In The Duke's time as an incisive commentator on filth and sleaze here at blogcritics.org, I find that I'm becoming much more exposed to the old American political debates and such than perhaps I would have been, had I continued writing only for The Ballymoney Times, as I once did, and used the net merely for the illegal downloading of Dexys Midnight Runners b-sides, as I never did even once. What has happened is that a whole loada stuff I'd never really thought much about has been drip-fed into the Skull De Duke, and so things that no fella from County Antrim need worry about have been occupying my waking hours, in so far as the old "thinking", "pondering", "musing" and so on is concerned.
I mean shit, man, I know everything there is to know about John Kerry and I couldn't tell you the hair-color of my own mayor.
Specifically, however, I find it rather odd how much attention is given by the whole US political spectrum to the issue of the "homosexuality", the "same-sex sexing", the "bumming" and so on.
Now, it may come as a shock, but over here in The Northern Ireland, there are folks who aren't one little bit fond of the idea that a fella may find another fella attractive (although the idea that a woman may experience a similar sensation towards a female of their gender keeps them smiling the damn day through). Sodomites, they like to yack on about. Sodom this, Gomorrah that. Something about salt or some shit. I dunno. Who the fuck pays attention to these maniacs?
As far as the old "political" side of things is concerned, as in, matters concerning folks who are paid for to ponder at length on such issues, although it appears occasionally on the agendas, homosexuality isn't mentioned that terrible much.
And, to be honest, that's how I pretty much feel it should be. Except I would change "not that terrible much" to "not at all because it's nobody's fucking business and a ridiculous non-issue and waste of debating time if ever was one".
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - drew
Amen, brother!
And Dunst would be yours if only she heard that little ditty you wrote for her. That, or she'd file a restraining order. Probably the former, though.
2 - HW Saxton
Excellent post Duke 'D. Well written and
thought provoking,et-fuckin'-cetera,etc.
I've never been able to understand why
it is that Homosexuals feel that because
they have a different sexual preference
they have to politicize it. My thoughts
are that Sexuality is a private matter
and should stay that way. In other words
act like everyone else,get treated like
everyone else. How hard is that? Glad to
see that others have similar thoughts to
mine.
99% of all the people I know don't give
a frogs fat ass what someone else does
in the privacy of their own home & would
never dream of trying to deny anybody
the right to happiness,no matter what it
is that makes them happy. They despise
Gay bashing,harassment of homosexuals &
the type of psycho nutjob who would do
something like that to any human being.
They also want the Govt. to stay out of
everybody's damn bedroom.
The Government does not have enough on
it's to-do list that it can sit around
and worry about what consenting adults
do when the lights go out & the paddles,
cuffs,stiletto boots,electrical devices
and the squeeze bottle of Nutella come
out?
On the same hand these people don't want
to hear it when Gay groups start in with
screaming about oppression and likening
their "struggle" to that of the Civil
Rights movement of the 1950's & 1960's.
A major pimp slap in the face to those
people who were truly oppressed if you
ask me. And since no one has asked I'll
holla back anyway.
I also despise the fact that so many Gay
advocacy groups have adopted some form
of an "You're either with us or against
us" stance.They seem to forget that free
choice is a two way street and alienate
a lot of people who are in their corner
just because we don't agree that it is a
worthy political agenda to pursue.
They don't realize we can be supportive
of their rights to be treated as equals
to any other person in this so called
civilzed world of ours and still oppose
their wanting to politicize what they do
in the privacy of their own homes.
That's all,I just had to get my 2 cents
in.I have got to go and put on my Kevlar
vest now, I've got the funny feeling I may need it.
3 - Eric Berlin
I think that the "politics of sex" or whatever-the-fuck is polticized in the US mostly to distract from actual problems and issues that are complicated and hard and take real choices and decisions and such.
It's strange, thinking about living in a Religious Nation. A Conservative Nation. A Nation concerned with such things that I could care less than a fuck-all about.
