How Women Will Be Hurt by Gay Marriage
tim jones
recently. Thank goodness.
A while back I pointed out to you a midrashic tradition on Leviticus
18:3 that notes a feature of life in morally corrupt ancient Canaan:
they practiced gay marriage, which is one reason God chose to displace
them from the holy land, to be replaced by the children of Israel. I
know, I know. It sounds so bigoted. Why be bothered if a nation
chooses to officially sanction any combination of lovers that may
please its citizens -- man and woman, man and man, woman and woman?
Who gets hurt?
Ultimately, women do. That's the brilliantly insightful answer from a
reader of this blog, Joshua Berman, an American scholar who teaches at
Israel's Bar-Ilan University while serving as a senior fellow at the
Shalem Center in Jerusalem. He's also the author of an excellent new
book, Created Equal: How the Bible Broke with Ancient Political
Thought. I'm proud to publish his reflections on the question, special
to Kingdom of Priests. Keep in mind that if you want to disagree with
this analysis, you'll have to explain why the historical parallel
doesn't apply:
As a scholar of ancient civilizations, I know that we gain
invaluable insights by drawing from the observations of others who
grappled in their time with the experiences that we are just beginning
to face. On the issue of same-sex marriage, we have much to learn from
the writers of ancient Rome.
Reading them brings me to the conclusion that were I a woman, I
would be concerned by the tide of legislation now sweeping our
country.
To see how these ancient writings demonstrate that feminism and
homosexuality are on a collision course, we need to first take a step
back and consider the end-game of the gay and lesbian movement. The
immediate aim is to win in the courts. But the ultimate aim is to win
over the culture: to arrive at a day when homoeroticism is fully
accepted.
Let's fast-forward the video-tape and see what that day would look
like. Johnny, a teenager, has pals who date boys and pals who date
girls. In the movies, on billboards, Johnny sees depictions of men in
love with men and of men in love with women. Johnny admires the
picture in his principal's office of the principal and his husband on
their honeymoon. In this day, no one uses the word "homosexual"
anymore, in just the same way that today no one uses the word "negro"
-- it's so laden with the baggage of yesteryear's bigotry. In fact, in
this day, no one makes a big deal about sexual orientation at all.
Johnny knows that when he seeks intimacy he is free to choose a
blonde, a brunette, a Latina, a Phillipino, a guy, a girl; it's all
cool. Free choice and tolerance take the day.
But reading his history books about the 20th century, Johnny is
shocked to discover that the percentage of men who were sexually
interested in other men stood only in the single digits. He is shocked
because everyone he knows engages in this regularly.
Why do I say everyone?
Because of what you read in the the writers of imperial Rome. Some
people are indeed homoerotic by nature. But others, as Aristotle
noted, develop this as an acquired passion. Homoeroticism is, to a
large degree, socially constructed. It turns out that where
homoeroticism is granted full social sanction, as it was in Rome, it
flourishes -- so much so, that one writer noted that the emperor
Claudius exhibited an unusual trait: he was sexually interested in
women alone!
Men, we learn from ancient Rome, will enjoy sex with other men, if
there is no social censure. Now, all of this should be fine for us as
well -- after all, we should let free choice and tolerance reign.
The real problems begin, however, when we read what these writers
had to say about marriage. Consider this piece from the first century
BCE poet Catullus (Carmen 61:134-141), in which the poet addresses
himself to a bridegroom on the eve of his nuptials:
"You are said to find it hard, Perfumed bridegroom, to give up
Smooth-skinned boys, but give them up... We realize you've only known
Permitted pleasures: husbands, though, Have no right to the same
pleasures."
The social history behind this piece is clear: once they've
experienced sex with other men, Catullus tells us, men are unsatisfied
with what their new wives provide them. Notice that the poet is
unconcerned about the husband's dallying with other women -- it's the
other men around that threaten the marital union.
If Catullus addressed the bridegroom on the eve of his wedding,
the satirist Martial (Book 11, Epigram 43) depicts the reality of
married life itself. As satire, the section is too bawdy to be
reprinted here, but the sanitized version goes like this: A woman
chastises her husband for continuing to dally with male acquaintances.
He counters that many other married men are doing it as well.
Desperate, she offers to service him in the same way that his male
suitor does. He rebuffs, concluding, that she just can't satisfy him
the way his suitor can.
And so now we come back to the idyllic day of free choice and
tolerance envisioned by the gay and lesbian movement. It turns out
that that day has winners and losers. The winners -- big time -- are
homosexual men, because the historical record shows that they can
expect their potential pool of partners to expand exponentially. Of
note here is that this expanded pool of partners accrues to gay men,
but not to homosexual women. At the risk of getting too explicit, I
leave it the reader's basic grasp of anatomy to figure out why in
ancient Rome a man who found pleasure in a woman, could also find
pleasure in a man, while the record shows that a heterosexual woman
rarely found sexual satisfaction in the company of another woman.
The losers from all this will be the vast majority of women. With
full social sanction given to homoerotic activity, the historical
precedent suggests that tomorrow's women will have a harder time
finding and holding on to suitable men. As women will suffer, so will
the vitality and stability of the nuclear family.
As Shakespeare noted, the past is prologue. The push to legalize
same-sex marriage -- to grant full social sanction to the homoerotic
bond -- is a major step in an experiment of social engineering. We
might wind up ourselves one day penning the observations of writers
like Catullus and Martial, and impotent to turn back the clock. It is
said that all opposition to same-sex marriage is rooted in religious
dogma, which has no place in our legal discourse.
But there is a utilitarian argument as well: full social sanction
for the homoerotic bond is opposed not for God's sake, but for the
sake of tomorrow's women.
Robibnikoff
"tim jones" <timjo...@gmail.com> wrote
<SMACK> Shaddup, bigot.
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & Belly Dancer Supreme
BAAWA Knight
#1557
Ray Fischer
>National support for state-sanctioned gay marriage has slipped
>recently. Thank goodness.
Being a bigot is nothing to be proud of.
>A while back I pointed out to you a midrashic tradition on Leviticus
>18:3 that notes a feature of life in morally corrupt ancient Canaan:
Leviticus doesn't apply, bigot. Read the last sentence.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Rev. Karl E. Taylor
< Nothing logical, or valid >
>
My, my. Conclusion jump very much?
You, and Joshua Berman, need to pull your heads out of your asses and
grow the fuck up.
--
There are none more ignorant and useless,
than they that seek answers on their knees,
with their eyes closed.
____________________________________________________________________
Rev. Karl E. Taylor http://www.jesusneverexisted.com
http://azhotops.blogspot.com
A.A #1143 http://scienceblogs.com/aardvarchaeology
Apostle of Dr. Lao EAC: Virgin Conversion Unit Director
BAAWA Knight Sir Karl of the Solaris Media
____________________________________________________________________
raven1
<timjo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Johnny knows that when he seeks intimacy he is free to choose a
>blonde, a brunette, a Latina, a Phillipino, a guy, a girl; it's all
>cool. Free choice and tolerance take the day.
I'm free to choose between the above now, yet I remain heterosexual,
because I'm just not interested in men sexually. How would legalizing
gay marriage change that? Methinks this article reveals more about the
author than about society at large.
Dr. Smartass, Troll Veterinarian
995fa5...@j4g2000yqe.googlegroups.com:
> N {massive snip]
So you took 130 lines of precious Internet space to say "Women will be hurt
by gay marriage because there won't be enough c*ck."
Dude, seriously. Learn to encapsulate your premise more coherently, no
matter how stupid it is.
--
Doc Smartass | BAAWA Knight of Troll Medication | aa # 1939
Book reviews: http://jw-bookblog.blogspot.com/
Kook Clearinghouse! http://kookclearinghouse.blogspot.com/
Hey, GOPpers: Grab a Mop!
Free Lunch
<timjo...@gmail.com> wrote in alt.atheism:
>National support for state-sanctioned gay marriage has slipped
>recently. Thank goodness.
No, you can thank hatred and bigotry, the evil that hides behind 'god'.
You have no idea what you are talking about nor did the author of your
cut-n-paste.
...
Uncle Vic
> The losers from all this will be the vast majority of women. With
> full social sanction given to homoerotic activity, the historical
> precedent suggests that tomorrow's women will have a harder time
> finding and holding on to suitable men.
Judging by the divorce rate among fundy xians, they already do.
--
Uncle Vic
aa Atheist #2011
Christians are like Slinkys. They're boring, but they'll put a smile on
your face when you push them down the stairs.
IAAH
> tim jones <timjo...@gmail.com> wrote in news:132972c3-948d-4a7d-a12b-
> 995fa5...@j4g2000yqe.googlegroups.com:
>
>> N {massive snip]
>
> So you took 130 lines of precious Internet space to say "Women will be hurt
> by gay marriage because there won't be enough c*ck."
>
> Dude, seriously. Learn to encapsulate your premise more coherently, no
> matter how stupid it is.
>
Don't forget the inevitability of gay marriage
making men suddenly crave gay sex. Oh, and how
satire will suddenly become real life.
--
"I do not pretend to be able to prove that there
is no God. I equally cannot
prove that Satan is a fiction. The Christian god
may exist; so may the gods of
Olympus, or of ancient Egypt, or of Babylon. But
no one of these hypotheses is
more probable than any other: they lie outside the
region of even probable
knowledge, and therefore there is no reason to
consider any of them."
Bertrand Russell
Jimbo
> On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 12:12:53 -0800 (PST), tim jones
>
> >Johnny knows that when he seeks intimacy he is free to choose a
> >blonde, a brunette, a Latina, a Phillipino, a guy, a girl; it's all
> >cool. Free choice and tolerance take the day.
>
> I'm free to choose between the above now, yet I remain heterosexual,
> because I'm just not interested in men sexually. How would legalizing
> gay marriage change that? Methinks this article reveals more about the
> author than about society at large.
It's not an uncommon belief amount the right wined anti-rights crowd
that if same sex marriage were recognized by the state, straigt men
and women would suddenly switch sides, so to speak, and lead to all
manner of social ailment.
Jimbo
> National support for state-sanctioned gay marriage has slipped
> recently. Thank goodness.
LOL! Well, you just keep telling yourself that.
Liz
Liz
[----]
> And so now we come back to the idyllic day of free choice and
> tolerance envisioned by the gay and lesbian movement. It turns out
> that that day has winners and losers. The winners -- big time -- are
> homosexual men, because the historical record shows that they can
> expect their potential pool of partners to expand exponentially.
This is all very confusing. You contend that the marriage between two
men or two women will expand their potential pool of partners. It
would logically seem that a committment to marriage would limit their
partners to each other, but then possibly you have a different
understand of marriage than I do. Why in the world would someone get
married if their goal was to *increase* the number of their sexual
partners?
>Of
> note here is that this expanded pool of partners accrues to gay men,
> but not to homosexual women. At the risk of getting too explicit, I
> leave it the reader's basic grasp of anatomy to figure out why in
> ancient Rome a man who found pleasure in a woman, could also find
> pleasure in a man, while the record shows that a heterosexual woman
> rarely found sexual satisfaction in the company of another woman.
So if two homosexuals are allowed to get married, you and all other
straight men will immediately abandon sex with women and join the
ranks of men getting married to other men. I think you are projecting
your feelings on others. Usually sexual attraction is fairly hard
wired by adulthood.
> The losers from all this will be the vast majority of women. With
> full social sanction given to homoerotic activity, the historical
> precedent suggests that tomorrow's women will have a harder time
> finding and holding on to suitable men. As women will suffer, so will
> the vitality and stability of the nuclear family.
LOL You mean that the divorce rate will increase from it's already
high figure because straight men will be so busy lusting after other
men that they won't want to have sex with women.
How long have you had these fantasies?
> But there is a utilitarian argument as well: full social sanction
> for the homoerotic bond is opposed not for God's sake, but for the
> sake of tomorrow's women.
I think we will be fine without your help, but thanks for your
misplaced concern anyway. I've never had any problem finding and
enjoying the company of men.
Liz #658
IAAH
But you know, after gay marriage, no man will want
a woman ever again, you know, because the carnal
company of other men will be too delicious to ever
go back.
>
>
> Liz #658
Lars Eighner
<132972c3-948d-4a7d...@j4g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>, the
lovely and talented tim jones broadcast on alt.politics.homosexuality:
> National support for state-sanctioned gay marriage has slipped
> recently. Thank goodness.
Finally a bigot who admits that homosexuality is superior and
heterosexuality could not compete in a free market!
--
Lars Eighner <http://larseighner.com/> September 5919, 1993
298 days since Rick Warren prayed over Bush's third term.
Obama: No hope, no change, more of the same. Yes, he can, but no, he won't.
Boo Radley
"tim jones" <timjo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:132972c3-948d-4a7d...@j4g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
<snip load of shit>
Firstly you quote a ficticious situation from a fictional book called the
Bible. Secondly this "scholar" assumes that homosexuality is a choice, which
it is not. Thirdly you and your ilk are small minded uneducated idiots and
none of you are worthy to enter the ficticious place you refer to as Heaven
because if God is good then God would never allow people that Judged others
and used his word to oppress people based on your personal bigotry towards
them.
Smiler
> On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 12:12:53 -0800 (PST), tim jones
>
>> National support for state-sanctioned gay marriage has slipped
>> recently. Thank goodness.
>>
>> A while back I pointed out to you a midrashic tradition on Leviticus
>> 18:3 that notes a feature of life in morally corrupt ancient Canaan:
>> they practiced gay marriage, which is one reason God chose to
>> displace them from the holy land, to be replaced by the children of
>> Israel. I know, I know. It sounds so bigoted. Why be bothered if a
>> nation chooses to officially sanction any combination of lovers that
>> may please its citizens -- man and woman, man and man, woman and
>> woman? Who gets hurt?
>
> much better than sex with a woman. Which would result in women not
> getting laid and the human race dying out. Poor stupid bastards never
> had a good woman in bed.
With some it's "never had ANY woman in bed".
--
Smiler
The godless one
a.a.# 2279
All gods are bespoke. They're all made to
perfectly fit the prejudices of their believer
Thurisaz, Germanic barbarian
> It turns out that where
> homoeroticism is granted full social sanction, as it was in Rome, it
> flourishes -- so much so, that one writer noted that the emperor
> Claudius exhibited an unusual trait: he was sexually interested in
> women alone! [rest of text ignored - the first half already contained
> enough crap]
Next time you decide to babble about something, make sure you first know
something about it.
Male homosexual acts in ancient Rome were mainly a way of establishing
dominance (not unlike, as it seems to me, heterosexual rape today that's
normally not committed out of any felt sexual need but the desire to
completely dominate someone - and what "better" way to do this than to
force a woman to have sex with you?). Doing another man was okay, for the
Romans, as long as you were the "manly" penetrator and not the "effeminate"
penetrated.
It was about dominance, and being "real men".
And you... are a moron.
Case closed.
--
"To his friend a man a friend shall prove, and gifts with gifts requite;
But men shall mocking with mockery answer, and fraud with falsehood meet."
(The Poetic Edda)
Must have been written with fundies in mind...
My personal judgment of monotheism:
http://www.carcosa.de/nojebus
Sanity's Little Helper
> As a scholar of ancient civilizations, I know that we gain
> invaluable insights by drawing from the observations of others who
> grappled in their time with the experiences that we are just beginning
> to face. On the issue of same-sex marriage, we have much to learn from
> the writers of ancient Rome.
You're using the word "scholar" here in the same way the Taleban do.
--
David Silverman
aa #2208
Defender of Civilisation
"Christian" (n). A person who views insulting non-Christians as a sacred
duity, and any response as persecution
Not authentic without this signature.
LC
"tim jones" <timjo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:132972c3-948d-4a7d...@j4g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
> National support for state-sanctioned gay marriage has slipped
> recently. Thank goodness.
<troll flushed>
Oh look, a drive-by troll making it's first post!
1.7/10 on the troll-o-meter.
Trance Gemini
<snipped>
> But there is a utilitarian argument as well: full social sanction
> for the homoerotic bond is opposed not for God's sake, but for the
> sake of tomorrow's women.
Fascinating.
Gay marriage is legal and accepted (and has been for a few years now)
here in Ontario as are homosexuals and lesbians for the most part.
Hmmm. Haven't noticed any mass exodus of heterosexual males into
homosexual relationships though.
Could that be because this analysis is full of shit?
Trance Gemini
> On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 12:12:53 -0800 (PST), tim jones
>
> >National support for state-sanctioned gay marriage has slipped
> >recently. Thank goodness.
>
> >A while back I pointed out to you a midrashic tradition on Leviticus
> >18:3 that notes a feature of life in morally corrupt ancient Canaan:
> >they practiced gay marriage, which is one reason God chose to displace
> >them from the holy land, to be replaced by the children of Israel. I
> >know, I know. It sounds so bigoted. Why be bothered if a nation
> >chooses to officially sanction any combination of lovers that may
> >please its citizens -- man and woman, man and man, woman and woman?
> >Who gets hurt?
>
> much better than sex with a woman. Which would result in women not
> getting laid and the human race dying out. Poor stupid bastards never
> had a good woman in bed.
This also kind of supports the study which determined that Gay Bashers
are in fact latent Gays themselves but are self-loathing and can't
accept their own gayness.
After all, who else would think that men would consider sex with other
men better other than someone who was Gay?
panam...@hotmail.com
snip
> A while back I pointed out to you a midrashic tradition on Leviticus
> 18:3
Why on earth did you add alt.atheism to this post? Do you really think
a bunch of atheists give a shit about your idiotic Palestinian fairy
tales?
-Panama Floyd, Atlanta.
aa#2015/Member, Knights of BAAWA!
Dr. Smartass, Troll Veterinarian
news:hdn8rb$h58$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
> On 11/14/09 4:26 PM, * Dr. Smartass, Troll
> Veterinarian wrote:
>> tim jones <timjo...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> news:132972c3-948d-4a7d-a12b-
>> 995fa5...@j4g2000yqe.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>> N {massive snip]
>>
>> So you took 130 lines of precious Internet space to say "Women will
>> be hurt by gay marriage because there won't be enough c*ck."
>>
>> Dude, seriously. Learn to encapsulate your premise more coherently,
>> no matter how stupid it is.
>>
>
> Don't forget the inevitability of gay marriage
> making men suddenly crave gay sex. Oh, and how
> satire will suddenly become real life.
>
So hard to tell, these days...
Liz
And the human race will die out!!! Not that there's anything wrong
with that.
Liz #658
(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com>
<flush>
There is NO way that same-sex marriage could possibly
be detrimental to ANYONE.
Boo Radley
"Trance Gemini" <trance...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:49635da9-83fe-4044...@o9g2000vbj.googlegroups.com...
>
>This also kind of supports the study which determined that Gay Bashers
>are in fact latent Gays themselves but are self-loathing and can't
>accept their own gayness.
>
>After all, who else would think that men would consider sex with other
>men better other than someone who was Gay?
This is why they say it's a choice, they made a choice themselves to deny
that precious forbidden fruit and assume that everyone else has the same
desires to smother themselves in man ass. Anyone that claims to have made a
choice not to be homosexual is in fact a homosexual but because of society,
religion and cowardice they compensate by making the ones miserable that are
honest with themselves enough to be who they are.
anonymous
before gay marriage. Women who marry men knowing they are
homosexual/bisexual or finding out during the marriage that their
husband has a sexual interest in other males. Why? Because eventually
the likelihood of the husband meeting a male who tests his marriage
and sexual appetite for gay sex is very, very strong and likely! That
is when a wife who has bore his children, remains in love with him, and
has gained modest weight and devoted herself to her entire family
raising children and supporting her husband as any spouse would do, pays
a very, very hefty price. Very sad.
> To see how these ancient writings demonstrate that feminism and
> homosexuality are on a collision course --
Women have all the rights they need, the right of education, the right
to have children inside and outside of marriage, the right of pension
and half the assets of their marriage upon divorce regardless of who
ended the marriage and why the marriage was ended, the right to vote,
the right to work, etc. Women have all the rights of men and more. And
so they should. After all they wash is dirty laundry and support him as
a husband and father.
>, we need to first take a step
> back and consider the end-game of the gay and lesbian movement. The
> immediate aim is to win in the courts.
If you study the homosexuals closely at most all they want is the same
rights that women have and men have who are heterosexual. They want
nothing more than that.
> But the ultimate aim is to win
> over the culture: to arrive at a day when homoeroticism is fully
> accepted.
>
Well, firstly most women find the penis very ugly even though it does
its job. Most women find their overweight husband coming home drunk and
wanting to pound their bones equally revolting. Some men find some of
their wives less than sexually attractive or erotic. So sexual
eroticism be it homosexual or heterosexual can be pretty revolting in
the real world, but it is part of life as we know it and experience it.
As far as homoeroticism, homosexuals could care less if heterosexual
women find anything they do erotic. In fact most women prefer gay porn
to straight porn. The only porn on the net with a handful of exceptions
that is free is straight porn. Almost all of it toss and throw women
around and treat females of any age like dirt and most of it ends in the
male filling all the cavities of her body including splashing her face
with sperm. Does anybody find that erotic or a pretty picture/video?
And that is all free for any teenage boy able to type at the goggle
prompt "free porn videos".
> Let's fast-forward the video-tape and see what that day would look
> like. Johnny, a teenager, has pals who date boys and pals who date
> girls. In the movies, on billboards, Johnny sees depictions of men in
> love with men and of men in love with women. Johnny admires the
> picture in his principal's office of the principal and his husband on
> their honeymoon. In this day, no one uses the word "homosexual"
> anymore, in just the same way that today no one uses the word "negro"
> -- it's so laden with the baggage of yesteryear's bigotry. In fact, in
> this day, no one makes a big deal about sexual orientation at all.
> Johnny knows that when he seeks intimacy he is free to choose a
> blonde, a brunette, a Latina, a Phillipino, a guy, a girl; it's all
> cool. Free choice and tolerance take the day.
>
Well, kind sir, if only Johnny had a choice. You see, millions of men
around the world
discovery they are attracted to men and so some of them kill themselves,
others like and marry women and may or may not have sex with men on the
side. Others do what Ted Haggard did. Still others declare themselves
bisexual. Others live a lie until they can't take it anymore and leave
their wife after 20 years of marriage to date a male younger than their
oldest son. And for the record few homosexuals talk about their
spouses because in spite of legal and social support, there is enough
hated and nasty people who can do lots of damage to anyone including a
homosexual.
> But reading his history books about the 20th century, Johnny is
> shocked to discover that the percentage of men who were sexually
> interested in other men stood only in the single digits. He is shocked
> because everyone he knows engages in this regularly.
Johnny knows from grade 1 that there are gays and straights. He also
knows which one he is and whether he has to live a lie or tell the
truth. Even in Canada where homosexual marriage is legal, few teenagers
are prepared to subject themselves to the legal hatred awaiting them
inside and outside the classroom by their peers. Do you know how many
homosexuals make the basketball team or any sports team. Zero. Zero is
how many. If the teen can pass as straight - and not all homosexual
kids can - then there is a chance he can get on the team for a time at
least. But if he doesn't talk about sex with women/girls on a
constantly non-stop basis, he is suspect of being queer!
>
> Why do I say everyone?
>
> Because of what you read in the the writers of imperial Rome. Some
> people are indeed homoerotic by nature. But others, as Aristotle
> noted, develop this as an acquired passion. Homoeroticism is, to a
> large degree, socially constructed. It turns out that where
> homoeroticism is granted full social sanction, as it was in Rome, it
> flourishes -- so much so, that one writer noted that the emperor
> Claudius exhibited an unusual trait: he was sexually interested in
> women alone!
>
> Men, we learn from ancient Rome, will enjoy sex with other men, if
> there is no social censure. Now, all of this should be fine for us as
> well -- after all, we should let free choice and tolerance reign.
>
Men are pigs, naturally born pigs. Just watch the porn.
Men have the ability to have sex with anything once their penis gets
hard - and they can attain erection and ejaculation? Is there anything
more to male sex? It is true that if women aren't available, young men
and any male will do for sex inside or outside of prison. But that
doesn't make them homosexual. In the same way homosexual men can get an
erection by hook or by crook and perform sex with women but that doesn't
make them a heterosexual either.
> The real problems begin, however, when we read what these writers
> had to say about marriage. Consider this piece from the first century
> BCE poet Catullus (Carmen 61:134-141), in which the poet addresses
> himself to a bridegroom on the eve of his nuptials:
>
> "You are said to find it hard, Perfumed bridegroom, to give up
> Smooth-skinned boys, but give them up... We realize you've only known
> Permitted pleasures: husbands, though, Have no right to the same
> pleasures."
Lots of young men have had some homosexual sex passively or actively as
a young man around 14 to 16 years of age. But as the opportunity to
have sex with women and all that means socially and sexually, their
homosexual experience fades like masturbation fades as a primary form of
sexual release.
>
> The social history behind this piece is clear: once they've
> experienced sex with other men, Catullus tells us, men are unsatisfied
> with what their new wives provide them. Notice that the poet is
> unconcerned about the husband's dallying with other women -- it's the
> other men around that threaten the marital union.
Not so as indicated above lots of guys have no desire to relive their
youthful homosexual exploration.
I don't know how many married heterosexual men have had a homo
experience in their lifetime, but the divorce rate of most marriages
globally is 45 percent and no homosexual is prepared to take the blame
for the failures between a heterosexual man and a heterosexual woman.
But nice try though.
>
> If Catullus addressed the bridegroom on the eve of his wedding,
> the satirist Martial (Book 11, Epigram 43) depicts the reality of
> married life itself. As satire, the section is too bawdy to be
> reprinted here, but the sanitized version goes like this: A woman
> chastises her husband for continuing to dally with male acquaintances.
> He counters that many other married men are doing it as well.
> Desperate, she offers to service him in the same way that his male
> suitor does. He rebuffs, concluding, that she just can't satisfy him
> the way his suitor can.
>
There is nothing in blow job for women except a lot of tired boring
labour.
> And so now we come back to the idyllic day of free choice and
> tolerance envisioned by the gay and lesbian movement. It turns out
> that that day has winners and losers. The winners -- big time -- are
> homosexual men, because the historical record shows that they can
> expect their potential pool of partners to expand exponentially. Of
> note here is that this expanded pool of partners accrues to gay men,
> but not to homosexual women. At the risk of getting too explicit, I
> leave it the reader's basic grasp of anatomy to figure out why in
> ancient Rome a man who found pleasure in a woman, could also find
> pleasure in a man, while the record shows that a heterosexual woman
> rarely found sexual satisfaction in the company of another woman.
>
If you believe the bs printed by heterosexuals homosexuals have
thousands of partners in a lifetime. If that is so and only homos get
aids, then it can be said that all the partners of homos are other
homos. So in a lifetime no homo would be able to work or do anything
else except have sex not only to meet his own needs or the needs of
other homo partners but now if we are to believe history, he has to meet
the unsaitable (sp) needs of every married and single heterosexual male
who wants homosexual sex more than heterosexual sex. Sounds too good to
be true and you know what they say about anything that sounds to good to
be true.......
> The losers from all this will be the vast majority of women. With
> full social sanction given to homoerotic activity, the historical
> precedent suggests that tomorrow's women will have a harder time
> finding and holding on to suitable men.
Women have always had a very, very, very difficult time finding and
holding onto suitable men. Firstly, they find in time the man is less
suitable than first thought. Secondly, women always, I repeat always
marry for less than a man they deserve or desire, but their biological
clock is ticking and women have to be realistic or perhaps practical is
a better word.
> As women will suffer, so will
> the vitality and stability of the nuclear family.
And you don't think women are suffering today? Go to any courthouse
look at the thousands/millions of women globally each year trying to get
their ex-husbands to support their offspring.
>
> As Shakespeare noted, the past is prologue. The push to legalize
> same-sex marriage -- to grant full social sanction to the homoerotic
> bond -- is a major step in an experiment of social engineering. We
> might wind up ourselves one day penning the observations of writers
> like Catullus and Martial, and impotent to turn back the clock. It is
> said that all opposition to same-sex marriage is rooted in religious
> dogma, which has no place in our legal discourse.
Just remember we live in an overpopulated world.
>
> But there is a utilitarian argument as well: full social sanction
> for the homoerotic bond is opposed not for God's sake, but for the
> sake of tomorrow's women.
Well, only some people are religious. Just ask any married women or any
married man how good married life is after producing 2 offspring, trying
to keep employment, trying to find a house they can afford, a car they
can afford, a job that doesn't keep them travelling to and from work
many hours a day, find sex after starting their day a 5:30 am and
picking up kids from the sports and arts commitments at 10:30 at night
and then finding a moment for themselves as a married couple. Now list
how good married life is, please. Ask married people, please. They
will tell you most willingly whether they believe in God or not.
Matt Silberstein
<timjo...@gmail.com> in
<132972c3-948d-4a7d...@j4g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>
wrote:
>National support for state-sanctioned gay marriage has slipped
>recently. Thank goodness.
>
>A while back I pointed out to you a midrashic tradition on Leviticus
>18:3 that notes a feature of life in morally corrupt ancient Canaan:
>they practiced gay marriage, which is one reason God chose to displace
>them from the holy land, to be replaced by the children of Israel. I
>know, I know. It sounds so bigoted. Why be bothered if a nation
>chooses to officially sanction any combination of lovers that may
>please its citizens -- man and woman, man and man, woman and woman?
>Who gets hurt?
>
>Ultimately, women do. That's the brilliantly insightful answer from a
>reader of this blog, Joshua Berman, an American scholar who teaches at
>Israel's Bar-Ilan University while serving as a senior fellow at the
>Shalem Center in Jerusalem. He's also the author of an excellent new
>book, Created Equal: How the Bible Broke with Ancient Political
>Thought. I'm proud to publish his reflections on the question, special
>to Kingdom of Priests. Keep in mind that if you want to disagree with
>this analysis, you'll have to explain why the historical parallel
>doesn't apply:
>
> As a scholar of ancient civilizations, I know that we gain
>invaluable insights by drawing from the observations of others who
>grappled in their time with the experiences that we are just beginning
>to face. On the issue of same-sex marriage, we have much to learn from
>the writers of ancient Rome.
>
> Reading them brings me to the conclusion that were I a woman, I
>would be concerned by the tide of legislation now sweeping our
>country.
>
> To see how these ancient writings demonstrate that feminism and
>homosexuality are on a collision course, we need to first take a step
>back and consider the end-game of the gay and lesbian movement. The
>immediate aim is to win in the courts. But the ultimate aim is to win
>over the culture: to arrive at a day when homoeroticism is fully
>accepted.
>
> Let's fast-forward the video-tape and see what that day would look
>like. Johnny, a teenager, has pals who date boys and pals who date
>girls. In the movies, on billboards, Johnny sees depictions of men in
>love with men and of men in love with women. Johnny admires the
>picture in his principal's office of the principal and his husband on
>their honeymoon. In this day, no one uses the word "homosexual"
>anymore, in just the same way that today no one uses the word "negro"
>-- it's so laden with the baggage of yesteryear's bigotry. In fact, in
>this day, no one makes a big deal about sexual orientation at all.
>Johnny knows that when he seeks intimacy he is free to choose a
>blonde, a brunette, a Latina, a Phillipino, a guy, a girl; it's all
>cool. Free choice and tolerance take the day.
And so likely he will be attracted to whomever he is attracted to. I
am not attracted to a large % of women I am told by society I should
be attracted to and attracted to many society tells me are
unattractive.
> But reading his history books about the 20th century, Johnny is
>shocked to discover that the percentage of men who were sexually
>interested in other men stood only in the single digits. He is shocked
>because everyone he knows engages in this regularly.
I am confused. If everyone he knows does this, then how can it be that
only a small % do it?
>
> Why do I say everyone?
>
>
>
> Because of what you read in the the writers of imperial Rome. Some
>people are indeed homoerotic by nature. But others, as Aristotle
>noted, develop this as an acquired passion. Homoeroticism is, to a
>large degree, socially constructed. It turns out that where
>homoeroticism is granted full social sanction, as it was in Rome, it
>flourishes -- so much so, that one writer noted that the emperor
>Claudius exhibited an unusual trait: he was sexually interested in
>women alone!
>
> Men, we learn from ancient Rome, will enjoy sex with other men, if
>there is no social censure. Now, all of this should be fine for us as
>well -- after all, we should let free choice and tolerance reign.
And there we have it, presented nice and clear. You/they want
homosexuality outlawed to prevent you from following your attraction
to other men. You need to make homosexuality disappear because you are
afraid of your own sexuality.
[snip]
> And so now we come back to the idyllic day of free choice and
>tolerance envisioned by the gay and lesbian movement. It turns out
>that that day has winners and losers. The winners -- big time -- are
>homosexual men, because the historical record shows that they can
>expect their potential pool of partners to expand exponentially. Of
>note here is that this expanded pool of partners accrues to gay men,
>but not to homosexual women. At the risk of getting too explicit, I
>leave it the reader's basic grasp of anatomy to figure out why in
>ancient Rome a man who found pleasure in a woman, could also find
>pleasure in a man, while the record shows that a heterosexual woman
>rarely found sexual satisfaction in the company of another woman.
Some of us have a more than basic grasp of anatomy, sexuality, and
manufacturing and so we know that women can get satisfaction from
women. And people tend to get satisfaction from those they are
actually attracted to, physiology aside.
> The losers from all this will be the vast majority of women. With
>full social sanction given to homoerotic activity, the historical
>precedent suggests that tomorrow's women will have a harder time
>finding and holding on to suitable men. As women will suffer, so will
>the vitality and stability of the nuclear family.
So the problem is that men are really gay and so we need laws to
prevent them from acting on it.
[snip]
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
Trance Gemini
> "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Well put. That's exactly it.
It would be much better for their emotional and psychological well
being to simply accept who they are.
They'll be much happier people if they dump all that self-hate.
Ben Kaufman
>On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 12:12:53 -0800 (PST), tim jones
><timjo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Johnny knows that when he seeks intimacy he is free to choose a
>>blonde, a brunette, a Latina, a Phillipino, a guy, a girl; it's all
>>cool. Free choice and tolerance take the day.
>
>I'm free to choose between the above now, yet I remain heterosexual,
>because I'm just not interested in men sexually. How would legalizing
>gay marriage change that? Methinks this article reveals more about the
>author than about society at large.
You have to understand this from his perspective, horse crap is legal and he
can't resist swallowing it.
Ben
Ben Kaufman
>On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 12:12:53 -0800 (PST), tim jones
><timjo...@gmail.com> wrote in alt.atheism:
>
>>National support for state-sanctioned gay marriage has slipped
>>recently. Thank goodness.
>
>No, you can thank hatred and bigotry, the evil that hides behind 'god'.
>
>You have no idea what you are talking about nor did the author of your
>cut-n-paste.
>
>
>...
can you imagine how much more advanced we'd be today if jackasses like him
weren't in control 500 years ago?
Ben
Ben Kaufman
Of course not; we'll all be in Heaven watching it from stadium cloud seating
while enjoying pizza, beer and Haagen Daz extra fat ice cream.
Ben.
Ben Kaufman
>On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 12:12:53 -0800 (PST), tim jones
><timjo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>National support for state-sanctioned gay marriage has slipped
>>recently. Thank goodness.
>>
>>A while back I pointed out to you a midrashic tradition on Leviticus
>>18:3 that notes a feature of life in morally corrupt ancient Canaan:
>>they practiced gay marriage, which is one reason God chose to displace
>>them from the holy land, to be replaced by the children of Israel. I
>>know, I know. It sounds so bigoted. Why be bothered if a nation
>>chooses to officially sanction any combination of lovers that may
>>please its citizens -- man and woman, man and man, woman and woman?
>>Who gets hurt?
>
>Bottom line the Gay bashers are sure that sex with another male is
>much better than sex with a woman. Which would result in women not
>getting laid and the human race dying out. Poor stupid bastards never
>had a good woman in bed.
That's obvious. How would want 67 (or whatever the number is) virgins in heaven
rather than experienced women?
Ben
Ben Kaufman
Actually, it will be mentally detrimental to the bigots as their world view
comes tumbling down.
Ben
Ben Kaufman
wrote:
>I know. It sounds so bigoted.
