A few years after Bob Heinlein's death, his interdiction against selling anything to Hollywood
was broken and Starship Troopers was made. It was a gutted travesty. The high school class
entitled History and Moral Philosophy that the hero attended, and the ideals propounded there
that gave me my worldview about truth, loyalty to one's fellows, and honor, was nowhere in sight.
What had been a violent, gory, inspiring novel was turned into a violent, gory, vacuous film that
deliberately, almost systematically, mocked the principles the book had imparted to me, and
which I had been expecting the internationally promoted film to impart to younger generations.
Is it paranoid to say that this type of brainwash/gentling is being carried out on a wider scale
than movies? Heinlein had theories about the potency of words in carrying out tyranny on the
populace by controlling their diet of data about the world and subtly diverting their capability to
think inconvenient, seditious thoughts that would make them harder to rule.
45 years ago to this day someone, I don't know who, started messing with the english
language. Without speculating as to the exact purpose of this, and not knowing if it exists in
other tongues, it is possible to perceive certain semantic twists and subtle presuppositions in
logic-- what has come to be called "framing the debate"-- that can "cloud men's minds" and
eliminate certain deep seated human realities from the deliberations of teachers, judges,
legislators and administrators.
Someone popularized the phrase "The Gay Lifestyle." This new view of those who preferred
to obtain their physical orgasms and psychological gratification from members of their own sex
made it OK to perceive them as, at worst, innocuous mutual masturbators exercising free choice
in a free land and in the privacy of their own homes (and/or private clubs). In combination with
this was their persistent application of what I would call "The Asian Method" of gaining social
acceptance by people who were "different": quietly contributing, being useful, pleasant, even
jovial, good citizens. The fact that the stablest couples were DINKs (double-income-no-kids)
meant you had an affluent class capable of being perceived as generous and friendly by wide
swaths of the mainstream population.
All this is to the credit of a bunch of people who were initially up against the prejudices of a
population that may have mutually masturbated also, but who still generally were able to
sublimate at least some of their randy impulses into the production of a socialized population of
the future, AND WHO TENDED TO BE PROTECTIVE OF THIS FUNCTION AND CONSIDER HOW
FRAGILE THIS SOCIETAL LINK TO THE FUTURE MIGHT BE IN THE PRESENCE OF NON-
Some of the newly minted "gay" couples actually ended up taking the responsibility of raising
children, although realistically this probably has happened surreptitiously all through history.
Now comes the hard part: why are these innocuous, friendly people still frowned upon to the
extent that, in a secret ballot, and with a very fuzzy grasp of why they are doing so, Americans
will vote that they don't want Jeff and Joe kissing in front of preachers and Justices of the Peace
and being pronounced husband and husband or wife and wife or whatever (this is another pair
of words that will have to become less well understood if acceptance of gay marriage becomes
the law of the land).
A) although these people are willing and capable as individuals to have the social bargain with
the straight majority that they will be extra valuable citizens in exchange for generally being
accepted out of the closet and there being a majority of the straight population willing to step in
and protect them from beatings and murders perpetrated by the atavistic,
that B) when they form groups, these groups are inherently self destructive from the git-go; as
evidence of this consider the fact that if they were totally responsible for procreation, the human
race would be liable to die out; or the fact that they are subject to manipulation by the craziest
and most fanatical of their number (are all gays really so monolithic and monomaniacal in
wanting to be married, married, married?). In my humble opinion it wouldn't be good to find in a
few years that the country is being run by the usual moribund, self-protecting power group, and
that they are predominantly gays and gay allies.
Specifically why not? How about the tendency to predatory behavior toward the young. Take
this for instance: a generous society has a loose but respected tradition among businesses of a
certain size about easing the way for young families (with their nonproductive children) by
providing spousal benefits. Gays covet this as a recognition of their status as 'lovers', and now
have substantially acquired it, but for the wrong reasons and in at least partial usurpation of
something society was trying to do for the next generation, which gays have next to nothing to do
with. Did the majority population agree to this, or were they "jiujitsued" by skillful manipulation of
pressure points involving corporate executives? How about when this abuse (and it is an
abuse), simply makes spousal benefits less and less popular. Anybody ever hear "If I can't have
it then nobody shall!"?
Hospital visitation rights? How unkind and spiteful do you have to be to deny that? huh? This
is one that's always out in front to prove that you are hateful and senselessly bigoted and to
hopefully prove to intuitive gay-resisters that they were only doing this because they are
intellectually inferior and should therefore go quietly back to their knuckle dragging and leave
the regulation of this society to their betters.
Don't get me started on the definition of marriage. Even the definition of sex has been subtly
twisted: if everything had been samesex from the earliest life forms, and reproduction could
occur with ANY two individuals, then the word sex itself would MEAN samesex and samesex would
be quashed as redundant in the mind of anyone who thought of coining it and would never have
existed. The fact that we are being required to use a term for something that both posits
opposite sexes and at the same time is saying you can have sex without opposites is strained for
a reason and i'll let you know as soon as i figure it out.
