Wednesday, April 29, 2015

Elena Kagan and Sonia Soto-Mayor
Were Not Included in this Old Bit of Snideness 
Masquerading as Humor from the New York Times.

Nevertheless, Please Bear in Mind that These Distinctly-Odd Individuals Attired in Black Robes are Now Deciding the Fate of Untold Millions of Homosexuals who want to Marry and Live Like Everyone Else.


My personal views on the subject of homosexual Marriage 
are well illustrated in the verse below.


Before committing Marriage Gay People should take pause
And consider the implications of Community Property Laws.

Lust may achieve satiety
With or without propriety,
So why become a martyr
To receive the imprimatur
Of a dull Bourgeois society
Whose strictures you flee gleefully?

Intimate relationships of each and every kind
Are blithely entered into by mad persons love made blind.
The stress and strain of living close together every day
Demands incessant giving causing tempers soon to fray.

The quest to reach Equality considers not, of course,
The Agony -- and vast Expense -- that comes with a Divorce!

~ FreeThinke



    So I have to buy health insurance because...

    1. Good question, though it dodges the specific issue at hand.

    2. The minute you prohibit persons from doing ANYTHING, you are "determining the way they may wish to live their lives". And certainly, you do want to prohibit people from wantonly killing others. The real question, therefore, is to what "degree" it is permissible for government to regulate their citizen's lives.

    3. Fair enough, though I thought I'd covered that contingency when I said "Presuming a lack of criminality."

      In order to have Civilization on even the most elemental level, murder, rape, mayhem, theft, kidnapping, arson, vandalism, extortion and persistent campaigns of harassment MUST be proscribed by the State and rigidly enforced by police.

      Everything ELSE, however, should never be subject to regulation or government supervision.

    4. lol! Sodomy USED to be "criminal"... until Lawrence v. Texas

    5. "Criminality" lies in the eye of the beholder.

    6. But then we'd have a proper legal definition of sodomy, and we don't. The term means different things to different people. Besides, anti-sodomy statues are impracticable.

      Please take note of the following piece of profundity:

      Lest somehow you could manage 

      ____ in every bed to be

      There could be no advantage
____ to banning sodomy.


    7. Besides, anti-sodomy statues are impracticable.

      And "hate crime" statutes aren't? :P

    8. I'd say that it world be quite a bit more difficult for authorities to police the inside of my head, then the opposite side of my bed

    9. " ... police the inside of my head ..."

      They're working on that night and day. Of that you can be sure. Any day now the inmost thoughts you harbor may no longer be your own.

    ________ MODIFIED by FT _________

    A lesbian girl got divorced from her wife.
    They'd quarreled the whole of their marital life.

    “We’d better divide the things” one said,
    “You take the chair, ‘cause I want the bed.”

    The answer was, “You’re being unfair,
    You take the bed, ‘cause I want the chair.”

    They got in a fight like you never saw,
    And it all wound up in a court of law.

    The case ended badly, both nailed to The Cross;
    They suffered tremendous financial loss,

    For never will a lawyer relent
    Till all his clients’ money is spent.

    One finally went to a Judo class
    Attacked the other who fell on her ––– back!.

    OUCH! It hurt so she said, “Okay!
    There’s the bed, go take it away."

    The moral is, if you want the loot,
    Don’t get mixed up in a legal suit.

    You’re far more likely to get the bed,
    If you bash your partner over the head!

    ~ Anna Russell (modified by FT)

    1. You left out all the ricky-ticky-ricky-ticky's and the doop-a-doopity-beery-be's, FT. Why?

      A. Fanne

    2. Glad to see a fellow fan of the great Anna Russell aboard. May she live forever. To answer your question: In this particular instance all that folderol would only have obscured the point I was trying to make with Anna's deliciously satirical approach.

  3. Replies
    1. Having served the Church from the "business end" for well over forty years I have regretfully formed the opinion that the Church in the main has done a superb job of perverting Christ's Teachings, compromising too much with Mammon, and therefore making of herself an irrelevant travesty of what she is supposed to be.

      Ergo, I'm not sure that what you assert would be that bad a thing. Frankly, I predict the Church, as we have known it, will be defunct –– KAPUT –– in 20-50 more years at best. The Church did this to herself. Government had nothing to do with it.

      This saddens me, of course, because the Church has so greatly enriched my life and given me a sense of purpose, BUT "The Handwriting Is on the Wall." the parish in which I was raised literally died last year, and the beautiful building my father helped serve, maintain and enhance architecturally has fallen into disrepair from abuse and neglect, and shit its doors forever less than a year ago.

      The Facts of Life are often hard to take, but they are what they are.

    2. On second thought, AOW, I an see quite clearly that one of the PRIMARY REASONS for the Left's taking up the cudgel for this particular cause would be to do as much damage as possible to the Church, which most of them would DESTROY and bury all memory of, if they could. Even Joe Stalin and his band of Jewish intellectual brigands were not able to accomplish THAT, however. I suppose we Christians should take some comfort from that historical fact?

      Odd, isn't it, that while I tend to dismiss The Church as it has become in latter years as a sad travesty of what-it-should-be, I still would defend her against the wicked incursions and depredations of the sterile, godless Left.

      The Church is in desperate need of Reform and Revival NOT destruction.

      I hasten to add, however, that those who define themselves as "Christian" simply because they are militantly anti-homosexual have missed the entire POINT of the New Testament, and are no more "Christian" than The Reverend Al Sharpton, or that blustering ignoramus, Jeremiah Wright of "God Damn America" fame.

    3. Reverend Billy Jim HollerApril 29, 2015 at 4:05 PM

      The leftwing cultural vandals don't want to destroy the church; they want to twist and pervert it to the point it endorses every sin it once preached against. Seeing the church on her knees, worshiping at the altar of Satan is much more satisfying to the freakish gargoyles on the left than simply destroying her.

      It won't really be 'the church,' the real church at that point. The church will be a remnant in hiding, but such a satanic spectacle will satisfy the Biblical illiterates.


    4. Now, Billy, if what you just described isn't a perfect picture of God's Church destroyed I can't imagine what would be.

      I have a sneaking suspicion that The Church may become more godly, less arrogant, less prideful, less self-serving, and less devoted to the acquisition of worldly goods if she WERE forced to go underground. After all, she STARTED that way, didn't she?

      And by the way, as christians I don't believe we should wish anyone to end up in Hell. Wouldn't it be much better if we devoted our energies to trying to win them over to Christ? Isn't THAT what we are supposed to do?

      I suggest leaving the judging up to Almighty God. He knows far better than we what needs to be done, don't you agree?

    5. By the way, what makes you think that satirical verse is not "serious commentary," AOW? Just because a serious issue gets examined from a humorous perspective and tends, therefore, to be amusing (we hope ;-), does not mean the intent behind the witty mockery is meant to be dismissed or taken lightly.

      Straightforward, deadly-serious expository writing filled with statistics and footnotes tends most often to be downright soporific. One needn't be a boring –– or alarming –– Old Sobersides to be worthy of serious consideration.

    6. FT,
      Well, satire contains humor; my comment did not. Therefore, I wanted to make it clear that I wasn't being satirical, snide, sarcastic, etc.

    7. BTW, the gay couple a few houses over from us had a big break-up some years ago.

      Furniture tossed out onto the front yard.

      Clothes tossed out onto the front yard.

      Lots of running around in the front yard. One of the two guys was a cross-dresser or a flamer. Feather boa.

      Quite a tumult.

      It was fall, and everybody's windows were wide open.

      I'm sure that our snickers would now be defined as micro-aggressions.

      The bit of verse reminded me of that scene that played out that day here in this neighborhood.

      Just sayin'.

    8. §;-D=

      That just proves to me that "they" are not very different from anyone else when it comes to irrational behavior over domestic disputes, which is the main point of this entire post. Getting legally "married" is NOT going to do anything to raise the levels of "their" emotional and psychological maturity anymore than it has for millions of foolish young middle-class heterosexuals who tend today to cohabit FIRST, have the baby NEXT, buy a house MAYBE, and then –– maybe, if they don't get too bored with each other –– get MARRIED later on.

      In the immortal words of Cole Porter:

      The world's gone mad today,
      Good's bad today,
      Black's white today,
      Day's night today,
      Most guys today
      That women prize today
      Are just silly gigolos ..."

      He wrote that back in the early 1930's, I believe, possibly earlier. SO, once again we see "The more things change, the more they remain the same."

      I'm trying to get us o see his "Oh-So Weighty Issue" in better perspective. In the Great Scheme "Gay Marriage" ain't much. I see it as just-another liberal-generated Tempest in a Teapot."

      AND no matter WHAT: "Que sera sera!"

  4. Church-State entanglements never end well for the Church.

    Marriage at one time long ago was just that: A bonding of two people to form a family. No other benefits accrued other than what the two people could accomplish together.

    Today, all kinds of privileges and government benefits are conferred upon married couples, making it now the business of the state.

    So, marriage is now, for those religiously-inclined, two things: A religious ceremony or sacramet/covenent, and a legal contract. Many irreligious skip the religious ceremony.

    So, it follows that the legal part of marriage now belongs to the government and is under their control.

    Churches will simply surrender the role of agent of the state in the matter of marriages.

    You want to get married at your Baptist Church where your parents were married? The pastor will instruct you to first go to a judge and get the legal ceremony out of the way. Bring him your civil marriage license, and he will then perform the religious ceremony.

    1. Marriage has been a business of the state as long as there have been states.


    2. JMJ: Prove it!

      It is not mentioned in the US constitution, dummy

    3. PLEASE refrain from using insultng names and unkind epithets when addressing those you don't agree with.

      Following the Golden Rule is ALWAYS the best thing we could possibly do, NO MATTER HOW our adversaries express themselves.

      We need to stop acting like seventh graders at a school cafeteria food fight.

    4. Thank for the help, Anon, but I don't need it.

      Look back at Civil War times, almost 100 years after the nation's founding. The only government benefit that could possibly accrue to a spouse would be perhaps a small widow's pension or something like that.

      Today, we all give and get much from the government based upon our marital status.


    5. Since the days of archaic Greece, and beyond, when "states" first formed as we think of them today, marriage was a state matter. The relation of the state to marriage has morphed and changed over the years, but it has long, long been a state matter.


    6. Atimia was a form of disenfranchisement used under classical Athenian democracy.

      Under democracy in ancient Greece, only free adult Greek males were enfranchised as full citizens. Women, foreigners, children and slaves were not full citizens; they could not vote or hold public office, and they had to have adult males act as guardians of their property and other interests.

      A man who was made atimos, literally without honour or value, was likewise disenfranchised and disempowered, making him unable to carry out the political functions of a citizen. He could not attend assembly meetings, serve as a juror in Heliaia or bring actions before the courts.

      Being barred from assembly would effectively end a citizen's political ambition. Not being able to use the courts to defend oneself against enemies could be socially crippling. It also meant the loss of the small income that jury service and attendance at the assembly provided, which could be significant for poor people unable to work.

      Atimia could be inflicted as a penalty by the courts for crimes such as adultery or refusing to divorce a wife who had been seduced; or for being the passive partner in a male homosexual relationship, who was considered too feminized and "made a woman" by that role. It was also automatically imposed if a debt to the state was unpaid after a certain time, for instance if someone was unable to pay a fine. There was no upper limit on the fines courts could impose and they could well be larger than a person's entire estate. Just as this debt was inheritable, so was the status.

      Failure to abide by atimia was seen as an attack on the power of the people, represented by the courts that had imposed it. Failing to comply with atimia could lead to the death penalty.

      Disenfranchise adulterers and homos... works for me.

    7. Seems that the Spartan's agreed. Either you were at LEAST bi-sexual... or you were OUT!

      Agamiou Graphe (ἀγαμίου γραφή). An indictment among the Spartans brought against those who married too late or unsuitably; and also against those who did not marry at all. The penalty was Atimia ( ἀτιμία. )

    8. The Greeks understood that it was the duty of its' citizens to produce offspring. Homosexual "marriages" would have been condemned as anti-Greek.

