Starship Troopers Rant/ Gay Constitution

home

third-adj-1

home

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.

5 years ago to this day

omeone, 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

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 populariz

the phrase "The Gay Lifestyle." Th

is 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-

TRADITIONAL VALUES.

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

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

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.

hat 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

hetero

sexual, 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

homo

sexuals

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.

home

arg du jour

RE: rize outa uMonday, April 27, 2009 7:57 PM

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

<xme@hotmail.com>

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!

nimble

--- On Mon, 4/27/09,

me <

e@hotmail.com> wrote:

From:

me <

me@hotmail.com>

Subject: RE: rize outa u

To: "

- J" <

jb@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: "

@yahoo.com>

imble

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

you.

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

promoting.

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
privilege.

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.

nimble

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 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
holosexual marriage.

i feel better...

nimble

argument du jour 2 archive