God rest ye merry hypocrites

[Pandora]

In my experience homoeseuala do not like being referred to that way. It suggests something of a clinical term which they successfully got redefined in the 80's. They want the terms "gay" and "lesbian" so as to put a more friendly name on it. The idea being to paint it in a more acceptable light.

This is the reason I use the term homosexual. I'm not interested in lending any sense of acceptance to the practice.

I dont like the term gay. Its a word that means very happy. My grandmother still uses the word to describe happiness. I had a friend whos name was Gay, it was a pretty name but she hated it and all the teasing that came along with it.

Homosexual is perfectly fine to me, its not degrading and right to the point and has no other meaning (that I know of)

 

[dogtowner]

I dont like the term gay. Its a word that means very happy. My grandmother still uses the word to describe happiness. I had a friend whos name was Gay, it was a pretty name but she hated it and all the teasing that came along with it.

Homosexual is perfectly fine to me, its not degrading and right to the point and has no other meaning (that I know of)

I always object to the co-opting of language. So I refuse to participate when it is attempted. If is torques homosexuals, so much the better.

I feel sorry for your friend.

 

[PLC1]

How do you explain that since women were given the right to vote in the U.S. and Western Europe the world has experienced the deadliest war and the deadliest half-century period in human history?

Obviously, women must have voted to start the war. You said it yourself earlier: If only we had a theocracy that outlawed sex outside of marriage and made women chattel, then society would be just great. Of course, chattel doesn't vote. We could perhaps adopt sharia law, and then the people in the Middle East would love us, as we would be just like them. Think about it: No more conflicts in the Middle East, no more wars, no more abortions, divorces, or any of the other social ills. No more pesky separation of church and state to keep us arguing about Christmas displays on public property either, as anything vaguely Christian would be strictly forbidden in our new extremist Muslim theocracy.

 

[dahermit]

In my experience homoeseuala do not like being referred to that way. It suggests something of a clinical term which they successfully got redefined in the 80's. They want the terms "gay" and "lesbian" ...

I want to be referred to as, "Your Majesty.", but no one seems to do so. So, I will continue to use the word, "homosexuals" to describe homosexuals, because gay means happy, homosexual is someone who desires to have sex with their own gender.

 

[flaja]

I always object to the co-opting of language.

I feel the same way. To me a Ghetto is a part of town where Jews are required to remain by law and has nothing to do with black people; and a fagot is still a bundle of sticks used to kindle a fire. Using the term homosexual implies that there is something natural about what Sodomites do when they do what they do by choice.

 

[flaja]

Obviously, women must have voted to start the war. You said it yourself earlier: If only we had a theocracy that outlawed sex outside of marriage and made women chattel, then society would be just great.

I haven’t said one single word about a theocracy or treating women like chattel.

But if anything, since women are no longer primarily concerned with raising children- choosing instead to have careers- they no longer care about sending their sons off to war and seeing their daughters suffer at the hand of an attacking foe. Women no longer have the maternal instinct that once allowed them to influence the men that ran nations to deal with military threats before they become unmanageable. Women no longer see their children grow up because women are no longer at home nurturing their children. Thus women no longer care if their children end up being killed in a war.

 

[dogtowner]

I feel the same way. To me a Ghetto is a part of town where Jews are required to remain by law and has nothing to do with black people; and a fagot is still a bundle of sticks used to kindle a fire. Using the term homosexual implies that there is something natural about what Sodomites do when they do what they do by choice.

Homosexual is simply a term for a behaviour. Homosexuals feel it dehumanizes them as it frames them by their behaviour. But the fact is they do that themselves.

take Adam Lambert as an example. He might have been a singer who was homosexual but he chose instead to be a homosexual who sings.

 

[PLC1]

I haven’t said one single word about a theocracy or treating women like chattel.

from an earlier post of yours:

Traditionally speaking human individuals did not choose their own mate. A person’s spouse has traditionally been chosen by their parents or other supervisory kin. You had to be lucky to end up with a spouse that you found physically attractive, and you had to be damned lucky to end up with a spouse with whom you could establish any kind of emotional bond.

so, love is secondary, to what?

