arg du jour
    Starship Troopers Rant/ Gay Constitution

      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
     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).
      I posit:
       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.
arg du jour
    RE: rize outa uMonday, April 27, 2009 7:57 PM

    From: "xJB" <jb@yahoo.com>Add sender to Contacts To: "xme"

    Dear "Frazier",

    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 <xme@hotmail.com> wrote:

    From: xme <xme@hotmail.com>
    Subject: RE: rize outa u
    To: "xb- J" <xjb@yahoo.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
    of it.
    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.
    RE: rize outa u  Monday, April 27, 2009 11:08 PM
    From: "xme" <xme@hotmail.com>View contact detailsTo: "xb-
    J" <xjb@yahoo.com>

    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.
gotta no respect
RE: rize outa uFriday, May 1, 2009 9:36 PM
From: "xme" <xme@hotmail.com>
To: "xb- J" <xjb@yahoo.com>

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
them happiness.

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" <jb@yahoo.com>
To: "xme" <xme@hotmail.com>
Subject: RE: rize outa u

you sidestep my real arguments and then go ad hominem on
my ass.

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" <jb@yahoo.com>
To: "xme" <xme@hotmail.com>
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
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
holosexual marriage.

i feel better...

argument du jour 2 archive