "like me", your words, involving something having to do with the Bible and politics. You admitted that I was obviously better studied on the topic, that you weren't sure how to respond and that what I said argued was making to think more deeply on the topic.

Now, you turn around and say you can't distinguish between us because you haven't given any thought to either of us. Which is it? I would invite you to read what James says about a double-minded man being unstable in all he does.

I like how you drew an average from me alone.

I did no such thing, and this comment is of a junior high female variety.

Blogger Nate May 14, 2013 7:28 PM  

"Lesbos is actually a Greek word isn't it? Um, I think. Or maybe it's just an island."

Its an island.. but its an island that produced such epic sluts that they were known to show up at social functions and orally service everyone there. Literally. Its not a gay thing. its a slut thing.

Anonymous Vidad May 14, 2013 7:31 PM  

"This is why Vox says your sense of humour is obvious."

...and your sentence structure and grasp of grammar are perforated enough to allow those obvious jokes. Perfect!

Anonymous Shutup, Tad. May 14, 2013 7:33 PM  

(Late to the party, but I know Tad must be in there somewhere)

Shutup Tad, you cum guzzling, cheek spreading, tarted up strutting street whore.

Just shutup, already.

Blogger SarahsDaughter May 14, 2013 7:34 PM  

I've wondered, the men of the Bible with several wives...do they only have sex with one at a time? Was there instruction on this? I can't imagine men then to be any different than men today and if you've got two wives willing to put on a show...

As I understand it the sin is in women rebelling from the natural order of having been made for him to be his helpmeet.

Boobs, boobs are good. But her nethra yayeh and vicinity - not so much.

Anonymous Mudz May 14, 2013 7:36 PM  

What a freaking bizarre comment. First, the default is to consider distinct persons distinct, unless one is given cause to consider otherwise.

You gave me cause. A) You turned up fortiutously. B) I felt like it, because you were getting in a tizzy that didn't impress me.

You and I once had a lengthy back and forth on some topic where you admitted that you had gotten to "like me", your words, involving something having to do with the Bible and politics. You admitted that I was obviously better studied on the topic, that you weren't sure how to respond and that what I said argued was making to think more deeply on the topic.

I recall changing my mind on someone, was that you? Were we discussing objectivity or somesuch?

If so, I'll apologise, because that would certainly make you distinct. I just have no memory for internet people, names and such.

that you weren't sure how to respond

This doesn't sound like me though. If you are that guy, then the last we spoke, you said you needed time to give a complicated answer to my question: "Why would a morality that applies to one arbitrary group of people not apply to another arbitrary group of people?"

I assumed you had forgotten or moved on to another site.


I like how you drew an average from me alone.

I did no such thing, and this comment is of a junior high female variety.

That would be difficult for me to manage. I'm a man, and we don't even have junior high.

And you did, actually. Read the following carefully:

That you cannot see any difference is evidence for how intellectually pathetic is the average comment on this blog.

My personal perspective is evidence for the average comment.

So, one person can be 'evidence' for an average? Or simply that my comment is evidence for the intellectual quality of other people's comments. I don't think that's how either statistics or logic work.

Anonymous Porky May 14, 2013 7:42 PM  

Ας ένας άνθρωπος εξετάσουμε πρώτα Βραζιλίας πορνό κλανιά του, στη συνέχεια, και έτσι να απολαύσετε τις λεσβίες.

1Cor:11-28

NNGT (New Nate's Greek Translation)

Blogger Nate May 14, 2013 7:43 PM  

"If you play the Greek word intonation/connotation game on this one, then I'm going to assume you're one of those agape/phileo people, who fetish the Greek language, and I'll just put you in that crazy category."

The amusing thing here is that you assume we give a flying rat's ass how you categorize us.

Given that we can't actually be lesbians... and our wives certainly are not lesbians... the accusation is also laughable.

Its rather like calling anyone that asks about how much coal is required to run a certain oven 24 hours a day a holocaust denier.

Anonymous Sedgewick Finster May 14, 2013 7:43 PM  

Angelina Jolie had her tits chopped off.

Jeez.

Blogger Nate May 14, 2013 7:47 PM  

"I've wondered, the men of the Bible with several wives...do they only have sex with one at a time? Was there instruction on this? I can't imagine men then to be any different than men today and if you've got two wives willing to put on a show..."

There is no instruction on this sort of thing... but given the sexual behavior described at various celebrations in the bible... its a bit difficult to imagine any kind of prudishness from Solomon. He does say after all... He experienced ALL the pleasures.