In other words, I feel you Duke (in an entirely heterosexual-virtual-metaphoric way, you understand).
4 - RJ
I don't care what two men do in a closed room.
Also, I don't care what two women do in a closed room. (But if they are both hot, I want pictures!)
The issue, at present, is marriage.
If two homos can marry, why not three homos? Why not two chicks and a guy? Why not 17 dudes and 13 ladies? Why not 47 guys and a "device" they named Hans?
Sex is private. Do whatcha want.
Marriage is public. And it's between one man and one woman.
You can have all the "civil unions" you want. But live with it.
5 - Steve S
Duke, thank you putting up this post, I enjoyed reading your thoughts.
I read this earlier and didn't have time to put up my thoughts, when I came back and then read H.W. Saxton's comment, I find I need to say something else instead.
I've never been able to understand why it is that Homosexuals feel that because they have a different sexual preference they have to politicize it.
I'd like to explain to you, our point of view then, if I may.
In other words act like everyone else,get treated like everyone else. How hard is that?
Getting treated like everyone else? Damn near impossible.
H.W., there is such a strong societal condemnation of gay relationships that it is the cause for the high suicide rate, low self-esteem and self destructive behavior that right wing groups condemn gay people for having.
In order for us to experience moments free from societal stigma, we've had to create parenting support groups, events like gay cruise lines, Disney gay days, etc. where we can go and be ourselves without facing ridicule or harassment. And by just being ourselves, I mean being parents and kids, being just like everybody else. There is very much a separate but equal state of affairs going on in America today, you don't see a large part of it, because you are separate from it. It might not be on the level of the separate but equal in the past, but it's there and it's oppressive. Somebody who does NOT live under it, has absolutely no authority to tell another person whether they really are, or not, because they just can't know.
As for boiling everything down to the right wing catch phrase of 'what we do in our bedroom', let me tell you this whole culture war is NOT about what we do in the bedroom. Neither side will tell you that. This culture war is about the legitimization of our relationships.
I have never shared with you, nor will I, what I do in my bedroom. HOWEVER, when my partner and I take our daughter somewhere, or need to fill out some forms, we expect to be treated just like any other family. Our family has nothing to do with what we do in our bedroom, it has to do with love, parents, child. This is why we come forward, we do not come forward to share with you what we do in the bedroom. We come forward as families or as couples because that is what we are. When you introduce people to your wife, are you politicizing what you do in the bedroom? No, of course not. Neither are we.
There is a lesbian cruise line, H.W. that is scheduled to run in February, if I recall, for lesbian couples and families with kids. A place where they can go and be free to just be families. Wynonna Judd was scheduled to perform. The Christian Right is pressuring her to not perform. I don't know where things currently stand.
Did you catch the thread about the PBS show, Postcards from Buster, come under fire because it included a lesbian family? There should be no mention of our families at all, in a positive light, in society in general.
Somebody in the comments even mentions that there should be a parental warning before there are mentions of our families. But there are millions of kids already in the school systems, my daughter will be entering within a year, and what are we supposed to do, give every kid a parental warning to take home that we are going to be attending public school? Are we expected to register our presence like convicted sex offenders? Someone doesn't want their kid to be told anything positive about gay families while they are in public school? What happens when their kid is sitting right next to a kid of gay parents? The teacher is supposed to pretend one family doesn't exist?
We're told 'we don't want you or your kids, or anybody in your family who doesn't condemn your family to join our Boy Scouts, to march in our parades, we don't want to see you on tv, we don't want to entertain your families on your get togethers, or talk about you in schools, we don't really want you to defend your country either. Nope, our soldiers can tackle mine fields, gunfire, snipers, bombs, god knows what, but put them in the shower with you? We think they'd crack, so we don't want you to serve.