What about homophobe? Homo translates into samesex, so it's "samesex-phobe", but i'm not
sure samesex has any use other than obfuscation (see the above). When you look up phobia,
you find that neither the Greeks nor the Romans had separate hate and fear words so a
homophobe label means you are a person who hates samesex people and at the same time
fears them. What if i fear them but still love them, do they not want that? What if i love each and
every gay i have ever met and only fear the aftermath of letting their nutty groups take charge of
my life? Come to think of it, i DO hate that.
What about the very old and respected terms homosexual and heterosexual (yay! the good
guys). Am i proud to be a heterosexual, or am i being logically shanghaied by that ancient
wordsmith. Why am i a heterosexual again? Oh yes, because i like to think about doing it with
women. Because we have to have an alternate term to distinguish ourselves from homosexuals
The Constitution and the Bill of Rights 200 years ago were concerned with limiting the allowed
behaviors of gummint officials as against private citizens and private and public groups. Just as
the NRA probably has or would consider having a ban on their members or officials shooting
people, maybe gay groups should have a Gay Constitution limiting their activities to the above
mentioned protection issues as opposed to trying to not only be lovingly recognized by a society,
but also to take over and run a society in an ever more in-your-face manner. It's my feeling that
power corrupts gay groups especially easily.
From: "xJB" <firstname.lastname@example.org>Add sender to Contacts To: "xme"
I am tolerant of gays and actually like most of them. As a good
American, and as a person who wouldn't like to have a cop
staked out under my bed, I have no opinion about what goes on
in private among consenting adults.
But wresting away from the straight majority an institution that
was created by the straight majority and for the straight
majority's particular and compelling needs-- with no more
substantive an argument than taxation equity, which could be
handled more concisely and intelligently with changes to tax
legislation-- is a way public act, with no higher purpose as far as
I can see than rubbing the straight majority's nose in the idea
that it's illegal to be mean about gay behavior.
How far do gays have to come out before they feel satisfied?
There, that's my real underlying motivation. All the other
'sophistry' about psychological word twisting is just minor
details. I feel better!
--- On Mon, 4/27/09, xme <email@example.com> wrote:
From: xme <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: RE: rize outa u
To: "xb- J" <email@example.com>
Date: Monday, April 27, 2009, 12:37 PM
The first three paragraphs were potentially developing into
something intelligent and worthwhile. Unfortunately, you did not end
it there, and the intelligence level quickly devolved. I know you can
do better, but you are not admitting or getting past YOUR real
reason to be against gay marriage.
As such, the result is that ALL of your arguments are strained and
falsely connected to gay marriage or otherwise alleged to be a result
There are just so many falsely connected points in your writing that
I'm not even going to try to address them. But as only ONE example,
you try to make the argument that gay marriage could lead to an
end of the human population! Geez, if that isn't a false connection
what is? It will have no affect on the population level, neither
increasing it nor decreasing it. If gays get married, straight people
are not going to become gay.
You have yet to write your real, underlying reason for opposing gay
marriage. It certainly is not for fear that the population will disappear
-- because you're smart enough to know that won't happen. Your
real reason is neither in this latest writing or any of your previous
writings. This is why all of your writings have been nothing but false
connections. You must confront your real reason.
From: "xme" <firstname.lastname@example.org>View contact detailsTo: "xb-
you're straining again. For one thing, no one has argued they
need marriage for tax equity. They already have that! They
want marriage for love, commitment, responsibility, even
acceptance. None of that has any affect on you whatsoever.
They are not taking anything at all from you. Gays marrying
will not affect you in any way at all, but you strain to try to say
it does. But that is just false, a false connection.
Why are you so afraid that someone else might actually be
happy? You seem to think they should be punished, that they
are undeserving and so should be denied simple happiness.
You don't even need to know that gays get married -- why
would that be any of your business? It has nothing to do with
How far do gays have to come out before they are satisfied?
That says they should be kept in the closet. Why? Apparently
you definitely do have an opinion about what goes on in
private among consenting adults; You assess them
accordingly. Mind you, they have not asked to have sex in
public. And neither should you have sex in public.
From your own words, you merely tolerate them, you do not
accept them. They will settle for nothing less than you will: full
acceptance. And no one should accept less. No one should
accept being pushed down, relegated to the shadows,
denied, treated as second class citizens, as you are
It sounds like you are afraid you are not better than them if
they are as worthy as you. You need to deny them so you
can feel like you are someone. You seem to feel you need to
compare yourself to them in order to have self esteem, and
you would deny them self esteem accordingly.
Who they are and what they do has no bearing whatsoever --
nor should it -- on you or your self esteem. If your self esteem
is lacking, it is not the fault of gays, and you should not deny
them because of it.
