Comments Posted By Jimmy
Displaying 1 To 5 Of 5 Comments


This is to MIchael Reynolds and others at this site. At the risk of adding a little opposite opinion here. I too occasionally read this site for diversity of opinion within the realm of today's conservative mvt.
That said, a few things.
First, the risk of sounding...shall we say, do understand that homosexuality is NOT a race, an ethnicity, nor even a culture? Right? Good.
Two, this is a fair question, one in which I hope it is taken in the spirit of diversity...
In fact, the way it is received here will demonstrate whether or not the adage "we can all agree to disagree" and "all opinions are welcome here" by the response it receives whether civil or otherwise.

Here goes:
Question: The elephant in the room, regarding this issue.
Please, name for me ONE government in human history, go as far back as you want to, (ancient Egypt, Greece, Rome, China, Japan, ancient Aztecs, etc) Whatever civiliations great and small that you want, WHERE did any of their governments explicitly endorse and sanction same-sex marrage? Where exactly in human history is this precedented?

Answer: There is none. This means that this is unprecedented in history. In fact, truth be told, you heard next to almost nothing about this issue at all whatsoever before, say, circa 1995, 1998 or so, around there. Next to nothing whatsoever.

Four, more of an observation, regarding what some have said of overwhelming support of homosexual marriage among the young, well, while it is true that the young often indulge in many things, various behaviors (e.g. out of wedlock births is most high among the young, drug addiction, incarceration for murder, etc. AS WELL AS graduation from college, and NFL Super Bowl quarterbacks doing quite well) Point: The young engage in various things. Whether correctly or incorrectly, time does have a way of telling.

But, as to the idea that the young (ages 21-35 shall we say?) They have a strange way of showing it: Case in point. Roughly 35 states in US have passed state laws in defense of marriage.
Websters, Oxford English Dictionary, etc have thru the centuries defined marriage as between a man and a woman.
Michael Reynolds....wonder why that is?
COuld it be that the civilizations of the past, like, dude, you know, knew what exactly marriage was? Partly based on pro-creation? Makes you think.
And if someone who never ever thought for a second about the issue even 10yrs ago,and if asked, would've said its obviously defined as man/woman contract, NOW all of a sudden, like George Orwell's animal Farm (for quick example) we NOW all of a sudden told, that hey, the times have changed, get with it, screw 10000 yrs of human history and go with it. Just cuz. Just cuz we say so. No reason, just cuz. We wanna be married too.

Like, yeah, we have ALL the civil rights as everyone else does as AMerican Citizens before the law, we're equal, we basically have every right as everyone else does.....BUT NOW WE WANT WHAT YOU GUYS HAVE HAD FORALL OF HISTORY, IF that means changing the definition and history and the culture and the law and everything else to suit or purposes, so be it. We say so, you have to do it or else you're the bigot, you're the homophobe (a made up word which we apply to those we don't like) If you have personal qualms or ethical problems with it, screw you, you're the problem.....not us.
I know, I know, it MUST be automatically be due to that everyone's obviously ipso facto a bigot racist (even though gayness isnt a race or ethnicity)

Final question: For every term there is an opposite. If one calls a person a homophobe (a non existent term without any proof in historical context whatsoever) then I would have to assume that most who support this bogus idea of additional rights for a nonexistent culture, nonexistent race, (how does one "look" or "sound" gay? You can't, especially if its a choice or behavior related, a lifestyle)
Then I have to assume that some around in today's US are heterophobes, the opposite.

I hope that we could have a civil discussion, and agree to disagree. I hope sincerely that we dont all have to pretend to be of one political side when clearly others are not. I would hope that we use accurate stats wheen deseperately trying to make our case.
IF 35 states or close to it have passed defense of marriage, and it only takes 37 states for a constiutional ammendment, well....Also...for a minority of roughly 3-4% total in the US adult population and those Evangelicals' numbers are close to about 16% of adult population, don't you think its best not to continually mock degrade ridicule etc their personal beliefs? Otherwise, they may take their personal and private into the public realm of policy.
May the best side carry the day.

Comment Posted By jimmy On 20.02.2010 @ 19:54


I support any and all release of info regarding USA's use of terrorist and Nazi tactics like torture.

It is high time USA got off its high horse and rejoined civilization again. I am glad we have a CIC who knows torture is torture and does not try to nuance it.


Comment Posted By Jimmy On 17.04.2009 @ 10:54


I think the best way for the GOP to hang itself is to continue to push Glenn Beck and Limbaugh as its spokespeople.

Do Republicans want to be the party of all Americans or just the crazies? I'm starting to think it's the latter...

Comment Posted By Jimmy On 8.04.2009 @ 23:24

You know the conservative movement is more or less extreme/fringe when an intellectual critique of one of its more cartoonish leaders must be prepended with three paragraphs of apologizing for making said critique.

RIP conservative thought (keyword thought).

It was a personal digression which was the reason for my apology. That and the fact that the post is a little muddled as is my thinking on the issue. I made no apologies for my beliefs. ("If that makes me something of a squish, so be it.")

Maybe you should like, you know, learn to read before burying conservatism.


Comment Posted By Jimmy On 8.04.2009 @ 10:24


As far as secrets go, didn't they build a complete functional city to test the A-Bomb on? I think I saw that on the history channel. And that involved thousands of people. Way more people knew about that, which indefinitely happened, than the paltry amount of people involved in the alleged 9/11 conspiracy. Both sides need to look at the incident objectively and try and attack things from the other group's point of view to create a convincing argument.

The "truthers" seem too passionate and come up with theories that seem easy to debunk; however, the "experts" would rather say that their conspiracies are completely nonsense, even when addressing the theories.

Watergate, Deep Throat, the Manhattan Project and numerous other things were kept secret until someone eventually talked or simply slipped up. Think about it, what if just 1 goverment employee said their was one ounce of validity in this? How would you react?

Comment Posted By Jimmy On 26.08.2007 @ 15:13



Pages (1) : [1]

«« Back To Stats Page