financeguy
ONE love, blood, life
dp
^
So there are self-loathing gay men?!
I don’t care one whit about Rudy Giuliani’s private life...
He is, after all, an Italian male, with certain impulses wired into his brain...
i mean, honestly ...
i mean, honestly ...
more than a few.
also, gay men who contradict themselves, wildly when they write this ...
[q]To the gay activists of the modern era, with their dogma of biological determinism – the “gay gene—and their ingrained egalitarianism, such an argument is inconceivable. For them, there is no choice involved: they fervently believe they are genetically determined to engage in homosexual acts.[/q]
and then writes in another article ...
[q]I don’t care one whit about Rudy Giuliani’s private life, although I have a hard time believing the evangelicals are quite ready for the rutting Rudy. He is, after all, an Italian male, with certain impulses wired into his brain, particularly that part of it that rules the sexual imagination. I say, more power to him in that department – life, as the Italians know, is to be enjoyed, rather than endured.[/q]
i mean, honestly ...
Top-notch journalism to feed the "threatened" majority.
That's pretty weak, Irvine. For a start, even if the paragraph about Rudy Giuliani's alleged sexual prowess is meant to be taken seriously (which I doubt) it doesn't contradict his other point.
Second, it's fairly obvious that he isn't being entirely serious with those comments. Raimondo is - like Giuiliani - of Italian descent so surely entitled to make 'nudge-nudge wink-wink' jokes regarding stereotypes about Italian males.
and italian men really like to fuck. it's in their genes. they can't help themselves.
and this is based on ... what, exactly?
it does totally contradict his point.
To the gay activists of the modern era, with their dogma of biological determinism – the “gay gene—and their ingrained egalitarianism, such an argument is inconceivable. For them, there is no choice involved: they fervently believe they are genetically determined to engage in homosexual acts. In this view, sexual orientation is like gender and race. In the context of the society in which we live, this means that it is—or ought to be—illegal to “discriminate” on the basis of sexual orientation, in the same way and for the same reasons it is now a hate crime to consider matters of race, religion, and gender in the realm of housing, employment, and socio-economic relations in general.
financeguy, what's your opinion of Raimondo's take on marriage?
[q]Marriage is all about children: otherwise, there is no real reason for it, and especially not in the modern world, where internet hook-ups, de facto polygamy, and rampant promiscuity are widely accepted. It is, in short, an economic institution, a financial framework for the bringing up of a new generation. Marriage is an agreement between two adults that they will, together, provide for the needs of their offspring, and, indeed, when the time comes, pass on their accumulated wealth.
This is not to say that childless marriages aren’t really marriages, or that all the emotional and psychological trappings of traditional marriage–monogamy, commitment, and, yes, love—are irrelevant. I am here talking about the civil institution of marriage, as it has evolved in the English-speaking world, and not the cultural phenomenon that has evolved over many millennia—something not created but rather co-opted by the State.
...Pagilia is right. Marriage is not a civil institution but a religious-cultural tradition that the State has (so far) been forced to respect and recognize—and it is centered around procreation, which is not an issue most homosexuals have to deal with.[/q]
...and his view of male sexuality?
[q]Promiscuity and its attendant attitudes go hand-in-hand with maleness: it’s our genetic and socially constructed legacy, imprinted on our very nature and invincible to the assaults of both politically correct feminists and puritans of the Right. Monogamy and maleness are opposites in a dichotomy: the idea of sexual fidelity is distinctively feminine, linked as it is with an overwhelming (and inherent) need for security and certainty – that is, the certainty that the father of her children will assist in their proper rearing.[/q]
I agree. Likewise, the number of women who cheat on their children's fathers/husbands/partners would seem to raise considerable problems for his claim that women have an overwhelming drive to be monogamous.His claim that all males are driven to be promiscuous is too simplistic.
So, would it be an overreach to surmise that you have objections to the idea of gay (and lesbian?) marriage, and that those objections follow largely from a conviction that marriage should be exclusively reserved for fertile heterosexual couples who intend to have and raise children together?I agree with his take on marriage.
Considering how unpopular most of his stances are with most self-styled conservatives, the implication that he has all of a sudden decided to curry favour with a 'threatened' majority is not worthy of any credence whatsoever.
Far from arguing that homosexuality was the equivalent of heterosexuality, the ancient advocates of same-sex love emphasized the great gulf that separates the two. Rather than aping heterosexuals and relentlessly lobbying for the “right” to marry, Plato’s crowd sought to distance themselves from the mundane and underscore their singularity. Pausanias argues that the choice of younger men over available women is indicative of a superior moral quality, evidence of a purity that defies and transcends biology. Homosexual love, he averred, represents an improvement over nature – which is, after all, the signal characteristic of human civilization.
To the gay activists of the modern era, with their dogma of biological determinism – the “gay gene—and their ingrained egalitarianism, such an argument is inconceivable. For them, there is no choice involved: they fervently believe they are genetically determined to engage in homosexual acts. In this view, sexual orientation is like gender and race. In the context of the society in which we live, this means that it is—or ought to be—illegal to “discriminate” on the basis of sexual orientation, in the same way and for the same reasons it is now a hate crime to consider matters of race, religion, and gender in the realm of housing, employment, and socio-economic relations in general.
This orthodoxy sits atop a mountain of pseudo-science mixed with moralizing, one that asserts—without convincing scientific evidence—that sexual “orientation” is genetically determined. It is the Left-liberal version of Lysenkoism, in which ideology determines political conclusions in advance of the facts (except that Lysenko, and his Stalinist sponsors, were expressing the leftist orthodoxy of the day that men could be engineered through the power of the State.)
July 15, 2008 03:36 PM
By Globe Staff
The law originated when lawmakers in many states were trying to prevent interracial couples from crossing state lines to marry.
Then opposition to polygamy in 2008 would be morally equivalent to racism as well wouldn't it?
I'll pass that on to the posters who have long since been intimidated into silence on this topic as well as the great majority of Americans and BOTH presidential candidates.I'm just quoting this again in case there are still posters out there who insist that their opposition to gay marriage isn't at all like the opposition to interracial marriage was.
Just in case.
And now I'll slip into my nomex underwear.
Just in case.
I'll pass that on to the posters who have long since been intimidated into silence on this topic as well as the great majority of Americans and BOTH presidential candidates.
I knew one of you wouldn't let me down!
It's terrible being intimidated into silence about your religious bigotry.
Ridiculous? Of coarse, but so is your notion that opposition to same-sex marriage is no different than opposition to interracial marriage 100 years ago.