They want to wipe all positive mention of us off the face of the planet. Especially in the classroom my daughter will be attending. And I get accused of getting emotional by these right wingers, because I am expected to think that having to debate the validity of my family, and why we should be seen as existing AT ALL, is a valid debate in the first place.
You do not have the authority, H.W. to decide what constitutes a 'worthy of fighting against' oppressive situation. Whether it is the equivalent of the separate but equal of the 50's is entirely irrelevant. It is oppressive. And it is actually in both instances, 'Separate And Not Really Equal'.
Just wanted you and RJ to both know, it has nothing to do with closed doors and what goes on behind them. It has to do with family and relationships. An entirely different factor, and thankfully Lady Justice still understands that, for now.
6 - Eric Olsen
super job of cutting through the crap and getting to the baseline positions all the way around: the only thinking missing is the "I DO care what you do in your bedroom because if I don't approve of it you are going to hell and it is my job to stop people from going to hell, or a least to harass the shit out of people whom I perceive to be going to hell" position, so I thought I'd mention it. And unfortunatley there are real political ramifications of this perspective, as Steve so eloquently states.
So for gays it's a balancing act between not alienating those like HW generally inclined to be on their side, and standing up for their civil rights.
All of this brings up an issue that rarely comes up: a lot of people are annoyed by the different and peculiar, and people collecting in groups tend to reinforce common characteristics, so groups of gays, like say at a club or in a parade, tend to be more exaggerated than when dispersed throughout general society, and a lot of people just plain find some of these characteristics apt to piss them off.
Like me for example: since my early 20s I have been around a lot of gay people. My first wife worked in retail and had many close gay friends, and I became good friends with quite a few of her friends and enjoyed their company very much, and under normal situations thought very little about their "gayness."
But mother of God, if we were invited to a "gay party" or club and we were more or less the only straight people there, it's like someone flipped a "gay switch" and all the most exaggerated stereotypes came out and it was like, "Hey, I know half these people and they don't normally act all swishy like this, what the fuck?"
My point is it isn't necessarily just the sexual aspect that causes discomfort and suspicion but personality and behavior traits that are outside the "norm." This is why gays who don't "act gay" are so much more socially acceptable than those who do.
I am not defending any of this one way or another, just explaining that I, who fully supports gay rights and gay marriage and who has had gay friends (and relatives) all along, gets creeped out under certain circumstances and that is something very different from giving a crap about what people do in private or about taking away anyone's rights.
People are just going to have to realize that acting "too gay" is no different from people acting "too anything" and that the majority is always going to react negatively against such things.
7 - Eric Berlin
Eric,
You bring up several brilliant and seldom-discussed points.
I had a lesbian roommate when I lived in Berkeley, outside of San Francisco. I had two gay male managers in two subsequent tech/media companies. I got along with these three and associated partners and friends famously, for the most part.
I don't know if I would use the "gay switch" analogy, but I did feel far more uncomfortable when at a gay-heavy party, get-together, and so on. Maybe it's just a cultural thing, the equivalent of lots of straight guys / football fanatics at a sports bar for MNF? Perhaps the high-fiving, beer-guzzling, and skirt-chasing would equally alienate our gay compatriots? There's certainly something to be said for group culture -- there's bound to be tons of scholarship out there in this regard.
One of my favorite stories in this regard was my Gay Thanksgiving, my first in San Francisco, thrown by a gay couple and attended by an overwhelmingly large and gay crowd. It was fine... just different. Less football talk, less turkey carving talk, more other talk. I guess it's the Other that is what can be arresting, the different than what "we're" used to.
8 - Eric Olsen
thanks E, excellent points as well, "just different" - all I'm saying is that people in general have never responded very well to "too different" for whatever reason, and that is part of the equation, and that is a separate matter from sexuality per se or equal rights under the law
9 - Eric Berlin
I completely agree. I actually came to a similar realization around a year ago or so in that people who are "too" gay or "too" straight (aggressive macho arm-punching horn-ramming bullshit) usually rub me way the wrong way.