The choice of spouse was seldom left to the people who were actually getting married since marriage was meant to provide men with sex;

Oh. Secondary to providing men with a physical need... that women don't have?

to provide women with physical and financial security and to provide society with children with which it could perpetuate itself.

Because, of course, women can't be allowed to be able to provide those things for themselves. They have to be cared for, owned if you will, by a man. That is where I got the term "chattel." It fits.

Society dissolves (much as America’s society has dissolved over the past 60 years) when we allow men to seek sex outside of monogamous heterosexual marriage and when we allow women to seek security outside of monogamous heterosexual marriage and allow children to be produced and reared outside of the normal family structure that is provided by monogamous heterosexual marriage. The most religion can do is uphold what is already found in a stable society.

If we have a nice, strong church structure, i.e. a theocracy, then we don't allow those things.

You didn't use the terms "chattel" and "theocracy", but the meaning is quite clear.

But if anything, since women are no longer primarily concerned with raising children- choosing instead to have careers- they no longer care about sending their sons off to war and seeing their daughters suffer at the hand of an attacking foe.

How is it then that women in Islamic theocracies who have to depend on men to take care of them not only send their sons off to war, but send them off to be suicide bombers? Are they not concerned about raising children?

Women no longer have the maternal instinct that once allowed them to influence the men that ran nations to deal with military threats before they become unmanageable. Women no longer see their children grow up because women are no longer at home nurturing their children. Thus women no longer care if their children end up being killed in a war.

or as a suicide bomber.

Sorry, flaja, but your argument has more holes than a piece of Swiss cheese that has been used for target practice.

 

[flaja]

so, love is secondary, to what?

The needs of society.

Oh. Secondary to providing men with a physical need... that women don't have?

Historically speaking a woman’s physical needs were not important. I am not saying that this is necessarily right, but I am saying that subsuming women’s physical need for sex to society’s need for preservation has been the norm rather than the exception.

Because, of course, women can't be allowed to be able to provide those things for themselves.

And have society survive, no.

If we have a nice, strong church structure, i.e. a theocracy, then we don't allow those things.

The church has nothing to do with it. This is how human societies have historically operated regardless of any given society’s religion.

How is it then that women in Islamic theocracies who have to depend on men to take care of them not only send their sons off to war, but send them off to be suicide bombers? Are they not concerned about raising children?

Women in Islamic countries are treated as chattel with no rights and no input into society. No Islamic man is ever henpecked. But Islam is a recent phenomenon in world history. Human societies had operated the way I describe for a good 4000 years before anyone ever heard of Islam.

Your suicide bomber upholds my view. Since American and European women are no longer concerned with nurturing their children they don’t care if their children fall prey to Islamic suicide bombers enough to support using the overwhelming force that is needed to end Islam.

 

[PLC1]

The needs of society.



Historically speaking a woman’s physical needs were not important. I am not saying that this is necessarily right, but I am saying that subsuming women’s physical need for sex to society’s need for preservation has been the norm rather than the exception.



And have society survive, no.



The church has nothing to do with it. This is how human societies have historically operated regardless of any given society’s religion.



Women in Islamic countries are treated as chattel with no rights and no input into society. No Islamic man is ever henpecked. But Islam is a recent phenomenon in world history. Human societies had operated the way I describe for a good 4000 years before anyone ever heard of Islam.

Your suicide bomber upholds my view. Since American and European women are no longer concerned with nurturing their children they don’t care if their children fall prey to Islamic suicide bombers enough to support using the overwhelming force that is needed to end Islam.

Yes, women in some of the Islamic nations are treated as chattel, just as you are suggesting they should be in any other society. I'm not sure how you can say that the church has nothing to do with the treatment of women.

Islam is a recent phenomenon? According to this, it dates from the sixth century.

It isn't American and European women who send their sons to be suicide bombers, as you well know.

 

[top gun]

I seriously doubt that the divorce rate anywhere in the U.S. reached 50% before the first no-fault divorce law was enacted- in Ronald Reagan’s California.