Anonymous Asher May 14, 2013 7:48 PM  

@ Mudz

You gave me cause. A) You turned up fortiutously. B) I felt like it

In what bizarre world is this "cause"???? In other words, your "cause" is simply because you felt like it. Fucking pathetic.

you were getting in a tizzy that didn't impress me

This is Jezzie behavior. Someone disputes a point and they're getting in a tizzy. Absolutely pathetic. I simply pointed out that that myself and Tad share absolutely nothing in common.

That would be difficult for me to manage. I'm a man, and we don't even have junior high.

Not difficult, at all. Many of the commenters at VP argue in the fashion of a 12 year old girl - that does not make them 12 year old girls.

My personal perspective is evidence for the average comment.

When people say that they have a perspective they give reasons for their position. Your "cause" was because you felt like it, as you have already admitted. That is not a perspective but a whim, and it is typically effeminate.

So, one person can be 'evidence' for an average?

Your comments are just more evidence for an average, a claim I have asserted on other occasions. Again, this is more adolescent female style commenting. Absolutely pathetic.

Anonymous Mudz May 14, 2013 7:49 PM  

Just to be clear, in case there's a need to distinguish my position from Nate's, I don't think God's cool with lesbians. They just can't actually succeed in what they desire to do, so it seems to be an fairly ineffectual sort of sin, so that He didn't even bother specifying it amongst the others. One can merely infer that it's not moral behaviour.

But maybe that's why the gay dude sexers is where all the AIDs come from.

That damn Patriarchy, it even takes the biggest sins.

Blogger SarahsDaughter May 14, 2013 7:56 PM  

They just can't actually succeed in what they desire to do

My oldest childhood friend has been in a lesbian relationship for four years now. RLB has told her they need to find a good Mormon man to marry to lead them because they can't make good decisions for anything. She laughed, she knows it's true.

Anonymous Mudz May 14, 2013 7:56 PM  

In what bizarre world is this "cause"???? In other words, your "cause" is simply because you felt like it. Fucking pathetic.

It's good enough for me. In a couple of minutes time, I might feel like having a coffee.


This is Jezzie behavior. Someone disputes a point and they're getting in a tizzy. Absolutely pathetic. I simply pointed out that that myself and Tad share absolutely nothing in common.


I pointed out that I didn't care.

Not difficult, at all. Many of the commenters at VP argue in the fashion of a 12 year old girl - that does not make them 12 year old girls.

Again, you seem to think that somehow I equal some sort of community to myself, why are 'many of the commenters' who aren't me, relevant to me? And what's with the 'they're not 12 year old girls' distinction? I didn't accuse anyone of saying that.


When people say that they have a perspective they give reasons for their position. Your "cause" was because you felt like it, as you have already admitted. That is not a perspective but a whim, and it is typically effeminate.


I did. You showed up after Tad disappeared, and I felt like it because you were having a tantrum. It's amazing how little your adjectives mean to me.

Your comments are just more evidence for an average, a claim I have asserted on other occasions. Again, this is more adolescent female style commenting. Absolutely pathetic.

You realise I do read and write English? I can see where you put extra words. Inserting the word 'more' in there, changes the argument.

You know, I don't think I'll lose any sleep. All that means is that 12 year old girls must argue at an impressively advanced level of discourse. Good on 'em.


Anonymous Porky May 14, 2013 7:58 PM  

OT: DHS just put a padlock on Dwolla. Apparently they view bitcoin as a threat.

Anonymous bob k. mando May 14, 2013 8:01 PM  

Sigyn May 14, 2013 3:15 PM
Common fare in slash-fictions



and slash-fic is primarily written by ... ?

i believe the answer is, "Women, with a smattering ( is 'smattering' the correct term for a group of queers? ) of queers", is it not?




VD May 14, 2013 3:24 PM
No, Tad, you're going to shut up. You not only don't get to tell others what do here, you don't even get to comment here anymore. I warned you if you didn't respect your ban, you'd be gone for good. Now, go away and continue terminating your gene pool.



amongst the many other benefits ( new post search function, mark as read, sticky ability for threads containing info of strategic importance, the ability to give Taylor her own sub-fora where she can 'moderate', etc ) of real forum software is the ability to ban IP addresses, individually as well as by block ( China is a popular block to block, as it were ).

Anonymous Asher May 14, 2013 8:02 PM  

@ Mudz

I pointed out that I didn't care.