You often refer to the laws. Well, there are three primary
rights in our Constitution: life, liberty and the pursuit of
happiness. That is supposed to be our American values. You
apparently have different values and are seeking to deny
gays their constitutional right to pursuit of happiness.
|RE: rize outa uFriday, May 1, 2009 9:36 PM
From: "xme" <email@example.com>
To: "xb- J" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
First of all, please remember that quote you make next time
you or someone else talks about the "marriage penalty."
This says that assertion that a "marriage penalty" exists is
a lie! And I have said that all along.
But on to the topic at hand. Regardless of any federal tax
ramifications, they have not asked for that nor is that the
point. That is YOUR point, to theirs. This is NOT about
money. And even so, the money involved is not big enough
bucks to justify such a big fight.
But even if it were about money, so what, you're not
arguing that they shouldn't get marriage because of the
money they will get -- so what's your point?
Also, I'm sure federal law does not recognize marriage
between gay couples either -- so there will be no monetary
benefit. But they don't care, because that's not their point.
Why would people making such a stand about the
importance of marriage communicate that marriage is
pointless, of no use, not to be respected? Your logic that
teens will not respect the importance of marriage is truly
backward. It would only do the opposite, show how
important marriage is. For now you have people (gays)
having sex outside of marriage, and YOU say that is the
better way, not to let them marry, and thus that by making
them have sex outside marriage, it will communicate to
have sex only in marriage.
These people (gays) are arguing that marriage is very
important, that they absolutely support it and want it. You
are arguing that that means marriage is of no importance.
Your argument could not be more illogical or baseless.
Yes, boy-boy and girl-girl couples ARE just as important.
Everyone is important, if in their own way. You keep talking
about and promoting breeding and talk about it in a
vacuum; well, we have no shortage of people, in fact only
have too many people! You talk about the importance of
breeding as if nothing else matters. Well, an incredible
amount of other things matter, and many or most of them
matter a lot more than breeding too many people. Plenty of
those other things have been bought about by or with the
help of gays; they are VERY important. Still, none of that
dilutes the right of any individual to be happy, or to pursue
happiness -- even if they are guy. But you seek to deny
A right to happiness isn't something you have to earn; it is
a constitutional right with which you are born. It is not a
Gay marriage presents no reason why your fecund children
would be socialize any differently -- for better or for worse
-- than if gays were not allowed to marry.
Date: Fri, 1 May 2009 20:48:09 -0700
From: "xJB" <email@example.com>
To: "xme" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: RE: rize outa u
you sidestep my real arguments and then go ad hominem on
here's a statement i got in the net (can't remember where, but
maybe it would google):
(11/13/2008 10:04:27 AM) Flag as inappropriate content
The unspoken reason behind the complaint of the "gay/lesbian"
'community' regarding the inequality of not being able to
engage in same-sex marriage can be found in the IRS Form
1040 instructions - "For federal tax purposes, a marriage
means only a legal union between a and a woman as husband
and wife.". Federal tax law does not recognize "civil unions",
therefore gay/lesbian couples must pay higher federal tax rates
than heterosexual couples. Yes, they can obtain employer
provided health insurance for their 'partner' and they can be
admitted to a hospital room to visit their partner, but they must
always pay more in federal income taxes.
Just remember - it's all about money!
- Hank Jeffries
c'mon, Mr. F, just explain to me why I am so wrong about teen
lovers' discounting marriage-- even more strongly than they
already do at the behest of Hollywood Marketers And Their
Shining Example Straight Couples-- when they see that
boy-boy and girl-girl couples are suddenly just as important to
their civilization as they are (even though their intuition tells
them otherwise, and rightfully so).
and please 'splain me, lucy, how noveau psychology and big
pharma are going to clean up the messes left by unsocialized
and fecund children who heretofore had to be handled by
giving them some sort of moral compass.
|Date: Wed, 13 May 2009
From: "xJB" <email@example.com>
To: "xme" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: RE: rize outa u
they're not trying to communicate to straight
teenagers that marriage is pointless... their actions
are doing it to the extent that they succeed in forcing
society-- by virtue of their outsize collective affluence,
their political dextrousness, their distortedly brilliant
yet cognitively flawed academic allies, but not by any
fundamentally real sexual imperatives-- to swallow
whole the pointless fiction that marriage was invented,
time and again, by countless societies, to include any
two entities with two arms and two legs.
this modern construct deserves another ad hoc
coined term such as homosexual (coined to make it
seem as if sex suddenly comes in more than one
flavor): it would be more relevant to've called it
HEMISEXUAL, acknowledging that on the wedding
night there is only one sex present in the room rather
than the requisite two.
yeah, that's the ticket! the struggle is now, instead of
trying to add homosexual marriage in to regular
marriage, trying to add hemisexual marriage to
i feel better...