    9. I'm sorry to learn the ancient Greeks were neither as advanced nor enlightened as is popularly believed.

      It had always been my understanding that marriage among the upper class Greeks was intended primarily for the purpose of procreation, which was seen as a duty.

      Love, romance and pleasure were experienced much more in pederastic homosexual liaisons, which were not only tolerated but lauded, applauded and openly celebrated.

      By the way, as I indicated in my terse verse regarding the futility of banning sodomy, how in heaven's name could "The Public" be made aware precisely of who was doing what to whom, how often, and with what degree of pleasure?

      Perhaps in Orwell's dystopian fantasies, but nowhere else have I ever heard of GOVERNMENT-SUPERVISED, PUBLICLY-MONITORED SEX.

    10. pederastic homosexual liaisons, which were not only tolerated but lauded, applauded and openly celebrated.... so long as you were NEVER on the "receiving" end.

    11. The only truley "lauded" homosexual relationship was between the tyrannicides, Harmodius and Aristogiton

    12. ...and even "it" formed a pretty good argument AGAINST the practice.

    13. What a pity!

      ------------> Katharine Heartburn

  5. Of a dull Bourgeois society
    Whose strictures you flee gleefully?


    If I didn't know better I might think you were trolling to get a rise from the gay Bolshevik community. Not sure if they still use the term "bourgeois" or bourgeoisie" but you pose a good question, FT.

    Some people even equate the Bolshevik revolution in Russia with the "Jewish agenda" closely related to the agenda being imposed on the next country with its head sitting on the block—the United States of America since most of its values have been progressively debased, mocked and spat upon especially today.

  6. Professor Maxine Beardella, PhDApril 29, 2015 at 11:09 AM

    Men must get over the illusion that a cock and balls entitles them to ownership of the world. Cisgenderism is dead, people.

    1. And precisely HOW is that assertion in any way relevant to the subject today's post or sentiments expressed in my verse on the pitfalls of legalized gay marriage or the splendid satire of Anna Russell?

    2. Professor Maxine Beardella, PhDApril 29, 2015 at 2:07 PM

      Men set this all up. It is difficult to discern your thesis. Are you being tongue in cheek? Do you side with the homophobic cisgendered, or are you gleeful at the prospect of married gays and lesbians meeting the same marital strife as heteros?

      You exhibit a puckish wit, I just wonder at whom it is aimed.

    3. That's good. I've never considered patent obviousness to be a virtue. The culture suffers horribly today from an almost complete lack of subtlety and wit. Maintaining an element of mystery leaves questions open to speculation, but better yet it stimulates thought –– or should.

      I will, however, drop one important clue:

      I define myself primarily as a libertarian in the classic sense of the term. The Founding Fathers were all libertarians, even though the term had not yet been coined.

  7. The argument 'marriage is a pain in the ass so gays shouldn't want it anyway' is cute, but irrelevant to anything but a joke.


    1. "but irrelevant to anything but a joke."


      Kinda like you, bozo.

      That poem was a real piece of wit, unlike you.

    2. Hardly a joke, Jersey. What I tried to say in that piece of verse might be encapsulated in the well-worn saying: "Be careful what you pray for, you might just get it." };-)>

      The ability to look at oneself and one's pet causes and concerns with a modicum of objectivity –– being able and willing to imagine it from other points of view –– and at the same time seeing the irony and humor in oneself and one's view of the world is a healthy, much needed capacity if one hopes to gain a proper sense of perspective.

      WIthout developing a sense of perspective we too easily become querulous, petulant, morbidly self-centered and frankly repugnant. No one in his right mind would or should want that.

    3. Believe me, I know a lot of gay folks, and they definitely see the irony and the humor. I can't wait to get invited to a gay wedding. Ya' just know it'll be a blast.


    4. How would you handle it if one of then came on to you, Jersey –– or wouldn't that bother you? If it wouldn't, I could only commend you.

      I think it's always best to take it as a compliment, be good natured about it, say thanks, then politely indicate your lack of interest –– unless the idea appeals, of course. ;-).

      Aggressive, won't-take-no-for-an-answer behavior is something else. Those types need to be very firmly put in their place.

      Fortunately for me, I've never had to deal with anything like that.

    5. What Jersey's really waiting for is the gay bachelor party

  8. So far NO ONE has ADDRESSED the suitability of entrusting the Supreme Court –– or any OTHER branch of GOVERNMENT –– to pass judgment on matters of PRIVATE RELATIONS between CONSENTING ADULTS.

    In MY opinion sexual relationships should NEVER defined, adjudicated and certainly not LEGISLATED by ANY external force. This is no one's business but the persons directly involved in the relationship.

  9. OK FreeThinke, I will answer your question directly.

    Federal and state governments have already "defined, adjudicated and certainly LEGISLATED" private relations and sexual relations between consenting adults.

    The hook they have in us is that benefits flow to you, and obligations to the government are extracted from you based upon marital status.

    This is a golden piece of jujitsu for the ages: Religious people coerced governments into placing its official imprimatur on a religious ceremony, and then honoring that sacred bond with special favors and privileges from the government, including monetary ones.

    Now it's payback time.

    1. That's one way if looking at it. I, personally, don't think it makes a darned bit of difference in "ACTUAL REALITY." ;-) People are going to do what what they want to do regardless of the Law OR the Church. That's a given. I think we overrate the effect Authority can have on independent-minded individuals who just quietly LIVE their lives, and don't make a CAREER out of making boisterous DEMANDS that the world conform to THEIR way special needs and THEIR way of thinking. In that way madness lies.

      I would insist that the humorous approach is the healthiest and possibly the most effective way of dealing with prejudice, intolerance, stupidity, and hostile legislation passed by the knaves and fools we elect to congress.

      As I've tried to point out in two pieces of satirical verse, the two extremes on this issue tend to cancel each other out.

      Here's another funny poem approaching the same subject from a slightly different angle. The object is to make you smile, then laugh at the ironies involved. Laughter rarely fails to produce a tonic effect. (See next post immediately below)

    2. Hey, why are these secular creeps against Mormons practicing THEIR religious convictions (polygamy)?

    3. That's an EXCELLENT question, Joe, and perfectly relevant.

      I've wondered the same thing, myself. The vicious persecution endured by the Mormons early on is one of the more horrific chapters in our history.

      I, personally, don't think "we" had ANY right to FORCE he Mormons to CONFORM to OUR views on the subject of marriage.

      I felt the same way about the most recent episode involving a "renegade" Mormon colony in Texas, and got into a pitched battle with a fellow conservative who fully supported the Official Persecution, because of "The Children." The friendship I had with that person dissolved after that and has never been reclaimed.

      I get VERY irritated with people who seem unaware of or unconcerned with underlying PRINCIPLES, or readily ABANDON them in favor of their precious FEELINGS.

    4. I disagree. I believe that based upon our "traditions" polygamy was always problematic (see Euripide's Andromache). IMO, the Mormon "faith" was a relatively new "tradition set" originating in their "adaptation" to rejection by the groups they settled near and abandonment my male offspring. And all laws originate in traditions. There is no logical or consistently-reasoned arguments for them. They are simply "accepted" as universal truths. And they are far from "universal".

    5. Set religion aside. Anyone who is for gay marriage but against polygamous marriages is a hypocrite.

    6. I find that a very strange statement, Silver. One does not not necessarily have anything to do with the other, I should think. Please elucidate when you have time.

    7. The pro-gay marriage argument before the supreme court could be employed lock, stock and barrel for polygamy, yet the average leftwing prog recoils at the mention of it. Why?

    8. Why? polygamy is harmful to children...


      Only NOW do "children" enter into the equation? Like homosexuality isn't harmful?

    9. Thersites,
      About that link...

      Why is polygamy harmful to children, but gay marriage is not?

      I don't understand David Boies's argument. Couldn't polygamous partners still have a loving relationship?

      What is the evidence that David Boies is talking about?

      Of course, polygamy has been practiced a lot longer than gay marriage. Do we know how the children in homes of gay marriage fare?

    10. Thersites averred: 'I believe that based upon our "traditions" polygamy was always problematic ...'

      Probably, but the same could be said of virtually every other facet of mortal existence, or haven't you noticed? ;-)

      No matter what road we take sooner or later it always leads to T-R-O-U-B-L-E, nicht wahr?

    11. Indeed. So how many "troubles" are you willing to pile onto your societal plate? Just one? Or ALL of them? Why have law at all? Why not just accept total anarchy?

    12. Are you willing to accept that a growing number of children will become catamites, the eromenos of elder pederasts (erastes). Because once you "accepted" homosexual marriage, and given homosexuals "adoption" privileges, THAT is where you are headed.

      I believe that children have ENOUGH difficulties in life already.

  10. _______ INEQUALITY ________

    Today, there is no worse affliction
    Than the curse of sex addiction.

    Especially, if it is detected
    From the hetero-male directed.

    Apparently, now it’s AOK
    To parade naked, if you're gay,

    But dare to give a broad the eye,
    And you'll soon be hung out to dry.

    Gays in public squares may tarry
    Shrieking for the right to marry,

    But no more do men dare to flirt
    With e'en a wretched piece of skirt.

    Since men are free no more to play,
    Do feminists hope they'll all turn gay?

    ~ FreeThinke

  11. I have a couple of stories for you, FT.

    I have a younger brother who was born on Halloween. He's a musician in NYC, and has been for a quarter century now. Every year for his birthday, we used to get together downtown and hang out for the Halloween Parade. Now, this parade is a transvestite affair, and the queer folks would get all done up in the most campy and over-the-top outfits, parade through the Village, and then party all night long in the many bars and clubs downtown. It was so much fun. Everyone just had a great time. The gay folks were a blast, just the funniest, warmest, most generous folks you ever met. Drinks all round all night everywhere and you never even knew who was buying - everyone was! What a time.

    I used to work with a young man from a small village in India, and he told me the story of a similar event in the part of India he was from, among these small old rural villages. Every year, all the gay guys would get dressed up in drag and crazy outfits, and parade from home to home, village to village. Each house was obliged to have them in for festivities, and food, and drinks, and presents, and party favors, and by doing so the house would have good luck for the rest of the year. Isn't that something?

    When I hear people complain about homosexuality, or gay marriage, or whatever, all I can think is, "What sad douchebags. Thank God there are better folks in the world."


    1. Did you ever see a movie called the Boys in the Band? It came out a long time ago and was quite a thing in its day. Anyway, it all takes place at a New York apartment where a party full of gay men is going on. The men are of all different types old, young, low class, high class, rich, poor, all that. It's a very sad movie, and I happen to know it's very true to life as it really is for those people. Every one in it is sad, heartbroken, depressed, bitchy as hell, and they all act like they really hate each other underneath all the wisecracks. I know that that's the way it is, because I used to be part of the scene till I got smart.

      J. Allan Cartwright

    2. I enjoyed your story, Jersey, but please don't think such experiences makes you all that unusual. I too originated in the New York Metropolitan Area, and have had all SORTS of crazy experiences as a young guy I'm unlikely to talk about in this venue.

      Also, I'm always glad when anyone expresses cordial feelings about others who may be seen as "different," or "non-conforming." I'm no prude, believe me, and I feel uncomfortable with intolerant, narrow-minded, unimaginative individuals who "go strictly by the book," and have not formed their opinions from experience. Such people are motivated more by FEAR of the Unknown than by LOVE of anything positive.

      HOWEVER, I also think it may be shallow to evaluate an entire subculture based purely on "fun" events such as a Halloween Parade or Weekend Carousing at the Bars in the Village, etc. Sooner or later everybody has to come to terms with work, intimate personal relationships, maintaining a home and setting intelligent goals for the future. NO ONE can get away with just PARTYING all the time. Those that usually don' live very long, and most often come to a sad and dteary end.

      Take a good look at J. Allan Cartwright's sobering thoughts. It sounds as though he has actually participated in "The Life," and found it unsatisfying to say the least.

    3. You missed my point, FT. The point I was making is that we should embrace and celebrate one another rather than hate and make like difficult for each other.


    4. J. Allan Cartwright,

      That party lifestyle is not particular to gay men. I'm straight and partied like a mad man when I was a young rock musician in that crazy scene. Crazy scenes are crazy scenes. What do you want?

      One of the nice things about gay marriage is that it creates a non-crazy scene. Not all gay men want to just perpetually party like it's 1999.


    5. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    6. A "Domestic Partnership" wouldn't have accomplished the same end? Who knew?

    7. Oh, the woe for poor FJ, who doesn't understand why everyone doesn't do what he wants them to do!


    8. And poor ole JMJ, who allows anyone to do anything, just so long as it doesn't offend his own, peculiar, homobilities, and only those of people who have 2,000 years of tradition arguing to the contrary.

    9. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    10. You're an idiot, FJ. You are the idiot imposing your will on others, you idiot. Get it straight, idiot. And stop fixating on gays. It's unhealthy. Otherwise, go out and get yourself a little mustache action.


    11. Jersey, PLEASE STOP calling people names –– at least at THIS blog. I know it's just your habitual mode of expression and doesn't mean what it seems to mean to those who insist on taking things literally, but it is a POOR PRACTICE that reflects badly on you.

      What's more it actually DAMAGES and DISCREDITS the good points you try to make.

      A. Friend

    12. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  12. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    1. _________________ NOTICE _________________

      Witless, irrelevant, off-topic broadsides, as well as Cut & Paste BOILERPLATE commentary shall be ERADICATED on contact.

      Please check and respect our bylaws before posting.

      ~ FreeThinke

  13. A Response to Thersites' 4/30/15 - 9:35 AM Post:

    Ode on the Recent Banning 
    of Public Nudity in San Francisco

    Oh what's the harm in being nude,
    If no one's viewed while getting screwed?
    Though natural, that would be too crude,
    Even if one's not a prude.

    Every father –– every mother ––
    Possesses one thing –– or another ––
    As does every sister, brother,
    So why the fuss, the muss, the bother?

    As long as brother's made like dad,
    And sister has what mother had,
    There's no call to be sad or mad,
    In fact it should make most feel glad.

    If parts got switched, then there'd be cause
    For consternation –– not applause ––
    So, I guess at least should be one clause
    Or two within a township's laws

    Restricting what may be displayed 
    On side streets, park grounds, on parade,
    In sunshine, rain, in light or shade
    Deterred, not just deferred, delayed.

    For most folks shy away from freaks,
    And soon react with piercing shrieks,
    And then there are the gawking geeks,
    And those who publicly take leaks!

    And then, comparison of size,
    While never wise, engenders sighs,
    Besides, the sight of flabby thighs
    Might gag reflexes energize!

    And so, since mobs are rarely quiet,
    And many fatties will not diet,
    Would-be voyeurs will not buy it.
    So, just stay clothed. Why start a riot?

    ~ Another FreeThinke Original

  14. Jersey's thinking is the usual mixed up, muddled stew served up by the left.

    There are many issues here that gets all tangled up, and he also slaps everyone to his right with the same sloppy broad brush.

    We will always have haters among us, on all sides, so let's agree they exist and push them aside.

    Opposing gay marriage is not the same as hating gay people. That's lazy, sloppy thinking.

    The best any of us can expect from others is toleration. We leave each other alone to live our lives. Anything above that is icing on the cake. To expect people to celebrate acts and lifestyles they do not condone is childish, and asking the state to enforce such unicorn worship can end up being dangerous.

  15. "Opposing gay marriage is not the same as hating gay people. That's lazy, sloppy thinking."

    You're right. Not only is it hateful, but also stupid and backwards, annoying nosy nastiness, willful ignorance, imposing, fascistic, theocratic, antisocial, and just plain douchy.


    1. Stop it –– BOTH of you! Exchanging insults and calling each other "names" is not legitimate debate practice. Presumably, BOTH of you are educated, therefore BOTH of you should know better.

      Instead of delivering "broadsides" why not ask each other QUESTIONS?

      I, got instance, would like to know precisely what possible harm could occur to traditional marriages and traditional family units by conferring the dignity of legal recognition to homosexual unions?

      I'd appreciate it very much if someone would address that question seriously and thoughtfully.

    2. Viel gluck mit der dummkopf mit dem scheisseblabben und mittengraben!

      und tschüss

  16. JMJ typed in:

    we should embrace and celebrate one another rather than hate and make like difficult for each other

    Well, one reason is that, somehow, we've reached the point that so many believe themselves to be victims of microaggressions, many of which are in the eye of the beholder.

    1. Erratum!

      I meant to type in "Well, one reason that we do not is that, somehow, we've reached the point..."

    2. Oh dear! The Grievance Industry –– like the infernal "Shoa Business" that STARTED all this arrant nonsense –– just grows and grows, doesn't it?

      There's something new every day to which some power-seeking splinter faction or other decides to take umbrage, and RIGHT AWAY the REST of us are supposed to STOP DEAD IN OUR TRACKS, APOLOGIZE PROFUSELY, GET DOWN on OUR KNEES, BEG FORGIVENESS and then EMEND or ERADICATE behavior normal to us all our lives just because some AGGRESSIVE PSEUDO-VICTIM decides to take exception to it, and tries to make a "Federal Case" out of it.

      The latest interdiction: All of a sudden the term THUG has been deemed "RACIST" so we're now supposed to become "sensitive" and stop using the term.

      The only response I could muster to this kind of strangling, pettifogging baloney would be a four-letter word beginning with S and ending with T –– and I DON'T mean SLAT, SLOT, SLIT, SPIT, SPAT, or SMUT. };-)>

      Aggressive Victimhood is doing far more damage to society than the use of good old-fashioned terms of derision and opprobrium like NIGGER, SPIC, KIKE, SHEENY, MOCKY, WOP, DAGO, SPAGHETTI-BENDER, POLOCK, MICK, HUNKY, HINEY, CHINK, GOOK, WOG, REDNECK, BIBLE-THUMPER, QUEER, FAIRY, FAGGOT, QUEAN, DYKE, LESBO or "HO."

      Those things are vulgar, often stupid, and do not belong in polite conversation or legitimate debate, BUT they do no real HARM to anyone. [REMEMBER: "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never harm me."] Trying to COERCE people into eliminating such parlance, however, is apt to do a GREAT DEAL of HARM.

      Remember Voltaire: "I may not agree with what you say, but I would defend TO THE DEATH your right to say it."

    3. FT,
      I submit that much of the gay agenda is driving by this microaggression thing.

      A lesbian couple's law suit against a bakery cited "mentally raped."

      For pity's sake!

      Two women feel raped because they didn't get a damn wedding cake?

    4. Do you guys seriously believe you are not believe you are part of the grievance industry? All you do is bitch and moan. And about things that have no effect on you personally whatsoever!


    5. JMJ,
      For your information,I have never said yay or nay to anyone who come out of the closet. And, yes, I do personally know several such individuals. I've known several such individuals since the 1960's.

      It is not grievance industry to post on a blog or on a personal Facebook page.

  17. When superstition dark and hauty plan
    Fettered the genius and debased the man,
    Each trifling legend was as truth received;
    The priest invented, and the crowd believed;
    Nations adored the whim in stone or paint,
    And gloried in the fabricated saint.
    Some holy guardian, hence, each nation claims—
    Gay France her Dennis, and grave Spain her James,
    Britons at once two mighty saints obey—
    Andrew and George maintain united sway,
    O'er humbler lands the same odd whim prevails;
    Ireland her Patrick, boasts her David, Wales.
    We Pennsylvanians, these old tales reject,
    And our own saint think proper to erect—
    Immortal Tammany of Indian Race,
    Great in the fields, and foremost in the chase,
    No puny saint was he, with fasting pale,
    He climbed the mountains, and swept the vale;
    Rushed through the torrent with unequaled might;—
    Your ancient saints would tremble at the sight—
    Caught the swift boar, and swifter deer with ease,
    And worked a thousand miracles like these.
    To public views, he added private ends,
    And loved his country most, and next his friends.
    With courage long he strove to ward the blow,
    (Courage we all respect, e'en in a foe)—
    And when each effort he in vain had tried,
    Kindled the flame in which he bravely died!
    To Tammany let the full horn go round;
    His fame let every honest tongue resound;
    With him let every generous patriot vie
    To live in freedom, or with honor die!
    Nor shall I think my labor too severe,
    Since ye, wise sachems, kindly deign to hear.

  18. FT,
    You asked:

    what possible harm could occur to traditional marriages and traditional family units by conferring the dignity of legal recognition to homosexual unions?

    I think that one concern is how much the gender identity and sexual preference of children depends upon the role model of parents -- the child's own parents and the parents of the child's friends. I don't know what studies say about the matters of gender identity and sexual preference.

    PS: I'm not sure that I've got the terms correct in this comment.

    1. What a quick Google search just yielded about the above:

      The Development of Sexual Orientation.

    2. From this source:

      Raising children in a LGBT household

      Although research shows that children with gay and lesbian parents are as well adjusted as children with heterosexual parents, they can face some additional challenges. Some LGBT families face discrimination in their communities and children may be teased or bullied by peers. Parents can help their children cope with these pressures in the following ways:

      Prepare your child to handle questions and comments about their background or family.

      Allow for open communication and discussions that are appropriate to your child’s age and level of maturity.

      Help your child come up with and practice appropriate responses to teasing or mean remarks.

      Use books, Web sites and movies that show children in LGBT families.

      Consider having a support network for your child (For example, having your child meet other children with gay parents.)

      Consider living in a community where diversity is more accepted.

    3. Interesting, AOW, and thank you for the contribution, but I usually scorn the testimony of "experts" when it comes to matters of the human heart.

      Like any other minority group homosexuals exhibit a broad, incredibly varied spectrum when it comes to intelligence, character, disposition, values, aims and objectives.

      Just as we should not judge ALL Jews by the obnoxious behavior of pushy "Kikes," or ALL Italians by violent misdeeds of Mafiosi, or ALL Negroes by the behavior of Black Street Thugs, Drug Addicts, and "typical" lazy, shiftless, no-good, unemployed and unemployable "Niggers," who do nothing but swell the Welfare Rolls with an endless succession of Illegitimate Children, so should we not judge ALL homosexuals by the bizarre, unsettling behavior of Screaming Queans, Prancing Pansies, Drag Queans, or fat, ugly, cigar-chomping, crewcut, Diesel Dykes in engineer boots with brown teeth and bad breath.

      One size, and one description NEVER fits ALL members of ANY discernible group -- especially not CHRISTIANS. ;-).

    4. FT,
      I'm not all that enthusiastic about "experts," either.

      But statistical studies? Well, I'd like to see some on this matter.

      I think that a lot of children -- especially young children -- take their leads from their parents. I'm hypothesizing that we have mostly a heterosexual-preference population because the vast majority ofchildren came from homes of heterosexual marriage.

      Again, I emphasize that we do not know exactly how sexual preference develops.

      Another factor also plays in now....It is "cool" to announce that one is gay. I see that all the time over on Facebook. Announcing that one has come out of the closet seems to be a fad now. A real attention getter. It's the selfie generation!

    5. Here is one such announcement at Facebook:

      Hey friends... This is tricky to post sense I know the response of at least half of you will be shock, anger, sadness, and what have you, but I don't do things half heartily. I've had time to reflect, I've had time to think, and I know exactly what the Bible says about this. Despite all of this I have decided it is time that I am honest, and say to you, that I am gay. I'm not going to elaborate on it, and I'm not going to keep hammering it cause I'm still [name redacted], I'm still goofy, fun loving, creative, [name redacted], I still wanna listen to you my friends, I still want to encourage, but I think that it is time that I share this. I did this partly in light of today's Supreme Court ruling for gay marriage to be allowed in all 50 states. From my understanding it passed, but it will be formalized in June. If for whatever reason it doesn't pass, I wanted to share this. I love all of you still, and would love to talk, text, and hangout any time.


      [name redacted]

      Along came 100 likes. Bing, bing, bing.

    6. Here is the father's response (He is a church officer in some capacity, I think, and a really nice man whom I personally know):

      My Son,

      I love you with all of my heart. That means that I also want only the best, God’s best for you. As you know from our conversations, I know from experience that a life without Him and in conflict with His principles will always be empty.

      Because of that I cannot congratulate you for proclaiming your CHOICE any more than I could any other choice to go against God’s word. I am for you, but cannot ever be for that decision.

      I believe that God’s Word is the absolute truth for every aspect of life. Based on that I pray that you remember the truth that you learned from childhood and that the voices of modern humanists will in no way be perceived as wisdom.

      I know you do not want me to say these things, and certainly not publicly, but God has burdened me all day about making sure that you don’t just hear the easy words of Facebook friends, but also be reminded of His absolutes. I do love you, will keep praying for you and always be here when you need me.

      - Dad

    7. Reliable evidence drawn from real life encounters indicates that homosexuals are BORN not MADE. Like Sex, itself, they are just a Fact of Life. As such they deserve equal rights and equal protection under the law. Prejudice, stupidity and unkindness cannot be legislated away –– they are part of the Human Condition –– but just because Bigotry and Unkindness have been enshrined in the realm of Tradition, largely because of a mistaken belief in the infallibility of every minute detail chronicled in the Bible does not mean we should not do our best to refine and improve our standards of decency.

      Virtually ALL change causes disturbance and generates resentful reactions on the part of many. that means, as you indicted else where that undesirable side effects from change may tend to neutralize its tonic effects.

      To that I can only say, NOTHING WORtHWHILE was EVER ACHIEVED without the enormius sacrifice of BLOOD, SWEAT, TEARS and TOIL.

      Complacency towards entrenched forms of Unfairness, Unkindness and Moral Blindness should be considered completely unacceptable to anyone who considers himself advanced, humane and properly educated.

      I believe that MOST-if-not-ALL of the odious behavior exhibited by Homosexuals, Negroes, Jews and other designated "Victim Groups" is in fact a REFLECTION of the institutionalized ill treatment and categorical rejection they have suffered at the hands of the majority.

    8. Needless to say, though I do not doubt his sincerity, my sympathies are not with the father in this case for the myriad reasons cited all over this comments section. Such people do more to destroy faith in God and alienate, decent, humane, thinking people from so-called Christianity" than all the forces of Islam and Marxism combined.

      The Church is MORIBUND because of people like this poor, narrow-mnded, unimaginative, doubtless-well-meaning man who foolishly conflates manmade DOCTRINE with eternal TRUTH.

    9. Sexual differentiation of the brain would lead you to conclude that it's all nurture, NOT nature. So pick your poison as to what you care to believe. On thing is true. That the first-born son is more likely to be straight than the second-third (indicating an in-utero link to the development of homosexuality).

    10. FT,
      Needless to say, though I do not doubt his sincerity, my sympathies are not with the father in this case for the myriad reasons cited all over this comments section.

      I have the advantage of know this family.

      Six children -- and five successful by any definition.

      So, what happened with this one? I can't say for certain. But he has always been "a bit off." And I'm not referring to sexual preference, either.

    11. FJ,
      Sexual differentiation of the brain would lead you to conclude that it's all nurture, NOT nature.

      Back to neurology we go!

    12. Testosterone penetrates the brain-blood barrier. Estrogen does not. Levels mean a lot in fetal brain development.

    13. errata -" fetal and subsequen"t for "fetal" above.

  19. Along the lines of FT's question: "what possible harm could occur to traditional marriages and traditional family units by conferring the dignity of legal recognition to homosexual unions?"

    Back in 1981, when biracial students quite often began appearing in classrooms, every single one of those biracial students had anger issues and other emotional problems.

    I understand that, to all appearances now such problems are not the norm. But I assure you that such problems were the overwhelming norm back then. It too at least another decade before that problem settled down.

    So, we're talking roughly 20 years before biraciality wasn't a social problem which so often yielded emotional problems.

    I submit that the children of same-sex parents will have similar problems. There is no magic wand to wave so as to make society change to accept something which hasn't been accepted before.

    I think that children of same-sex couples will have a great deal of difficulty with getting their school friends to come to their birthday parties, sleep-overs, etc.

  20. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  21. An Opponent Of the RightMay 1, 2015 at 9:59 AM

    This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  22. An Opponent Of The RightMay 1, 2015 at 12:25 PM

    Go Fuck Yourself, you Fat Fucking GOPer

  23. I see that the understanding bleeding heart Progressive's are having a bad day.

    1. §;-D=

      Isn't that always the case? 'Twould seem so.

    2. It's the damn righties I tell ya!

  24. FT,
    Reliable evidence drawn from real life encounters indicates that homosexuals are BORN not MADE.

    How do we know the evidence in reliable?

    This is not a snarky comment.

    If "experts" are not necessarily reliable, is the evidence you mention reliable?

    1. Forgot to say...

      "Real life encounters" can be subjective. Matters of the heart and all that.

    2. "We hold these truths to be self-evident." ;-)

  25. FT,
    I believe that MOST-if-not-ALL of the odious behavior exhibited by Homosexuals, Negroes, Jews and other designated "Victim Groups" is in fact a REFLECTION of the institutionalized ill treatment and categorical rejection they have suffered at the hands of the majority.

    Okay. But I myself am not so certain about that.

    After all, if sexual preference can be inborn, then so can odious behavior.

    Other pressures come to bear -- peer pressure, for example.

    1. I am fairly certain that what you object to now, AOW, –– the suddenly "cool" status of being gay and all that happy horse hockey –– is the artificially-induced product of what-has-amounted-to brainwashing by leftist influences in education coupled with an enemedia-generated campaign blitz. In other words it's a FAD just like chastity belts, hoop skirts, zoot suits, flappers, the Charleston, hula hoops, frisbees, tattoos, piercings, and hundreds of other "crazes" from bygone eras, etc.

      This has little-or-nothing to do with the BIOLOGICAL REALITY individuals BORN with this awkward, unseemly Cross to Bear have to face as misfits trying to grow up and function competently and prosper in a hostile environment where they are reminded in a thousand different ways each day that they are somehow unacceptable –– unwanted, despised, rejected objects of scorn and ridicule or condescending pity at best.

      Jesus said just before breathing His last on the Cross: "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do."

      I imagine very few homosexual people who've been persecuted, bullied, ridiculed, despised and spat upon all their lives would be able to find it in their hearts to follow the Lord's example, and so they band together in ghetto-like environments and wind up showering contempt on those who have ignorantly tormented and rejected them. The agony is inflicted in many and varied ways often by pretending that (gays) either did not exist, should not be taken seriously, or deserve only to be studiously ignored. Worst of all gays tend to treat each other as badly as the larger society treats them.

      We could discuss it all day and far into the night and never reach agreement, I'm sure. Most people know what they know –- know what they like –– know what they don't like –– and naturally assume their particular preferences just have to be the Truth.

      Most of are parochial creatures loath to give up our pet beliefs. Worse yet most of us would rather die than ever entertain the possibility we might be wrong.

  26. Two things about which I am certain:

    1. We aren't going to solve this issue. There is a moral component to what we're discussing here. Furthermore, from where I sit, the Bible is clear about matters of sexual sin of several types -- and some other sins, too, for that matter. How much civil law adheres to those Biblical principles is a matter we can debate until we're crazed. Or maybe we should just say that there is no such thing as principles of morality and go with majority rule?

    2. The effects of same-sex marriage upon the children of those marriages will not be known for at least five years from now.

  27. By shrouding same-sex marriage in a cloak demanding an "equal right" the more extreme members of the homosexual community can blend into what on the surface appears to be just another group that has discovered that its right have been trampled by the straight white male. The one group that can always be identified as having imposed the burden of guilt upon the victim of the moment upheld by the screaming honchos of the media.

    What of the extremist haters of the homosexual community—i.e., those that would be represented by some such doctrine as The Homosexual Manifesto ...


    By Michael Swift,
    "Gay Revolutionary." Reprinted from The Congressional Record of the United States Congress. First printed in Gay Community News, February 15-21 1987

    "We shall sodomize your sons, emblems of your feeble masculinity, of your shallow dreams and vulgar lies. We shall seduce them in your schools, in your dormitories, in your gymnasiums, in your locker rooms, in your sports arenas, in your seminaries, in your youth groups, in your movie theater bathrooms, in your army bunkhouses, in your truck stops, in your all male clubs, in your houses of Congress, wherever men are with men together. Your sons shall become our minions and do our bidding. They will be recast in our image. They will come to crave and adore us."


    "All laws banning homosexual activity will be revoked. Instead, legislation shall be passed which engenders love between men. All homosexuals must stand together as brothers; we must be united artistically, philosophically, socially, politically and financially. We will triumph only when we present a common face to the vicious heterosexual enemy.

    If you dare to cry faggot, fairy, queer, at us, we will stab you in your
    cowardly hearts and defile your dead, puny bodies.

    We shall write poems of the love between men; we shall stage plays in which man openly caresses man; we shall make films about the love between heroic men which will replace the cheap, superficial, sentimental, insipid, juvenile, heterosexual infatuations presently dominating your cinema screens. We shall sculpt statues of beautiful young men, of bold athletes which will be placed in your parks, your squares, your plazas. The museums of the world will be filled only with paintings of graceful, naked lads."


    "All churches who condemn us will be closed. Our only gods are handsome young men. We adhere to a cult of beauty, moral and esthetic. All that is ugly and vulgar and banal will be annihilated. Since we are alienated from middle-class heterosexual conventions, we are free to live our lives according to the dictates of the pure imagination. For us too much is not enough.

    The exquisite society to emerge will be governed by an elite comprised of gay poets. One of the major requirements for a position of power in the new society of homoeroticism will be indulgence in the Greek passion. Any man contaminated with heterosexual lust will be automatically barred from a position of influence. All males who insist on remaining stupidly heterosexual will be tried in homosexual courts of justice and will become invisible men."

    1. Sounds an awful lo like The Rev. Jeremiah Wright of God Damn America fame, and his "Liberation Theology" doesn't it?

      I wouldn't worry too much about crap like that, Waylon. All it amounts to is the hysterical ravings of a pathetic, impotent faggot. Most decent gay men –– and believe me their name is Legion –– would shrink from rhetoric like that in disgust and loathing.

      On second glance it sounds more like parody than anything else –– as though some satirist were deliberately lampooning the gay subculture.

      Whatever it is, it sure ain't MAJOR.

    2. Do you also believe The Protocols of the Elders of Zion are real?

  28. FT, parody would suggest some wit or humor which seems conspicuous by its absence above.

    I suppose it could also pass as a manifesto or ultimatum from Hollywood and the Weinstein boys and Quentin Tarantino since it sounds to be about their essential nature.

    1. Waylon,
      I agree.

      Certainly what FT stated is true (Most decent gay men –– and believe me their name is Legion –– would shrink from rhetoric like that in disgust and loathing).

      But activists have an agenda, and that agenda can differ substantially from what FT mentioned. The problem is that the agenda is accepted -- much of the time, anyway -- by society without society's realizing that activists really are serious about their extreme ideas.

  29. Sexual differentiation of the brain would lead you to conclude that it's all nurture, NOT nature. So pick your poison as to what you care to believe. On thing is true. That the first-born son is more likely to be straight than the second-third (indicating an in-utero link to the development of homosexuality).

    Zzzzz… [b]DO[/b] talk to a few gay people, FJ.

    The issue is of course a total non-issue: if sexuality was a 110 % FREE choice it would not matter ONE IOTA.

    2000+ years of harmful, shameful anti-gay bigotry finally coming to end: reasons to be extremely CHEERFUL. THREE CHEERS!



We welcome Conversation
But without Vituperation.
If your aim is Vilification ––
Other forms of Denigration ––
Unfounded Accusation --
Determined Obfuscation ––
Alienation with Self-Justification ––


Gratuitous Displays of Extraneous Knowledge Offered Not To Shed Light Or Enhance the Discussion, But For The Primary Purpose Of Giving An Impression Of Superiority are obnoxiously SELF-AGGRANDIZING, and therefore, Subject to Removal at the Discretion of the Censor-in-Residence.

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.