If you don't care then why comment on it, at all? You're not being consistent and not making any sense. A double-minded man ...

I felt like it because you were having a tantrum

Absolutely pathetic. This is juvenile and effeminate. I pointed out that tad and I are clearly not the same person and don't even resemble each other in any way and all of a suddent it's a "tantrum".

You realise I do read and write English?

So do 12 year old girls, of which your commenting style resembles one.

Anonymous Mudz May 14, 2013 8:03 PM  

and slash-fic is primarily written by ... ?

i believe the answer is, "Women, with a smattering ( is 'smattering' the correct term for a group of queers? ) of queers", is it not?


In my experience it seems to be. I have agnostic bi-sexual female Supernatural fans for friends, and slash fic is a source of much martyred comfort to them for some reason.

Anonymous JartStar May 14, 2013 8:07 PM  

I thought you were banned, Asher?

Anonymous Tad May 14, 2013 8:07 PM  

I am Asher

Anonymous Mudz May 14, 2013 8:10 PM  

If you don't care then why comment on it, at all? You're not being consistent and not making any sense. A double-minded man ...

Allow me remind you of the context. I didn't care that you said you were two different people. It obviously amused me to comment.


Absolutely pathetic. This is juvenile and effeminate. I pointed out that tad and I are clearly not the same person and don't even resemble each other in any way and all of a suddent it's a "tantrum".


It your behaviour, actually. In fact, I wouldn't say that your tantrum has actually reached it's end yet. I don't why you're concerned that it was sudden. How much time does it normally take you to recognise a tantrum?

So do 12 year old girls, of which your commenting style resembles one.

I'm fascinated. Do go on.



Blogger Nate May 14, 2013 8:11 PM  

"Just to be clear, in case there's a need to distinguish my position from Nate's, I don't think God's cool with lesbians."

Whoa? who said I said that?

I said I am not certain its considered sex in the biblical sense.

Anonymous Mudz May 14, 2013 8:13 PM  

@ Nate

I leapt to conclusions, my bad. It seemed to be the way you were going with it.

Sorry. [face of sheep]

Anonymous MrGreenMan May 14, 2013 8:14 PM  

"The amusing thing here is that you assume we give a flying rat's ass how you categorize us."

Just keep calling evil good, Nate. There seemed like an honest question, I saw deception in your answer.

Anonymous Godfrey May 14, 2013 8:15 PM  

This psychological disorder can usually be traced to an individual's failure to connect with the same gender parent. The afflicted is often sexually immature, confused and insecure and frequently continues through life in a state of pubescent adolescence.

Blogger Nate May 14, 2013 8:17 PM  

My position is... unless you're going to argue.. and some do.. that wives giving head are committing sodomy... or some other sin.. then its going to be very difficult indeed to explain how two wives giving their husband head at the same time is sin.

Putting on a show is just that. Putting on a show. given that any lust induced would be lust for his wives.. one can't even go that route to call it sin.

I would love to hear how women thinking breasts are hot is un-natural.

Anonymous Mudz May 14, 2013 8:18 PM  

Women are weird.

Anonymous HalfWitReactionary May 14, 2013 8:24 PM  

The idiot whistle gets called here every day. You guys are the idiots.

Anonymous bob k. mando May 14, 2013 8:25 PM  

OT, AGW news:
interesting new way to form glaciers quickly:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/12/lake-mille-lacs-ice-minnesota-izatys_n_3263630.html?utm_hp_ref=green#slide=2450435

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0EyfEDKWscg

Anonymous Mudz May 14, 2013 8:27 PM  

The idiot whistle gets called here every day. You guys are the idiots.

Hahaha, finally someone gets the irony, but fails to note that he was the one that came running.

Anonymous Asher May 14, 2013 8:28 PM  

@ JartStar

If I were banned wouldn't it be reasonable that commenters wouldn't be bringing me up several weeks after the event? This is good evidence for my claim that much of the commenting that goes on here meets the personal, emotional needs of the commenters and has nothing to do with serious intellectual discussion.

I don't get why Vox often writes piercingly insightful posts and let's his comments section go to shit.

Blogger Nate May 14, 2013 8:30 PM  

"There seemed like an honest question, I saw deception in your answer."

You percieve what you will. Again. I don't care. I'm not saying lesbianism isn't sin. I'm saying I am not certain it meets the biblican definition of "sex". Sodomy doesn't either. Never the less sodomy is clearly sin.

1 – 200 of 244 Newer› Newest»

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts