Some of us have observed the homosexual movement from the very beginning. First, all they wanted to do was practice the sexual desires which “God gave them,” so they managed to get sodomy laws abolished. But that was not the end game.
Then they wanted to live with their heads held high, so they wanted to hold Gay Pride Parades. If you have ever been to a gay parade, you know that, it is not just a bunch of homosexuals on floats holding up banners saying, “I’m gay and loving it!” You will see all sorts of simulated sexual acts and men wearing clothing in such a way as to be erotically graphic. It is much more of an “in your face” approach. “This is what we are; deal with it.” But that was not the end game.
Now that gay pride parades are common—at least in some areas—there was the next step. So many male homosexuals had the love of their lives suffering in hospitals, and yet, they had no legal right to see this person, and family members were keeping them separated, and so they had to have civil unions or domestic partnership laws. The hospital scenario was presented again and again, although this was a situation that fewer than 1% of homosexuals had ever dealt with. Many had been to hospitals with ex-lovers dying of AIDS, but the number who had been banned from their “lifetime” partner was minuscule. However, by presenting that rarely occurring scenario, homosexuals gained quite a number of state laws which allowed them to become legally attached with the legal rights that they needed to have. But, that was not the end game.
And now, today, the big push is for marriage rights. Everyone has the right to marry the person that they love, except for gays; and it is so unfair! “It is a fundamental human right to marry the person you love!” they proclaim.
There are churches in every state—many of them headed by gay pastors—who are more than willing to perform a marriage ceremony, and pronounce them married at the end of the ceremony; and gays can tell everyone that they know, “This is my gay marriage partner” and they can demand such recognition from their friends and family. But, you know what is so terrible? The state will not proclaim them married! The federal government will not proclaim them married! Oh, dear, oh dear; this is such a violation of their civil rights! How can they really feel married unless the state or federal government recognizes them as married? Attending their own marriage ceremony in which they are pronounced married? Not good enough. Telling all of their friends and family that they are married? Not good enough. Marriage only counts, for some reason, if the state or federal government certifies them as being married.
But gay marriage is not the end game. No gay will ever tell you the end game, because if they did, you would never support gay marriage.
What gays like is more sexual partners. Whereas, it is very unusual for a heterosexual male to have 100 or more different partners, this is not unusual in the gay community. A study in 1978 said that 75% of gay men had over 100 sexual partners. And since gays make up only about 3% of the population, it is hard to find new gay men to have sex with. What is their approach? Some partially change themselves into women; they don’t go all the way (except for the very nutty ones), but they go far enough so that they can have sex with some straight men.
However, if marriage between gays becomes the law, and the state recognizes homosexual marriages to be legally equivalent to marriages between heterosexuals, then life in America is going to change dramatically. Gay marriage is not the end game; but once gay marriage is made legal, then gays can do a number of things they have been wanting to do.
First, because there are always been animosity among gays against Christians, the Bible will be proclaimed to be hate literature and any pastor who tries to teach portions of the Bible will be taken to court for teaching hatred. They could care less whether or not they win; sue a few small churches, and word will get around fast enough. Defending against such lawsuits is expensive, and few churches can afford to do it. We know this will happen because it already has. If marriage between homosexuals is “legalized” then, this opens up the opportunity to strike back at the church, and if a few congregations get shut down, who cares? These churches are nothing but disseminators of hatred.
However, attacking Christians and the Bible is not the end game; that is simply sport and revenge. The end game is, more homosexual partners. When a man has had 100 sexual partners, that has to be a clue that, having sex, and a lot of sex, is extremely important to the homosexual. If there is a way to expand the franchise, so to speak, that is seen as a great objective.
Sexuality is a complex thing, and homosexuals have found that, if a male is violated at a very early age, sexual gratification can be associated with homosexual behavior. This does not work in all cases, but it works in enough cases to make presenting homosexual behavior in the schools a worthy goal for the homosexual community. There are many schools today that teach, in sex education, that there are 3 types of sexual intercourse, and all 3 of them are equally valid. This is taught to as young an age as they can get away with.
Even today, there are schools where books about homosexual couplings are made a part of the curriculum for grammar school children. “And Tango Makes Three” is a popular book which has crept into the primary schools all over America.
There are many schools where homosexuals have pushed anti-bullying programs which, incidentally, present homosexual couples as normal. These programs are pushed with great enthusiasm, despite the meager evidence of bullying occurring because a child has two daddies. However, essentially to these anti-bullying programs is, a homosexual union is normal thing and a good thing.
Homosexuals know that young children, just reaching puberty, can be carefully navigated into trying homosexual acts. They know that, by using lies or trickery, make up and surgery, that additional males can be tempted into homosexual acts. This does not mean that such young men will be turned into homosexuals; it just means, they can be gotten to experiment, and that is the end-game. More gay experimentation and more gay partners.
Men are men, whether they are predominantly interested in homosexuality or heterosexuality; and, for many men, multiple partners is a desirable thing to them. This helps to explain why, even in “committed” gay relationships, fidelity is almost nonexistent.
This is why homosexuals have become so active in school curriculums, particularly on the grammar school level. This is why homosexuals are so interested in having gay marriage proclaimed as legal and equal to heterosexual marriage.
This is why they want homosexual acts to be presented side-by-side heterosexual acts in sex education.
Where is the best place for gays to encourage more gay behavior, which means more partners? On the grammar school level.
Here is exactly what they want; here is the end game:
(1) Sexual intercourse between males to be presented as exactly the same as sexual intercourse between a male and a female. No judgment. “You like coffee; I like tea; its all the same.” All of the resultant physical problems from anal intercourse will not be taught at any level. If there is any teaching about AIDS, it will be presented as a disease spread among all sexual relationships, and, all you have to do is, use a condom to prevent it. Furthermore, this must be presented to as young a group as possible. Preferably to children who do not even know what sexual relations are.
(2) A homosexual union must be presented as exactly equal to a heterosexual union. I have a few dozen Time-Life books on home repair, and, in more than half of the pictures, women are doing the work; laying brick, lifting up walls, drilling holes—this is what homosexuals want to see in our schools. If there is a book or a movie or an illustration which involves a family, they want to see a homosexual couple represented. From the earliest age possible, they want young 5 and 6 year old boys reading about gay penguins, or 10 year olds doing a math word problem which involves a homosexual couple Just like women construction workers are ubiquitous in my Time-Life books, they want to see homosexual couples ubiquitous in the public school curriculum. And if a school fails to do this, then they will go to court over it. Such a school would be teaching underlying or institutionalize bigotry, and that must be stopped. They cannot take such a school to court today, because gay marriage is not recognized by the state and federal governments. However, once that hurdle is made, then “institutional sexual bigotry” in the schools will be attacked via the legal system.
(3) Young males in particular must be raised in such a way as to think about their sexuality at a very young age; preferably before puberty, which will encourage experimentation. Whether you realize this or not, more homosexual behavior will be the result. Whether it sticks or not, is not important. It is the experimentation that counts. It is that discussion about sexual identify with a trusted adult that counts.
Homosexual marriage is not about love and commitment; anyone can do that, with or without the law. Passing homosexual marriage is really about recruiting more partners, the younger, the better.
These things are being done to a very limited extent at a handful of schools across the United States. However, once gay marriage passes (particularly, if it is done on the federal level), then these things will be pushed in a much more concerted way in our future, through the schools and the courts.
From Conservative Review #166
http://kukis.org/blog/ConservativeReview166.htm
http://kukis.org/blog/ConservativeReview166.pdf
A retired math teacher who spends most of his time exegeting the Old Testament and, once a week, puts out an ezeen.
is your orientation distinction the same when you see strip clubs and prostitudes or witness the lascivious behavior on college spring break?
religious fundamentalist in the republican party are going to have to accept the growing libertarian vein in america or we are all going to be left behind.
my mistake i was referring to valentines day
http://blogs.houstonpress.com/hairballs/2011/02/freedom_to_marry_march.php
@feetxxxl:
Oh, Valentine’s Day, NOT yesterday? Guess you just lose track of the days of the month when trolling, right?
Which does not eliminate the fact that you refused to answer my question: which state refuses to grant a marriage licence to someone strickly on the basis the applicant is gay? The answer, which you have no spin for, is NONE.
Gays are allowed to marry under the same restrictions as heterosexuals. Or do you deny that a gay man has the same right to marry a gay woman as a straight man does?
@retire05: Sir, Mr. Kukis attacked me “as a gay man” so I defended myself and my kind “as a gay man.” Now, if Mr. Kukis had attacked say, Czech-Americans with some baseless and even libelous screed that we’re all communists intent on world domination, I would have replied: “As a man of Czech heritage…” If he had gone after Louisianians as say, all fat and lazy, I would have responded “As a Louisianian…” If he pilloried New Yorkers for some confounded mush I would have said “As a native New Yorker…”
But he did not. In fact, Mr Kukis purposefully and with mal-intent set us off as “them” in his opening gambit. His title itself called us “dishonest” — he himself brought up “as gay men.” I merely replied with a dose of reality — for he then went on to say some of the most hoary things ever said about us — things disproved so often that one wonders why he was allowed to post it in the first place. Please sir, spare the platitudes about me being obsessed with my sexuality when Mr. Kukis is so obsessed with us that he can’t even think straight. Myself, sir? I would rather have not had the opportunity to ever utter a word on the subject, but then again, I didn’t start the fight here — some straight guy did.
Don’t like gay folks? Fine, ’tis your right. But I have a 2nd amendment right to defend myself and my people — most of whom are too scared to wade in as I do across the TEA party blogosphere — and say something when something so horrendous about us is said as this.
And remember the words of the great Barry Goldwater — not the usual quote, oh no — what he said in 1994: “You don’t have to like it, but gay people deserve full constitutional rights including marriage and military service.” And that my conservative good buddy is something you can actually look up — not the crud that Mr. Kukis does set forth for our consideration which is garbled invective masquerading as reasoned discussion. Don’t attack us “as a gay man,” I won’t defend us “as a gay man.”
@Jim Hlavac:
Jim, you wrote:
I think the original post for this thread was about how we are heading toward a place where it will be illegal to openly ”not like it.”
It used to be, before political correctness, allowable to openly have any number of opinions about any number of things.
But we have seen laws passed and enforced in, say, Canada, Australia and Europe, whereby people are being prosecuted in human rights courts for holding to perfectly sound positions of opinion.
In a couple of cases people were dragged into court simply for accurately quoting a source!
In one case (in Australia) the overturning did not take place until after the man had served some time behind bars.
In all of these cases the loss of much money took place before their names were cleared for expressing their opinions.
I don’t want to see those types of anti-free-expression laws passed here.
But we are on a track to do just that.
_____________________________
Oh, and one other thing:
The idea that a status, such as one’s color, nationality or sexual proclivity denotes anything special to debate is a fallacy.
There should be freedom to express oneself on, say, abortion, whether or not one has had on, or is even female.
Likewise with any/every other state of being.
Oh common Nan… there is a BIG line between things like:
A. indoctrinating kids in schools / taking away rights to free speech
and
B. Gays are pedophiles / Gays have 1000 partners on average / Gays are stalking kids outside my school.
Now if you want to have a discussion about things in group A… that would be great. I’ll even discuss an idea that kids do better with both mother and father figures in their life if we can find scientific articles about such topics.
But the group B claims made by Gary have yet to been sourced to any link. His hate-filled text is littered with faux claims and made up simply to scare people. It is a garbage article and I am ashamed of Flopping Aces for posting it.
Repubs are on our way to gaining majority… lets not lose our focus of what got us the House… fiscal conservatism, spending cuts, and small government. We can’t get lost in social debates right now, especially one that we will lose. people have moved on.
I almost wet my pants laughing at Gary Kukis’ rant. Did this guy even finish high school? What are the benefits of marriage? How about, for starters….
Rights and benefits of marriage at a federal level (only federal, this list does not include state benefits):
* Right to benefits while married:
o employment assistance and transitional services for spouses of members being separated from military service; continued commissary privileges
o per diem payment to spouse for federal civil service employees when relocating
o Indian Health Service care for spouses of Native Americans (in some circumstances)
o sponsor husband/wife for immigration benefits
* Larger benefits under some programs if married, including:
o veteran’s disability
o Supplemental Security Income
o disability payments for federal employees
o medicaid
o property tax exemption for homes of totally disabled veterans
o income tax deductions, credits, rates exemption, and estimates
o wages of an employee working for one’s spouse are exempt from federal unemployment tax[3]
* Joint and family-related rights:
o joint filing of bankruptcy permitted
o joint parenting rights, such as access to children’s school records
o family visitation rights for the spouse and non-biological children, such as to visit a spouse in a hospital or prison
o next-of-kin status for emergency medical decisions or filing wrongful death claims
o custodial rights to children, shared property, child support, and alimony after divorce
o domestic violence intervention
o access to “family only” services, such as reduced rate memberships to clubs & organizations or residency in certain neighborhoods
* Preferential hiring for spouses of veterans in government jobs
* Tax-free transfer of property between spouses (including on death) and exemption from “due-on-sale” clauses.
* Special consideration to spouses of citizens and resident aliens
* Threats against spouses of various federal employees is a federal crime
* Right to continue living on land purchased from spouse by National Park Service when easement granted to spouse
* Court notice of probate proceedings
* Domestic violence protection orders
* Existing homestead lease continuation of rights
* Regulation of condominium sales to owner-occupants exemption
* Funeral and bereavement leave
* Joint adoption and foster care
* Joint tax filing
* Insurance licenses, coverage, eligibility, and benefits organization of mutual benefits society
* Legal status with stepchildren
* Making spousal medical decisions
* Spousal non-resident tuition deferential waiver
* Permission to make funeral arrangements for a deceased spouse, including burial or cremation
* Right of survivorship of custodial trust
* Right to change surname upon marriage
* Right to enter into prenuptial agreement
* Right to inheritance of property
* Spousal privilege in court cases (the marital confidences privilege and the spousal testimonial privilege)
* For those divorced or widowed, the right to many of ex- or late spouse’s benefits, including:
o Social Security pension
o veteran’s pensions, indemnity compensation for service-connected deaths, medical care, and nursing home care, right to burial in veterans’ cemeteries, educational assistance, and housing
o survivor benefits for federal employees
o survivor benefits for spouses of longshoremen, harbor workers, railroad workers
o additional benefits to spouses of coal miners who die of black lung disease
o $100,000 to spouse of any public safety officer killed in the line of duty
o continuation of employer-sponsored health benefits
o renewal and termination rights to spouse’s copyrights on death of spouse
o continued water rights of spouse in some circumstances
o payment of wages and workers compensation benefits after worker death
o making, revoking, and objecting to post-mortem anatomical gifts
The company I work for has moved me across the U.S. twice and within state boundaries twice. None of those four moves made any financial allowances for my partner. Had we been “married” there would have been not only financial incentives, but job placement assistance provided to my “spouse” at no cost. Most likely, based on many company initiated moves I have witnessed, a job would have been offered within the company I work for.
The statement that “Homosexual marriage is not about love and commitment; anyone can do that, with or without the law.” is beyond false. One must wonder if Kukis is trying to fool himself or the reader. One must also wonder about Kukis’ honestly.
“A study in 1978 said that 75% of gay men had over 100 sexual partners. And since gays make up only about 3% of the population, it is hard to find new gay men to have sex with. What is their approach? Some partially change themselves into women; they don’t go all the way (except for the very nutty ones), but they go far enough so that they can have sex with some straight men.”
Let me address the later falsehood first. Gay men do not “change themselves into women” to have sex with straight men. Not ever. Never. It doesn’t happen. That is confusing gay men with transsexuals. It makes no more sense than saying that straight men have sex with animals when their wives turn their backs on them. In fact, it makes far less sense than that particular analogy. Gay men do not want to be women. Transsexuals have sex reassignment surgery. Not gay men.
Citing (or in this case, NOT citing) a study done in 1978 that found that 75% of gay men had over 100 sexual partners proves nothing. Recall that 1978 was pre-HIV. But let’s break it down a bit. All humans need intimacy. There has never been a person who does not. One can define intimacy in different ways. A person who has dedicated their life to religious/spiritual pursuit find intimacy in their relationship with a higher power. Most of us find the needed intimacy with another human. One who is like minded. Now consider your own relationship. Try to imagine if that relationship were, for whatever reason, socially taboo. Consider the intricacies of making sure you are not seen in public together all too often, of not speaking of the object of your desire too much and in some circles (at the the office for instance) never. Try to imagine that you must never openly share a private joke with a wink or too familiar grin and innocent touch. Imagine that you had to keep separate residences and identities. Think of the scheduling of outings with other friends that do not include your loved one in order to keep up appearances. How long before the stress of that heavy lifting creeps into the relationship? Any thinking person understands this. It is quite insane to deny people the ability to openly share their affections then seem incredulous that they are promiscuous. Mr. Kukis does not make any mention of the age group that the study enlisted. Of course gay men have a history of having more sexual encounters than straight men (pre-HIV and after), why wouldn’t one expect to find exactly that? It should be no surprise to anyone. What is ignored are all of the gay couples who find a lasting relationship and make it work. That there are any at all is the surprise.
The 3 points in the “end game” that Kukis is so (oddly) familiar with are absurd beyond reason. It is fine to teach young men “who do not even know what sexual relations are” all about straight sex, but let them find out about HIV themselves.
I assume that if I look, I’ll find that Kukis has written rants about straight men luring young girls into sexual relations as well. One only needs to tune into NBCs Dateline: “To Catch a Predator” series with Chris Hansen to know that there is an endless line of men actively seeking out young girls to have sex with.
There is nothing “wrong” with being gay. We are not pedophiles, we are not after your children anymore than you are after your neighbor’s daughter. I have known many many gay men in my life and not one of them wanted to have sex with teenage (or younger) boys. What is everyone so afraid of? It is only love.
Nope Not Covered for Same Gender Marriage for Military. This will be under Review and Revision.
The Military does NOT recognize that Marriage situation as of this point in time.
@Old Trooper2: he cut and pasted that list from wikipedia and if its on wikipedia it HAS to be true right?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_and_responsibilities_of_marriages_in_the_United_States
@playwithfire:
About this:
You are right.
A. is about issues.
On A…….
I think it elevates the conversation to keep it on these points.
Sometimes anecdotal evidence is as justified as are stats from studies.
There used to be a book out, long before Political Correctness, called something like, ”The Varieties of Human Behaviors.”
It put things into perspective without hate or disgust.
But the discussion groups (in college) were filled with revulsion and disgust.
Maybe that’s why no one assigns it in Psych 101 it anymore.
Somewhere I have read that new students at some colleges are simply told they MUST either be accepting or be quiet about other people’s behaviors.
B. is about observations, anecdotes.
On B…….
I have personally watched (called the police, too) while an older gay neighbor began playing sexually with the 3&1/2 year-old boy he was babysitting.
BUT, I would not over-generalize from that to the statement that ALL gays are pedophiles.
I have personally heard stories of anonymous multiple sex in bath houses and parks, in disco bathrooms and parked cars from many homosexual men over the years (Pre-AIDS it was, ”I had sex with Rock Hudson,” that was commonly heard, but not believed).
BUT, I would not over-generalize from that to the statement that ALL gays have 1000 partners.
I have watched over decades as gays and lesbians try to pick up high schoolers across the street from my credit union.
BUT, I would not over-generalize from that to the statement that ALL gays stalk youngsters outside of schools.
Lastly, I don’t think this thread or the original topic meant to stay on just the issues.
It meant to range from the specific (anecdotal) to the general.
@ Curt, at this time the US Armed Forces do not recognize Same Gender Marriages. Key word=Marriage.
Wikipedia would never be My Choice of Reference Material so that would be a Negative. Policy Guidance may be forthcoming in light of a UCMJ Revision and Policy Statement, However it has not crossed the desks yet at G-1 (Personnel) or G-7 (Finance) to my Knowledge. SJA Review would precede acceptance based upon DOD Guidance.
@Old Trooper2: I think he was pointing out what benefits married people get…not just gay married people.
Correct on that. Marriage is the key word. As the Military defines it , it is still a Man and a Woman.
@Jim Hlavac:
Spare me your indignation. And please, explain to me why you thought the need to drag the 2nd Amendment into your argument? Do you intend to shoot all of us who support our FIRST AMENDMENT rights to not want you “gay men” shoving your life styles down our throats and the throats of our children? You are not “defending” anyone, just making yourself look small by a stupid argument.
Now, perhaps you would like to admit that gay men can, in every state in this Union, marry. You just can’t change the rules to suit you, and that is where it sticks in your craw. But hey, why not let gay guys marry their brothers, or hell, even their sisters, if it floats your boat since pastel seems to think it is all financial advantages that you are seeking. Maybe you can draw your brother’s Social Security and that $255 death benefit should provide you with at least one night out on the town (good dinner, couple of drinks) that you seem to resent not being able to have access to.
And then, as is typical of anyone who argues from your POV, you have to add that you think there can be no possible reason I would be against changing time tested rules to suit you simply because I don’t like gays. What a weakling you are.
I frankly don’t give a damn what you do in the privacy of your own home. But when you DEMAND respect, buddy, you damn well be prepared to give it, and so far all I have seen is a one-way street from you “gay men” where you want acceptance but are very unwilling to give acceptance to those who disagree with you.
Marry your dog if that is what makes you happy. But when you have to DEMAND that everyone accept you are porking your dog and give you special priviledges because of it, you are on the wrong side. And if having your life choices shoved down the throats of others by judicial fiat is what it takes to make you happy, you need a shink, not a marriage licence.
I went to school with a guy who turned gay. Nobody knew until he got older. He was the same as everyone else, he played sports, ate food, drank water. He didn’t stalk children, I’m sure of that. Good guy. I’ve seen lots of them, but that was the only homo I’ve really known at all.
It seems likely that lawyers are the only ones who truly benefit from marriage laws. Seat belt laws were lobbied by insurance company’s, there is nothing in the constitution that says the federal government can make you wear a seat belt; but they do! Guess who mostly benefits from seat belt laws. Business interest should not control America. Even if lawyers unions can pass it off as being “for the little guy”.
@Retire05-
You tell em dude. Frankly, I won’t put up with gays trying to shove their lifestyle down my throat. I won’t stand for them trying to shove it up my ass either. HaHa
I didn’t think much of the article, but This is a good argument, there is actual homosexuals commenting on it. Goes to show you how many different people read your blog Curt.
What Mr. Kukis and many who support him here don’t realize is that if you had not raided the Stonewall Inn — again, and again, and again … beating us and arresting us — on a hot June night in 1969 we might still well be hidden. We were in our bar, hidden, cowering in fear, as you requested; but having a gay ol’ time nonetheless. And you came at us still. Unrelentingly. To beat and arrest and destroy us — for the fun of it I guess. So a bunch of sissy boys said “Oh the hell with this.” It was not us who brought us to the nation’s attention — it was the nation who was very attentive to us indeed. You’ve got it butt backwards, oh the irony indeed. There was no gay rights movement until you invaded our sanctuary one too many times. You all brought it upon yourselves. Oh well, not my fault either. For rugged individualism is apparently quite frustrating to you when even the less-than-rugged are for individualism too.
Sadly, the last gay bar raid I’m aware of was on the very 40th Anniversary of Stonewall, on June 28th 2009, when some three dozen Fort Worth, Texas cops attacked a gay bar (there’s really no other word for it than “attacked”) and so brutally beat the six patrons at the time such that one is still in physical therapy rehab recouping from the assault. And what were the sissies guilty of? Why, quietly having a beer. And nothing is more dangerous to the nation than a sissy with a beer in his hand after a hard day of cutting hair. Ahem.
If having the police in our nation assault sissies makes you feel like an American man, knock yourself out. The Family Research Council wants to round us up and export us, perhaps they could use your help. “You Can Run But You Can’t Hide, Inc,” a 501(c)3 “charity” and “educational” group simply wants to execute us – -I’m sure they could use their help. I urge you to you sign up right away.
It was not “First Amendment” free speech, or freedom of and from religion — no — it’s a 2nd Amendment right to self defense, to bear — and bare — arms in self-defense. Don’t attack us, we won’t defend us. You all came after us, and we say NO. This too you are enraged about, for even our defense is considered “promotion” for ’tis delusion. For you all seem to feel we should just stand there and take it like an, um, a man. I guess, I don’t know. You’re not clear, other than that you despise us. Fine, it is your right. But conflicting rights within our nation are dealt with in law and reason – -not vicious attacks based on your theocratic beliefs.
As for gay folks in schools — we were in schools, we are today — we’re the sissies you beat up. I was attacked, for, well, alas, I’m just a sissy, (though a brazen one now to be sure) back then in the late 1960s, early 1970s, until finally I too had had enough, and went, um, Stonewall on two tormenters — with purposeful public protest — I beat the living snot out of the two so that all might witness my enraged delight at finally stopping the assaults. After that it wasn’t so bad.
Again, if attacking gay folks is manliness, well, then, I shall be man enough to say no.
Oddly, if you listen to us and agree that we’re born this way — your irrational fear that we’ll make you all gay would evaporate like the wisp of mist it is. We are a mere 5% of the nation – -and look at you attack us with a venom reserved normally for crazed Muslim terrorists.
I did not ask Mr. Kukis to publish his dribble. I merely will not tolerate such scurrilous and libelous attacks. The nation, folks, is not about your right to pulverize me — it’s about my right to say NO.
Furthermore, if you don’t want us in the nation — than gives us a state or two to set up a Gay Republic, away from your hard hearts. Or at least slash our taxes one hundred precent, for we don’t like to pay for our assaults upon us. We pay for the streets on which we parade to redress our grievances. Hell, we even pay for the schools in which we have no children. If you hate us this much — give me my money back and I’ll go be the president of a Gay Republic on some portion of the land we’re in and we’ll go our way.
Though, I dare say, not a one of you has ever seemed to have heard Jesus say: walk another mile in a man’s shoes before you condemn him. You without sin, cast the first stone. Treat others as you would want to be treated. And most importantly – -hypocrisy is the worse sin. But God Himself is on my side, as all evidence has shown. And He has not given me more than I can bear. And I trust in him, and I pray mightily still to soften your hard hearts.
Bizarrely, for those who want to round us up and imprison us — for that must be the “End Game” of Kukis diatribe, as he likes to call it — since we’re all criminals he says — you shall call it punishment, and we’ll call it the weirdest gay Club Med ever devised by the folly of man.
The nation is broke — and you idiots are worried about sissies smooching with a piece of paper in their hands. You are a strange lot.
that’s is a moot question……………………………..point is any 2 of the same gender are not given a license to marry each other……………………………..that is the poiint
@Jim Hlavac:
1969? Live in the past much, Jim?
Look, if you want to put your manhood into a place where another man evacuate’s his bowels, be my guest. But you were not satisifed with the right to be able to do that, were you? No, instead, now you want to lobby to have your gay life style taught to my children in school that it is normal behavior. Well guess what, sticking your manhood into another man’s rectum is not normal. Nature created humans to reproduce, and there is no way you can do that with another man.
And please, don’t insult my intelligence by saying you have no choice. You do. You were not “born” that way. And until there is a gay “gene” discovered, science bears me out. You went too far, pushing “Heather Has Two Mommies” and gay penguins on school children. And the backlash is your own damn fault.
And your portrayal of Poor Pitiful Pearl is just that, pitiful. No one wants to “round you up”, we just want you to stay out of our children’s minds with your propaganda and live your life in privacy. Is that too damn much to ask of you? Or do you think that exhibitions like the Folsom Street Parade where gay men walk down the streets of San Francisco naked as a jay bird (as well as doing other disgusting behavior in public) helps your cause? It doesn’t.
Gays lobbied for the right to be treated like everyone else, inspite of the fact that you claim you only represent 5% of the population. OK, I agree with that. You should not be discriminated against in the work place, nor when buying a home or car, or being able to extend your education. But again, that wasn’t enough, just being able to live your live as you choose, was it? Instead, there is always something else. Now that DADT is repealed, gays have no way to get out of service when they learn that they are not suited to it, as they could before. The new motto is “You’re gay? You stay” when it come to military life. Screwed the pooch on that one, didn’t you? And yet, you will never admit that there was a downside to the repeal. One that you, and your gay friends will have to live with.
You are 5%. And 5% doesn’t make the norm. When you can accept that being gay is NOT the norm, and that at least you live in a nation where you are free to be a sodomite, you will never be happy, no matter what concessions are made.
heterosexuals indulgte in anal. why because the anus is an erogenous zone and anal orgasms are possible. are you saying that if you were friends of a heterosexual married couple who you found out practiced anal sex you would drop the friendship and dismiss their marriage as nothing and no longer allow your children to play with their children?
feetxxxl, if any of my friends, no matter on which side of the fence they are on, tried to talk about their sex life to me, I would inform them post haste that I really don’t want to hear about it and really don’t give a damn what they do in the privacy of their own home. But then, my friends are more intelligent than to have nothing to discuss other than their sex lives.
Seems you need to decide if what you do in private is personal information and none of anyone else’s business or not. You can’t have it both ways.
@retire05: No, sir, I do not live in the past — I had to read this crud this very day, Feb 21, 2011 — are you not aware that today’s discussion was fostered by an irrational attack upon me and mine this very day?
@retire05: And sir — I do declare — Mr. Kukis relies on “data” from 1978 — whom is living in the past?
so what you are saying is that what your heterosexual friends do in their bedroom is none of your business, but with homosexuals it is so important that it makes you question their right to the same marriage privileges as heterosexuals.
@retire05: and sir, Mr Kukis is reiterating the exact same attack — almost word for word — which Anita Bryant used in 1973 — when she too attacked us with the unfair charge of “recruiting.” Which were the same arguments used against us for decades prior to Ms. Bryant’s irrational tirade too. Mr. Kukis’s entire argument could have been uttered way back then — here today in 2011 — Sad, and enraging, and intolerable. And I’m living in the past? Egad, sir, at long last have you no shame?
feetxxxl, what I am saying, that you seem too damn stupid to grasp, is that what you do in the privacy of your own home is your business, and frankly, I am not interested in hearing about it. And what I am saying, that you again, seem too stupid to grasp, is that gays have the right to marry in every state in the nation as long as they adhere to the same rules the rest of us do. Or do you want to provide me with the names of the states that prohibit gays from getting married based on nothing but the fact that the person is gay?
Can a gay man marry a gay woman in every state in this nation as long as they are not related by blood? yes or no?
Gays have no argument about marriage UNLESS they change the parimeters. Even heterosexuals can’t marry anyone they want.
Come back with a retort when you gain a little intellect.
@Jim Hlavac:
I’m not the one promoting sticking their manhood into an area where other men evacuate their bowels. You are. Don’t talk to me about shame. You have no shame when you lie and say you were “born” gay. There is NO gay gene. 1,000 years from now when someone digs up your remains, they won’t be able to tell if you were gay, but they will be able to tell what color your skin was, the color of your hair and how tall you were. Those traits you were “born” with.
There is a reason why male homosexuals, even in “committed relationships” cannot remain faithful to one another and why their relationships peter out much sooner than a relationship between a man and a woman.
The key is the soul. For a man, the key is the soul of the woman. That is where a man finds some of the greatest satisfaction that he can in life. This is why it is possible for a man and a woman to marry and never have sex with anyone else. This is how it is possible for a man and a woman, 50 years later, to love one another more than they did the day they married. The key is the male and female souls interlocking, as God designed them to do.
Gays may or may not get the state to recognize gay marriage. They may or may not get the satisfaction of shutting down churches. They may or may not gain greater access to young boys, so that they can teach them that sodomy is no different from male/female sex. However, no matter what happens in this future debate, what you will never have is the true satisfaction in your souls in a relationship. Men were designed to have friendships, and even great friendships, with other men. For some gays, they take this a step further. However, they will never have the true soul coalescence, simply because, just as a man and a woman were designed by God to fit together physically, this is also even more true of the souls.
Even stats will back this up.
@retire05: and what “you are stupid to grasp” sir — (as if I was “stupid” dear God!) is that we are NOT molesting little boys. The charge is spurious. The import of Mr. Kukis’s thesis is that this is what we do — and many of you went hog heaven in agreement. Preposterous. Intellect? There is not “intellect” in Kukis – there is bile. Falsehoods, lies, and a chimera and mirage of Medieval Supposition based on nothing but a fantasy of delusion.
As for why I would choose to marry a gay woman I cannot fathom. I’m gay for crying out loud — I like men! FYI: If there’s two groups who don’t get along with each other it’s gay men and lesbians. Why, I belong to a gay social groups that Prohibits women! Egad, man. And why you would inflict me on any woman I cannot imagine. They are too fine a part of our species to put up with the likes of me.
And let me assure you — I can do without the word “marriage” — I would have settled for “civil unions,” “domestic partnerships,” my own “Twainage” – or as others have proposed “joinage” “swainage” –anything anything — one word — within 100,000 words either side of “marriage” in the dictionary – -and none of them are good. None. We could call our unions “crazed lunatic faggots in love doing lascivious acts” and that would not be good for you — for DOMA outlaws them all. And we are taxpayers, rendering unto Caesar what he demands, and unto God what He demands. There is no word which you will allow. None. Where is your “intellect” on this? What word would you have us use? I will accept it — for you are better – -as you yourselves say – -but what word? Give it to me. I ask, do tell. I shall use it. Hell, call it “sissy sickness” and I would be happy.
But what you don’t “grasp” is the legal gyrations gay men and lesbians must use to achieve a modicum of asset protection, inheritance, property passing, and any other such thing that the various laws of this nation bestow on breeders (our cute word for you all) that eliminates the need for the legal gyrations we must go through, and all with a piece of paper.
No sir, you’re not opposed to “gay marriage” you’re opposed to “gayness.”
I cannot help you with that. I can only ask God to forgive you — for you know not what you do.
He has brought me to the wilderness for forty years, He shall lead me to my promised land. For we are the Pink Sheep of the Flock of God.
Let me put it to you this way — Mr. “Retire” and all — God did put us here as a test of your decency — and you have failed. Often miserably, as Mr. Kukis does exhibit.
Really, Gary? You have stats that prove a man and woman’s souls fit together? Would you care to not provide those stats, just like you haven’t provided any of the other requested backup for your dishonest claims?
@Tom: and I truly thank each and every person who has come to gay folks defense, in whichever way you could. We are sweet sissies, and nothing more.
@Jim Hlavac:
Oh, please, stop insulting my intelligence. I really don’t give a damn about your argument with someone else any more than I give a damn if you decide to commit sodomy. Just keep your personal information to yourself. And stop with the WWJD crap. Why is it that those who are the least Jesus like always want to evoke His name when they know their agruments are lame?
And stop showing that you lack any talent for debate. I was NOT saying you should want to marry a gay woman, I said you COULD marry a woman, gay or not, if you wanted, so the whole argument that gays are not allowed to marry is moot. Gays can marry. Just not people of the same gender. And that is the thing that sticks in your craw.
Also, don’t give me that crap about “asset protection, inheritance, property passing” when there is not a state in our union where a legal and binding will will not be held up in court. But there are some states where a spouse does NOT automatically inherit assets without a will.
You have no valid argument for wanting same-sex marriage except that you want to be able to shove your life style down other people’s throat whether they like it on not. If that were not the case, you would handle those things you mentioned with wills, living wills, powers of attorney, directives, all legal avenues available to gays. And if you are so damn mercenary that a $255 Social Security survivor benefit is that important to you, you are one pathetic person.
This is not about “equal” rights, inheritance, yada, yada, yada. It is about an agenda and you are too damn dishonest to admit that.
@retire05:
This is a good comment.
I have seen gay men ”grow up,” so to speak.
One guy was ”in love” with a hairdresser and thought it was forever.
The hairdresser was cheating on him constantly.
One day he got caught.
That was a scales-off-the-eyes moment.
This man owns several properties.
Had they been ”married” he would have lost a lot!
This last time he went to a lawyer, did a ”pre-nup.”
He and his latest ”true love” have been through a lot of rocky times, but at least the younger man will not be taking him to the cleaners.
And to one and all — and to Flopping Aces especially — I have submitted as an article, a commentary, to the administrators of this website — a defense of my people, in direct contravention of Mr. Kukis. And for a decent respect for the opinions of mankind — I request only that you publish my defense. For if you all truly want to “debate” gay folks — I welcome it! But debate us — not about us as you see fit. Therefore, it behooves you to listen to the opinion of at least one of us. And I’m the only gay guy here in our defense — for the rest are afraid. I am not. It is patently unfair to simply denigrate us in glorious union — and not allow one of us to make the case FOR us — except in the comments. And let me tell you all – -the Case FOR us is among the most difficult in the world to make. I am well aware of that, oh you have little idea. Read Mr. Kukis for confirmation of that! But I endeavor, with the Grace of God, and His sustenance. For I am but one of the Pink Sheep of the Flock of God. Thank you.
Now I shall go back to the “Evil” “gay lifestyle” and have dinner and do the laundry! And comment here no more today. I’m exhausted. Pray for this nation — for sissies are not the threat, this I assure you.
@Jim Hlavac:
Jim, I take it personally, as I’ve got friends whose lives are affected by this ignorant crap. I also don’t like bigotry, bullying or idiocy, so when the three collide, it’s tough for me not to weigh in. This is Gary’s hobbyhorse, and he has yet (to my knowledge) ever produced anything concrete to backup his claims, which makes me wonder why anyone would bother publishing the rantings of a befuddled homophobe. Once he figures out how to use google, he’ll be back here with something by the FRC, I’m sure, and we can all have a good laugh at such ‘scientific proof’.
Nan G, I know. You see, the argument that “it is all about equality, inheritance, yada, yada” was disproven a long time ago.
Decades ago, I volunteered at an AIDs hospital in a major city. That was when most of the patients were men (and often all of them were men). I worked with their partners trying to get home health care for the dying, trying to get family members to visit them, helping them line up free legal services so that what little the patient did own they could leave to their partners.
One thing I did learn was that many times the patient was deeply in debt, and had they been legally married to their partners (who ususally had HIV/AIDs themselves) those left behind would have been responsible for those debts. And I also learned this; most HIV/AIDS patients that were gay men had no idea where they had contracted that horrible disease. You see, pomiscuity runs rampant in gay males.
But here is a thought for you; if, and when, a gay “gene” is discovered, and people start aborting their babies because that baby will grow up gay, you will see the gay community turn strongly pro-life. It’s all about agenda, nothing else.
Drama queens.
@Jim Hlavac:
You don’t debate. You throw out claims that you cannot, and do not, back up. You refuse honest debate. And that is the most obvious thing about you. If you were into honest debate, you would admit that gays have the equal ability to marry under the same guidelines as do heterosexuals. But you are not honest.
@retire
Why exactly are you so stuck on making sure the rules of marriage stay between a man and woman. how does it personally affect you if it changed? Does this not-normal thing endanger you in any way? As long as we keep it out of the schools, of course. You will still be able to say whatever you want at church… if we cant shut up those WBC assholes, the gays wont be able to shut up your pastor. and the traditional family will still produce the most successful people in society. Also, scientist have found a way to remove a gene from mice to turn straight mice gay… so they may in fact be on the verge of finding the gay gene. that may explain why “the gay” dates back as far as history goes.
@kukis
You are going to need to avoid referring to the bible if you ever want any of your ideas to translate into policy. Also, please cite any of the ridiculous claims you have made.
@Jim Hlavac: I’ve read the post submitted and it can’t by put up the way it is. Gary Kukis didn’t call out Jim Hlavac in his post…yours does multiple times by name and I’ve learned from past experience that never works out well. If you want to write a post about the substance of your argument rather then calling out a reader/writer at FA then resubmit it and I’ll consider it, as long as it conforms with the rules posted on the submission page.
playwithfire; why do you want to normalize sodomy? Or are you foolish enough that you think if gays are allowed to “marry” their own sex it will end there? Perhaps you have forgotten that gays said all they wanted was to not be arrested for what they did in the privacy of their own homes. Did that last? No. Then they said they wanted to not be fired for being gay even if it made their fellow employees uncomfortable to be around them. They got that. Did it end there? No. Now they want homosexuality taught to school children as being normal. It’s ain’t normal. And if you think that the next step will not be demanding that ministers, pastors and other church officials be held for inciting hate because they preach against homosexuality, you are only fooling yourself.
If you were a student of history, you would know that a society remains strong only as long as the family (mother, father, children) remain cohesive factors. It is where values are taught and where they are promoted. Think Roman Empire.
If nature had intended homosexuality to be normal, it would not have designed people to procreate as they do.
Or maybe I am just sick of “gay” whining.
One side point that has been left out is the law-fare involved in forcing people to do things they do not want to do.
Take the case of Vanessa Willock vs Elaine Photography. (PDF!)
In 2008 a lesbian who is also EEO Compliance Representative with the Office of Equal Opportunity investigating claims of discrimination and sexual harassment for the state, and to top it off, also a member of the Diversity Committee at the University of New Mexico, chose to have her wedding with another female photographed by a Christian couple who work as Elaine Photography.
The couple refused to do the wedding.
They were sued.
They lost.
They owe $6,637.94.
If you are a photographer, haven’t you ever refused a job?
Now, you cannot.
At least not in New Mexico.
Law-fare is a big part of the technique used to force people to act in ways they prefer personally not to act.
@retire
Sweet reading comprehension. wow you just reiterated everything I said without answering any of my questions.
I said that it is not normal. its not. I am not trying to “normalize” it. I just dont see how it effects me in any way. my question was: How does it endanger you?
I also said it needs to stay out of schools. Any indoctrination of the youth should not be tolerated. thanks for agreeing with me
Now get real about free speech in churches: We got Rev. Wright preaching about how he hates america. We got Westboro Baptist Church picketing dead soldiers funerals. Yet free speech protects these people. my question was: If these crazy fringe groups are allowed to spew hatred, you think the government is going to come after the pastor preaching about traditional family values? wut?
I already said that the traditional family would produce the strongest members of society. Thank you for agreeing with me again.
I see that you completely ignored the fact that there is emerging evidence of a gay gene. heres a link: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/07/15/have-scientists-found-gay-gene/. There are also medical issues such as Klinefelter Syndrome which produces the XXY male, etc. My question is: If there becomes a scientific consensus of it being a birth trait, would you ignore the data or change any of your views on the issue?
pot and keetle conversation
” There is a reason why male homosexuals, even in “committed relationships” cannot remain faithful”
you’re making criticisms about homosexuality when among heterosexuals 40% of the births are out of wedlock and 50% end in divorce.
and the legal gay marriages of massachussetts have dissolved into the divorce percentages of the heterosexual couples who were married at the same time.
feetxxxl, what I am saying, that you seem too damn stupid to grasp! no ………….its that that issue is too stupid to even comment about.
playwithfire; one study does not “emerging evidence” make. And if the fruit fly study was so damn great, it was 15 years ago. What happened? When the scientific data is there to prove there is such a thing as a gay gene, I will accept it. But remember, the Koreans did not say that the study they produced ever resulted in nature on its own, but they had to manipulate the genetic disposition of the mice to create the study.
And are you so ill informed that you don’t know that pastors have been shut down for political speech in their churches? Ah, yes, they have.
Same sex marriage doesn’t “endanger” me. It does endanger our society and it’s future. Societies, including the Roman Empire, only continue as long as families stay intact and procreation flourishes.
Gays said they wanted the right to act as they would in their own homes and they got that right. No one is wanting to “round them up” as has been claimed here. I am sick and tired of being told by gays that government has no business in their bedrooms but then they turn around and want government to change our whole social structure because of what they do in their bedrooms.
there is a giant list of animals that have shown natural displays of homosexuality. We dont typically do gene testing on larger mammals due to cost and complexity.
…and are you really really telling me that allowing gay marriage will result in the fall of America just like the Roman Empire? Im just curious if this is truly what you believe.