Moderation in everything -- except for creativity, Joss Whedon, and sex -- is a beautiful thing.
10 - Eric Olsen
another good point, I don't mean to imply that "too gay" is more or less offensive than lots of other "too ...," very much including too jock
11 - Natalie Davis
In other words, "different" is bad. Society says, "Conform or die."
Sucks.
Duke, I feel ya: It shouldn't be political. But it is and will be until everyone is equal under law.
12 - Eric Olsen
Nat, but I think the encouraging thing is that the parameters of "acceptable" behavior are growing wider all the time, especially if you look at the big picture, but I agree there is no end in sight of when the "different" will require the protection of the law.
13 - Jim Carruthers
Duke, if you need a filmic example, think about how "The Crying Game" could never be made in the States.
And for the record, I've said it before, and I'll say it again, marriage isn't about sex, or procreation, or religion. Marriage is about property contract law and inheritance. When you get away from that, you are just perverting the rule of law to some sick agenda.
What's next, the FDA in the USA is going to declare it will only follow kosher law?
If you mix meat with dairy, you go to jail, that means you, everyone of you cheese-burger eating fat-assed bastards.
14 - Eric Berlin
Jim - Thank heavens not all of us have a "sick agenda."
15 - Jim Carruthers
I should add, we're getting all of this marriage foolishness overload in Canada, and I'm getting really sick of it. What I want to know, is how do us single people get to retaliate against married people and make their lives even more miserable than they've made themselves?
It seems "marriage" is the problem a lot of people have, they realize that marriage is nothing but misery, and in a passive-aggressive way (like religious loons like to flagellate themselves, or just push the guilt), they can't share their dirty secrets with everybody.
Basically, the dog in the manger scheme.
16 - Steve S
I think it's okay to get creeped out by exaggerated behavior. There's several reasons why behavior changes depending on the situation, but for the most part, all the gay people I know who act 'normal', act normal no matter where they are, the ones who are flamboyant, are flamboyant no matter where they are, etc.
For those that change, sometimes the 'normal' aspect could be sort of a closet, and their 'true' selves comes out around others, but most likely what is happening is some type of subconscious behavior to 'belong'. Like a peer pressure thing except there is no outside pressure just a desire to fit in or something. Modifying behavior like that isn't just exclusive to gay people, although in other cases it might not involve mannerisms. But a religious person might act more 'saintly' around other church members and more like their 'true' selves at home, cussing every now and then right? Same principle, just with something that makes people more uncomfortable.
I've only seen two flamboyant people in the last ten years, but then again I am too old to go clubbing. I'm sure alcohol is a contributing factor as well. The only time I feel uncomfortable with flamboyant behavior is when we are in a potentially hostile environment. Are people truly afraid that if we get equality one day millions of men will all show up at work suddenly effeminate or all lesbians will get mullets and Birkenstocks? That's not the case.
For me, I guess I am blessed in that because I've fallen outside the majority, it's enabled me to see things from a different perspective. I think. I mean I can go shopping with a drag queen, have the best time, then go over to someone's house for dinner (an elderly, fairly conservative married couple) and not be threatened or creeped out by different behaviors. I can fit in anywhere, and I don't really change my behavior only the things that I might say. I feel enriched by diversity, although it wasn't always that way. For many years, I had a phobia of rednecks. I hated country music, pick up trucks with gun racks, everything from Lynyrd Skynyrd to skoal dipping obese police officers, etc. Because every assault I have ever endured has been at the hands of the redneck stereotype, I think my desire to be away from this stereotype was fairly legitimized. I no longer feel threatened around them, but at the same time I still have no desire to associate with them.
