S.F. Gives finger to Feds, Ok's same sex marriages...

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Reverend Love, Feb 14, 2004.

  1. Apollo Bird Boy

    Even disregarding the rest of your post, this part would be offensive even to an actual homosexual, because it implies that they mindlessly lust after all males and would actually want some random heterosexual guy to dance for them.

    But then, you knew that.
  2. Spiderman CPA Man in Tights, Dopey Administrative Assistant

    Well, I didn't really consider it continuing since he said "might be homosexual" - he didn't flat-out call him gay. But I can take out the whole exchange...

    Edit: just saw Apollo's post overlapping mine. Duke's "dance" statement makes more sense when you put back in the comment of RL's that I took out that said " dance, monkey, dance!"
  3. Reverend Love New Member

    Not Gay....but I did read some Anne Rice novels.

    Duke masks his bigotry and angst behind philosophical rhetoric...I just come out and say it. And was subsequently oinked for it. I suppose if the post were to contrast his views and intolerances to that of a monkey philosophically then it would have been ok.

    Duke is my dancing Queen!
  4. DÛke Memento Mori


    And you like ABBA too? :)
  5. Reverend Love New Member

  6. Mikeymike Captain Hiatus

    It is truly sad that you actually believe this.

    And please, spare me the vacant "hehe, you must gay" retort.
  7. Academy Man New Member

    At Duke

    But "gay people" are not equal to people. I suppose soon, out of "good generousity of heart," we should start counting apes, pigs, and rats as "equals" because hey, you know, they are alive too!

    I don't think any of us were talking about apes, pigs, and rats, which is very insulting, comparing gays to random animals. Why do you bring animals into this? We were not talking about animals, keep the topic on people.

    What makes you think gay people are not equal? Is there some quality that makes all gays less than equal?
  8. DÛke Memento Mori


    If I have to tell you in detail what I believe, you'd most likely accuse me of disguising my "bigotry" under "philosophical rhetoric." It happened before, you know? But I will summarize my position nevertheless.

    It is my position that the human being was made so that the division and difference is to be preserved - only thus is there life at all: through the play between the differences, orders, ranks, levels. These differences and divisions exist between man and woman, man and man, woman and woman, man and animal, plant and animal, and all the differences and divisions in general and in particular that we see in life and living things. The more blurred this difference becomes, the more "same" living things become, the more life threatening our living situation becomes - because there is life, primarily, because there is difference, separation, division, struggle, rank, war. The destruction of difference ends the movement which constitutes life.

    There are many ways in which this destruction has begun already - but the greatest one I would like to emphasize is the forthcoming "world peace," which will be established without doubt. World peace means...the end of the world (but that's a different subject.)

    To go right to the heart of the issue of homosexuality - to me it is a natural urge to destroy one more difference; and it is really only one more difference amongst many. Many differences have been destroyed already, and you see the false "equality" between man and man growing more and more - it is all very natural and perhaps even necessary, because it is the destiny of man that he destroys himself by destroying the difference and division. He thinks he is establishing world peace and a utopia when in reality he is putting an end to life - and what is life? A struggle, a war, opposition, rivalry - not peace, not tolerance, understanding, open-mindedness. But for struggle and rivalry one requires every man to be superior, intelligent, whole, so that he may be able to enforce himself and his personal principles...but that's not possible today. Even "man" is not possible today - he has degenerated into an all too effeminate, pathetic creature which lusts after the "practical" and the "responsible" aspect of life. But in truth, life is nothing practical and responsible - but experimentation, recklessness, crime, consequence. It is awfully woman-like to give one's self to the practical side of things...but man today, and by man I mean humanity, has become all too feminine.

    Homosexuality is one more natural urge and tendency that is, above all, necessary. Because, again, it is necessary that the life of man be destroyed in so many ways - metaphysically speaking, by erasing the difference. Man loving a man, woman loving a woman - what does that represent? It represents the destruction of the sexual difference. Really, it is only one of the many differences that have already begun vanishing.

    I hope to say, even if deceptively, that we have "free will" - so that a man who loves men can restrain himself...but that's hopeful thinking on my side. No one has free will, and everyone rather abides their natural, crude, basic instincts. What is desired is immediately what is pursued.

    So at the end, I believe it is more appropriate for me to say: if you want to love men, go ahead and be. You are only doing what is necessary. And I am the last person who expects that anyone here, anyone on this earth, to have a choice and actually use their choice. Look at everyone! Just look at them carefully my friend - who chooses? And who follows?

    Before even asking me why I believe what I believe, everyone jumped right at my back, like lustful animals...and only you asked with civility and respect. In reality, there are only few humans and quite all too many accidents, animals, worthless beings. Do I really need to teach you of this?