The only thing in the entire post that was not way off base.
Ben
thomas p.
"Ben Kaufman" <spaXm-mXe-anXd-p...@pobox.com> skrev i
meddelelsen news:10m2g5l8lclroav9f...@4ax.com...
It pretty well confirms what I suspected, that the "homosexuality is a
choice"
crowd consists of people who are homosexual but who have repressed it.
They have "chosen" to not be homosexual, and they assume (must assume in
order to continue to suppress what they are) that everybody else has also
made
a choice.
(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com>
Ben Kaufman <spaXm-mXe-anXd-p...@pobox.com> wrote:
>><flush>
>>
>> There is NO way that same-sex marriage could possibly
>>be detrimental to ANYONE.
> Actually, it will be mentally detrimental to the bigots as their
> world view comes tumbling down.
True. Just look how that worked out for the EQUALLY-
ignorant and socially-retarded segregationists.
juanjo
> National support for state-sanctioned gay marriage has slipped
> recently. Thank goodness.
>
> But there is a utilitarian argument as well: full social sanction
> for the homoerotic bond is opposed not for God's sake, but for the
> sake of tomorrow's women.
The whole premise of this idiot's claim is that somehow Roman men
became so enamored with their male lovers that they ignored their
wives. Of course the carefully selected gobbets of poetry and such
provided are only there to reinforce this idea. But one as always
must put the entire Roman society into perspective. This is a pre-
christian society in which male dominated sexuality is celebrated.
Further the distinctions we make now about homosexuality and
heterosexuality did not exist as such. There were men who preferred
male sexual partners and we know this from written accounts of time.
Several Roman emperors are well know for their prference of male
sexual partners while others seemed to have had a preference for
female partners not their respective wives. There were also men who
preferred sexual relations with women again well documented in the
available evidence. But there was a much wider practice of what we
would term as bisexuality although it is doubtful the Romans would
have seen it as such. For most Romans, sex was simply sex.
Particularly for Roman males, sexual release could and di come from a
variety of sources as they saw fit do indulge themselves whether in a
tavern, the bathhouse or in their homes or the home of another
friend. It was simply a function of life. For example, in Plutarch's
Erotikos (Dialogue on Love) argues that “the noble lover of beauty
engages in love wherever he sees excellence and splendid natural
endowment without regard for any difference in physiological
detail.” (Ibid., 146) Gender just becomes irrelevant “detail” and
instead the excellence in character and beauty is what is most
important. See also for example http://www.unrv.com/book-review/roman-sex.php,
see also http://www.blackwellreference.com/public/tocnode?id=g9780631226444_chunk_g978063122644422
Priapus with his enormous phallus is to be found painted on walls,
engraved into paving stones and in the form of lovely little
statuettes located in niches by the main entrance to many homes and
businesses. These were no indication of homosexuality. They were
good luck charms and used to keep away evil spirits and the like.
Similarly any good sized Roman town had its brothels. Pompeii for
example had upwards of 30 for a town of roughly 20,000 inhabitants.
Now many of these were small establishments of tow or three beds,
typically associated with a tavern. One big "sporting house" has been
identified in the town, a two story establishment wonderfully
decorated with erotic art and description fo the young ladies and
their specialties to be found painted on the wall. Metal "chits" or
tokens have been found in Roman cities which like those used in many
brothels in the Western United States in the 19th century, were good
for "one" with a particular establishment. Graffiti on walls in many
old ruins also identify the more enterprising young ladies who
practiced the world's oldest profession freelance in various part of
Roman cities. The Circus Maximus was well known for its late night
entertainments provided by ladies of the evening. Later the same type
of entertainment was to found around the Coliseum, a fact that existed
off and on in Rome until relatively recently.
Then there is other literature, for example the poet Ovid who got
himself into trouble over his poetry in which he suggested ways in
which a man could seduce a woman including a married woman.
The fact is that the Romans during the Empire prior to the rise of
Christian domination, were very frank in their attitudes about sex and
it had absolutely nothing to do with marriage. One married for social
status, political and business connections but not for love or sex. A
Roman man was absolute master of his house and his word meant life or
death for anyone who lived under his roof, including his wife and
children. A Roman man could and would have sex with his slave, both
male and female as it suited him. Homosexuality was not an issue,
however being the passive partner of a male lover of lower status than
one's self was a big deal. Now it should be noted that Roman's had
this idea that while having sexual urges was all perfectly normal, one
did not live as a slave to them. Men who did so were considered
effeminate. For example, Pompey was derided by his enemies as
effeminate because they said his obsessive love of his wife, Julia,
made him a slave to his passion. Julius Caesar was often criticized
not because he had sex with both men and women but because he did it
so often. Early in his career his political opponents sought to
discredit him by claiming he had been the lover of an Asia Minor king,
Mithridates, the issue being he was one the penetrated not the
penetrator.
The fact is that there was plenty of sex going on in Roman society and
most of it was heterosexual.
Liz
But no sex. Unless you're Muslim.
Liz #658
Ben Kaufman
I mostly agree with you but there are also the dumb sheep who accept without
question whatever they are told by their "peers."
Ben
Ben Kaufman
What? Where on earth have you been getting your information from?
Ben
Liz
Christians.
Of course now that I think about it, the information could be suspect
since they believe sex is sinful here and now.
Liz #658