One thing I should point out, is that it is a slow process for the gay community to evolve from it's closeted beginnings. During the early half of last century, up through the 60's, being gay was such a stigma that the only places of congregation turned out to be bars. For decades the only way one gay person could be absolutely sure he was around someone understanding was in the bar environment, so this evolved into our community. Many young gay people today find that entering our community is still one of clubbing, partying, being single and childless with spendable income, you know what I mean? Our community became very narrow, because the nightlife was mainly the only tolerant place. As we've progressed in rights, you see a change in that, there are now more openly gay families, openly gay politicians, etc.
It's a slow change, and like I said, many young gay people entering our community for the first time can think 'this is what being gay is', the partying, acting silly around each other, flamboyant behavior, etc. It's also a release valve. We grow out of it for the most part, but not always. I would think that the more we become integrated with society, the more we have families, the younger we can say 'I am what I am' without fear, etc. that this sense of separatism and therefore modifying behavior will cease.
17 - HW Saxton
Steve S., Thanks for your thoughtful and
polite answer(s)to my post. I feel as if
I have a wider understanding of it (your
situation that is). At least as much of
an understanding as I'll ever have.
You seem to imply that you think I am a
Right Wing person. FTR: I'm not. Both of
our political parties have views that I
agree with and disagree with. I have yet
to find a political group that reflects
my best interests or that I feel truly
addresses my concerns,needs,values,etc.
In other words, I believe both parties
are full of sh*t.
You're right Steve, that I do not have
the "Authority" to decide what is or is
not an opressive situation to be deemed
worthy of fighting against.However,I did
not claim to either. What I did say, is
that I feel any analogies made between
the Civil Rights movement of the 1950's
& 1960's and the Gay Rights movement of
today are largely wrong.I would say that
people of color have had (& continue to
have)a much tougher road to travel on in
terms of gaining their equality. I know
that you yourself did not claim this to
be so Steve, but it is a sentiment that
I have heard many times before from gay
and straight political activists alike.
18 - Al Barger
Steve S, I'm calling bullshit right here: there is such a strong societal condemnation of gay relationships that it is the cause for the high suicide rate, low self-esteem and self destructive behavior that right wing groups condemn gay people for having.
No, the cause of a suicide is somebody put a gun to their head and pulled the trigger. What, everybody has to like you, or you'll kill yourself and it'll be their fault? Nonsense.
Also to Carruther's point, The Crying Game could perfectly well be made in the US. Well, the Irish/English conflict thing would suggest other places might be better suited, but the gay angle is no issue. The film was a hit in the US, so what's even the basis for that statement?
As to the Duke's proper liberal point of indignation that sexual orientation is a political issue, I'd generally agree- though there are some areas where there simply are public policy issues.
However, it is mostly from the LEFT side that sexual orientation becomes a political issue in modern American politics. Almost no one is trying to outlaw sodomy or any such. Demanding special hate crime laws or non-discrimination laws- those things involve homosexual advocates making sexual orientation into a political issue.
Gay marriage is the main topic for political debate in this area. That's not an issue of allowing homosexuals to live unmolested, but of legal arrangements and recognition. This is not about straights trying to oppress anyone. Indeed, the mainstream conservative position at this point seems to be civil unions, recognizing equal contractual rights for homosexuals. Even the evil right wing President Bush has suggested support for this position.
Beyond that, though, some homosexual advocates are saying this isn't good enough. Equal legal contractual protections will not suffice. No, we have to recognize their relationships as "marriage." Basically this amounts to demanding not merely reasonable tolerance, but approval. That's something else.
19 - Steve S
HW, I've read enough of you, that I don't think you are right wing. But generalizing our plight down to 'we simply want to politicize what we do in the bedroom', is right wing propaganda based on misinformation, and I just wanted to clarify that. And for the record I don't want to alienate you, I do want to get facts straight. It's the only way my side can presevere.
I think it is wrong for either side to rate oppression. Some on the left might compare our struggle to the past, but you saying that one is definitely worse than the other, is rating the two just as well. And that trivializes one of them. It's like debating which is worse, the electric chair or hanging. At the end of the day, they both really suck.