Once again I direct you to the fact that if people don't want to be married or stay married it seems they would know best and their decision to make. Finding "fault" was a ridiculous premise in the first place. It often trapped women (sometimes men) in tremendously unhappy often abusive relationships. This is no way to live.

Between the late 1920s and the late 1960s the U.S. divorce rate was stable apart from a couple of years during the Great Depression and then again during World War II. However the divorce rate began a major upward trend in the late 1960s.

Abusive relationships were the norm back then as well. Women often stayed at home and without any training or work experience felt trapped and did not leave the abuse. Many like my grandmother didn't even drive and would have tremendous fear of how they would survive and be able to take care of their children. Again... no way to have to live.

Mainly because society no longer condemns non-marital sex.

Condemning it didn't stop it at all. It was keep possibly more of a secret from parents but there was plenty of non-married sex going on.

Perhaps you should document what percentage of divorces are due to abusive spouses.

Domestic violence Spousal abuse

Spousal abuse refers to a wide spectrum of abuse. This includes physical abuse, sexual abuse, emotional abuse, economic abuse and financial abuse. The abuser can be the husband or wife as can the victim.

Most of the information today confuses spousal abuse with domestic violence, which is only part of the whole spectrum of abuse. 'Domestic violence' which is a specific form of violence where physical or sexual abuse is perpetuated by one spouse upon another, or by both partners upon each other. The term was coined in the late 1970s once such crimes were given wider attention in society. There are separate legalities and punishments applied to such a crime as opposed to random assault or assaults of another nature (see battered woman defence and battered person syndrome).

Spousal abuse is committed by both males and females in intimate relationships, although studies prove that the majority of spousal abuse is violence by men towards women. It should be pointed out that a misunderstanding of the family abuse issue is so pervasive, male versus female, or the focus on violence statistics only, that city and county governments, the courts, law enforcement, prosecutorÌs offices, mental health clinics, and other tax supported agencies are now funding programs based on gender politics, rather than responsible scientific studies, current programs often appear motivated by feminist ideology.

Sex of assailant

Dr. Martin Fiebert, from the Department of Psychology of California State University, has compiled an annotated bibliograhy of research relating to spousal abuse by women on men. This bibliography examines 155 scholarly investigations: 126 empirical studies and 29 reviews and/or analyses, which demonstrate that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners. The aggregate sample size in the reviewed studies exceeds 116,000. Very few studies have shown men to aggress more frequently than women. However, until recently the bulk of domestic violence research did not even ask about woman-on-man violence. It has also been found that many kinds of behavior, such as pushing and slapping, are experienced by both genders, but are mainly called "violence" by female victims. Early studies that merely asked "have you been a victim of domestic violence" did find far lower levels of male victims; but when they asked about specific behaviors ("have you been slapped, punched,...), the numbers evened out. Justice Department studies show that men are 32 percent less likely than women to report any form of violent victimization.

Straus and Gelles found in couples reporting spousal violence, 27 percent of the time the man struck the first blow; the woman in 24 percent. The rest of the time, the violence was mutual, with both partners brawling. The results were the same even when the most severe episodes of violence were analyzed. In order to counteract claims that the reporting data was skewed, female-only surveys were conducted, asking females to self-report, and the data was the same.

The simple tally of violent acts is typically found to be similar in those studies that examine both directions, but some studies show that men's violence may be more serious. Men's violence may do more damage than women's; women are much more likely to be injured and/or hospitalized, wives are much more likely to be killed by their husbands than the reverse (59%-41% Dept of Justice study), and women in general are more likely to be killed by their spouse than by all other types of assailants combined.

However, Coramae Richey Mann, a researcher at the Department of Criminal Justice, Indiana University/Bloomington, found that only 59 percent of women jailed for spousal murder claimed self-defense and that 30 percent had previously been arrested for violent crimes.