20 - Steve S
No, the cause of a suicide is somebody put a gun to their head and pulled the trigger. What, everybody has to like you, or you'll kill yourself and it'll be their fault? Nonsense.
No Al, everybody doesn't have to like you. There is ample evidence out there that oppression or ostracization or widespread condemnation on a large group of people has an adverse affect on their psyche which includes a higher suicide rate. I do not need to debate with you the validity of ramifications of stigmatization.
Almost no one is trying to outlaw sodomy or any such.
This is why I said that neither side will tell you that it is about what we do in the bedroom. Please keep up. It is about the legalization of our relationships.
Demanding special hate crime laws or non-discrimination laws- those things involve homosexual advocates making sexual orientation into a political issue.
There's no such thing as a special hate crime law. Demanding hate crime laws and non-discrimination laws is the direct result of a large group of people trying to politicize discrimination.
Al, if there is a choice in allowing the initial 'spark' of attraction to flourish or not, that still leaves unanswered whether the initial spark itself is choice or not. Most people can look inside themselves and see that it's not. RELIGION is the ONLY 'absolutely verifiable' choice' that is protected by anti-discrimination laws. Religion is 100% a free will decision, you are not born into religion. Laws protecting the handicapped, those based on race, and yes orientation, are based on something you are born with.
Equal legal contractual protections will not suffice.
The courts rule that is Separate But Equal. So, no, ultimately it does not suffice. I've said before, many times, that personally I'd be happy with them, although I don't think it's true equality. I'm not sure if true equality can be achieved in my lifetime.
21 - Aaron, Duke De Mondo
hey folks. well i'll be damned. Look at this right here for a stack of intelligent debate. I apologise that i didn't join this all a bit sooner (although since i posted the thing in the first place, technically i beat all of you) but the day has been a weird one. Getting back into the swing of things and so on following an especially upsetting personal issue of some sort, which i spent the day cataloguing in horrific detail in the form of the dukes new ep, which isn't finsihed, but ANYWAY the point is, there are things i'll probably forget to mention first time around, since there's so much good stuff here for to digest.
First, i gotta tell Drew, i dare not even aim so high as "restraining order". A man's only doomed to inevitable crushing dissapointment if he sets his sights on that kinda goal.
Jim, your cynicism caused me to chuckle something fierce. Reminded me of a billy bragg song you may be familiar with, by the name of The Marriage.
"Love is just a moment of giving,
And marriage is when we admit
Our parents were right"
HW and Steve, both of you made great points. Steve, thanks a lot for that honesty and emotion right there. Your posts angered me in the right way.
But dig this, i think maybe on account of i wrote it at 4 in the am (checks watch and notes that it is now, also, 4 in the am) i didn't make things as clear as i should've. The point maybe is that when it comes to issues of gay marriage and gay rights and such, i'm in the "very supportive" brackett. Discrimination makes me wanna puke my fucking guts up, is what. The thing that saddens me is that, holy shit man, it's the 23rd century or whatever the hell, and we're still having to go over this shit. This should've been sorted out loooooonnnngggg ago. It's sad that gay marriage has HAD to become a political issue, i guess was my point. I don't think it should be, but now that it is, i guess a fella just has to lend his support to the side worth supporting. I find it disgusting, in fact, that two folks can't share their happiness, their love for each other (even if, as Jim and Billy Bragg suggest, it's debatable whether said love grows and so on or, in fact, tumbles to a rancid arse leaving a fella with nothing to do but plot ever more hilarious schemes for to win back the affection of whatever one said fuck this shit in the first place, throwing out CD's that he loves on account of the other party once talked at length to a good looking fella who was a fan of said artistes, and now even the hint of a note of one of those songs causes that ever so pretty face for to glare threateningly from the speakers), and can't becuase of some fucking petty bullshit, because of folks thinking that cause they live a certain way, and think a certain way, everyone else should do the same.
The irony is that here i am, demanding that the folks who think such things should, in fact, think like me.
I just think it's like some sort of institutionalised fucking bullying, and it's not fair, and it's not even christian.
I didn't go into the whole Biblical thing in the post cause i did that one time and felt like a sack a half-chewed crud afterwards. thing is, believe it or not, motherfucker, The Duke is a religious fella, in so far as belief and the old "readings" are concerned. The Bible sits beside my bed alongside the stack of cannibal flicks and books about woody allen and films like Edward Penishands. I find it very frustrating and insulting, and here in Northern Ireland it happens all the time, since here it's more of a "religious" issue than a political one, really, when i turn on the TV and see some ignorant motherfucker yacking about "sodomites" and claiming to do so on behalf of motherfuckers like ME.
See what i mean about what happens when a fella addresses multiple comments at once?
The point is, sometimes i wake up and feel good, man, and while i'm taking a piss i'll say about thank fuck the world can be a cool place. And then i'll lift the paper or turn on the internet, most likely, and i'm reminded that two consenting adults can't even be married in some quarters. Without wishing to jump on the old "controversy" button too heavy, what i'll admit is that i think keeping two folks from being wed on account of their sexuality is as fucked-up and as noxious as forcing someone to be wed against their will, like in all those "uncivilised" places.
and to the comment about religion being a choice, whilst i'm sure it is in some areas, it ain't the case here, man. Right the hell now, i ain't go now "religion" hanging over me. I have a christian belief, i guess. What i mean is that i don't know what to wrtie when the census forms arrive. However, that don't mean i wasn't sent to a protestant school, wasn't then sent to a protestant high school, wasn't brought up in a protestant area, wasn't designated PROTESTANT by anybody who cared. My folks were, so i was. I went to a protestant church, a protestant school, i didn't even know more than two catholics, and the town was full of em. So whether or nto i now practice that religion, ie, Protestantism, fact reamins that until i left high school that was what i was, ain't no choice in it, cause that's all i ever knew.
I hope that makes sense.
It's now 4.21
22 - Jim Carruthers
Al, if "The Crying Game" could be made in the USA, then why wasn't it? You can't even distribute an offshoot of Arthur on the publicly paid-for airwaves without getting the clampdown.
Again, same-sex marriage is about property rights, family benefits and inheritance. To deny civil rights on the mere basis of sexual orientation, all other rights being equal is wrong.
If you outlaw same-sex marriage, you will start with the religious nut-jobs next. Because who knows what will happen when you let people like that breed.
On the other hand, you nut-bars who want to restrict marriage based on the "Bible". Last I looked, adultery was in the Top Ten. So if we find you fiddling around, you're getting killed by stoning, which, I've heard is really painful. And I think, it should be preemptive, just in case.
23 - andy marsh
Yeah, but in something like 38 states, oral sex isn't considered adultery, so, practice safe sex!
24 - Jim Carruthers
Duke, you do realize by pandering to the expectations of these heathen bastards, they might expect you to take a papist idolator to a picnic on the Glorious Twelfth, disrespecting King Billy and so on. Think of the children! If you don't indoctrinate them in nonsense, who knows what they will come to believe.
Here in Toronto on the past 12th only a handful of people showed up to parade, and most people thought they were some fringe party from Iraq. Which oddly enough, if you ID yourself as Orange and threaten to puke on them, they let you vote in the election. I went for the mad bastards who were for the booze and sex.
25 - Steve S
Duke, thanks for your support. I didn't misunderstand, I knew where you were coming from. It's all good.
I talked before, about when I was real young, a minor, I left my home. It was to get away from an overall very intolerant atmosphere, which predominately included religion. I believe in God as well, but I do feel that I should also be able to live free from other peoples religious dogma. I did choose to leave religion, but it was a hell of a choice (no pun intended) that nobody should have to make, so I concede the point of being 'born' into it.