Women who kill their husbands were acquitted in 12.9 percent of the cases, while husbands who kill their wives were acquitted only 1.4 percent of the time. In addition, women convicted of killing their husbands receive an average sentence of only six years, while male spousal killers got 17 years, according to an LA Times article citing Department of Justice data.

These findings, however, may have other problems. Women are far more likely to use weapons in their domestic violence, whether throwing a plate or firing a gun. Women are also much more likely than men to enlist help if they wish to kill their spouse; but such multiple-offender homicides are not counted toward domestic-violence statistics. In addition Farrell points out that there are several "female-only" defenses to murder charges, such as the posthumous allegation of abuse; in short, our data on rates of domestic homicide are incomplete. Furthermore, women are more likely to inflict mental abuse on men more and usually resort to physical abuse first. In such a case the men has no option to defend himself to protect himself when physical abuse occurs. As a result many men are unfairly labeled as abusers when actually the woman is the abuser. This brings the debate on what is an allowable amount of physical defense when trying to avoid the abuser.

In their study of severely violent couples, Neil Jacobson and John Gottman conclude that the frequency of violent acts is not as crucial as the impact of the violence and its function, when trying to understand spousal abuse; specifically, they state that the purpose of battering of whatever direction is to control and intimidate, rather than just to injure.

There is a whole source of new evidence to suggest that some of the research into family abuse has been politicized. Sam and Bunny Sewell, Family Resources & Research state "that However, misleading statistics are a deliberate fund raising tactic for women's shelters. The shelter movement almost never mentions scientific studies.

During the OJ Simpson murder trial, Miami talkshow host Pat Stevens appeared on a segment of CNN's Crossfire show. Stevens estimated that when adjusted for underreporting, the true number of battered women is 60 million. However, 60 million is more than 100% of all the women in the US who are currently in relationships with men.

The divorce rate among Sodomites is not just as high as it is for everybody else?

Less gay people are married to start with... and I'm pretty sure lesbians aren't sodomites... but I digress. The point being that the ones that want to be in a committed monogamous relationship "married" are only wanting the stability and legal protection that a legal marriage provides. Just like straight people some will stay together for a very long time or forever and some will separate.

The first Sodomite divorce in Massachusetts was filed just 7 months after the first Sodomite marriage was created in Massachusetts.

Okaaaaaaaay and Brittney Spears and Jason Alexander got divorced (annulled) in less than 55 hours. What are we going for here the straight vs gay speed record?... You lose.

 

[samsara15]

Damn you one and all, of whatever faith and/or political persuasion you may be. Is that politically correct enough?

Christmas is a holiday for the kids. A time for good food and renewing old friendships. A time for appreciating each other. It may have began as a purely religious festival, but that has long since ceased to be.

Leave it to the right wing fundy lovers to p*** and moan about how Christmas has been hijacked. They have nothing better to do.

 

[ASPCA4EVER]

Damn you one and all, of whatever faith and/or political persuasion you may be. Is that politically correct enough?

Christmas is a holiday for the kids. A time for good food and renewing old friendships. A time for appreciating each other. It may have began as a purely religious festival, but that has long since ceased to be.

Leave it to the right wing fundy lovers to p*** and moan about how Christmas has been hijacked. They have nothing better to do.

Howdy, Sam...good to hear from you again! But these fine folks are all off of the topic and now have moved onto D I V O R C E and the reason that us women folk just can't seem to be HAPPY

 

[flaja]

Yes, women in some of the Islamic nations are treated as chattel, just as you are suggesting they should be in any other society.

Either pay attention to what I am actually saying and stop trying to put words in my mouth, or stop wasting my time.

 

[flaja]

Once again I direct you to the fact that if people don't want to be married or stay married it seems they would know best and their decision to make. Finding "fault" was a ridiculous premise in the first place. It often trapped women (sometimes men) in tremendously unhappy often abusive relationships. This is no way to live.

No fault divorce means nobody has to make a lifetime commitment, thus you need not bother to take marriage seriously so you are encouraged to enter a marriage expecting it to fail. The ease of divorce and the lack of any criminal penalties for adultery make adultery and divorce self-fulfilling prophecies.