    People are stupid - is that news to you? And every chance they have, people will do anything to affirm this observation: that they are stupid, intolerant, insolent, insipid, and at the end, worthless. Do I really need to speak to you of the lack of personality and lack of taste, lack of life, which floods this world? Because I’ll be more than happy to, to speak to you about it, but not the general public here, the general zoo, I mean. I don't like to give public speeches any more - most people haven't the clean ears or the cleanliness to hear what I have to say, but I realized about a year ago that I am better off speaking to individuals alone - there I have a better chance and better effect. But "the public" is worthless.

    I'm no bigot, but who will believe that? Furthermore, why would I care to justify my case – as if the audience is worth it! Few people are worth it, are worth anything, are worthy of life and living...everyone else is simply existing for the sake of existing. They are beneath life.
  9. train The Wildcard!!!...

    Duke - are you existing for the sake of existing?...

    and if not - how do you know otherwise?...
  10. DÛke Memento Mori


    Because there is one thing in my life for which I am willing to commit the most horrific crimes if needed, and to which I am willing to readily give my life - without question or doubt.

    And because I have few goals - well, one really important goal - which, if accomplished, I would die happy, perhaps even commit suicide after it is accomplished.

    I am not existing for the sake of existing - I am existing for the sake of being alive and accomplishing what I must accomplish - after that, I am done with this world.

    EDIT: Oops - I didn't mean to write this post, in response to train. If someone has questions, I will only answer them if they come in a private message or through an email; other than that, I am honestly through answering to the general public.
  11. Academy Man New Member

    So, you are saying somehow, peoples differences have to be preserved? What does that have to do with gay marriage. I couldn't find any justifications for your views in your post, could you please post more clearly and compactly.
  12. DÛke Memento Mori


    Oh, no...the "please post clearly" problem. Well, Academy Man, if you couldn't find any justification in there, then I can't help you: it's loaded with justifications. Additionally, I don't do the "compact" thing for the very reason that I don't want to be read and understood by idiots - but anyone with an ape's level of intelligence (really, that's all I require), will understand what I have to say. And if you can't understand, then you're not meant to understand - I write that way for a good reason. And don't even tell me no one can understand me, at least in the CPA - all I have to do is give Mr. Dune Echo a call, amongst few others.

    Comments, questions, curiosities - you have my private message. This will be the last public message I will post regarding this issue...
  13. Reverend Love New Member

    Woo Hoo!

    The Governator is cracking down on San Fran's mayor Gavin Newsom...who just like Bush is in my opinion playing to his political base. Then the California Supreme court ixnays Governators attempt to nullify the marriages....federal court system here we come!
  14. Academy Man New Member

    I get it, I'm not enlightened enough to understand you , Duke, I guess I should just drop out of school, since I'm too dumb.
  15. train The Wildcard!!!...

    Believe it or not - this will pass through the Supreme court system - and every local courthouse will have marriage licenses requested...

    "Give me a couple months honey - we'll be rich! Time to go get my jp/preaching license, and marry some people!"
  16. Senori Custom User Title

    You previously went off on a rant claiming that homosexuals are not people, without backing up your claim in any logical way whatsoever.
    Usually, one would define "man" as one of the species Homo sapiens, which as I recall is latin for "Man, the wise." Now, you may have a different definition, but I can assure you that most homosexuals can be classed under that species of mammals.

    Now, you go off on another unsubstantiated rant claiming that man needs to preserve segregation and whatnot, because equality will somehow destroy man. I see absolutely no truth in this. If anything, war and segregation are more likely to destroy humanity than enforced peace.

    On topic: I believe that this San Francisco thing is a good thing, however, It isn't legal, thus I can't really say it's a good thing... hrm...
  17. Spiderman CPA Man in Tights, Dopey Administrative Assistant

    Does something have to be "legal" to be a good/bad thing?
  18. DÛke Memento Mori


    Beyond the homosexuality issue, which I'm done with...I have a comment, strictly, strictly, strictly for Senori...
    How would you know that war and segregation are more likely to harm humanity and not rather preserve? It is almost impossible to know of your hypothetical situation if only because it is the case - we are moving towards your world of enforced peace, in which minds are leveled, even degraded, oppressed, so that the world of false equality is formed - you think that has no psychological consequences? And, I'm not only speaking about those who are too great to be called "equals," but I'm talking about the heaps of trash and accidents who simply happen to exist - you think there is no effect on them, when they are given liberty? when they are heightened so that they may appear as equals? You think they are not harmed in the process? That, plus, still...I haven't said anything about how immoral it is to equalize two unequal humans, and call such an act "civilized." You'd think that if we are civilized, we wouldn't need that equality, or laws, or rights, for that matter! But the blinding truth is - we are not civilized. But then...if that's the truth, if we are not all civilized, not all equal as such, what a dangerous oppression your "enforced peace" seems to me! And is it not really as dangerous as I speak? Well, we wouldn't know what any other possible world is like - we can only dream and theorize. The reality of the matter is that enforced peace is not working - and even when it appears to be working (i.e., world peace finally established), it doesn't at all mean that it is working, and on some level it is always smashing the consciousness of humanity again and again to a wall - I promise you with doubtless certainty that the coming of world peace is the beginning of the end.

    I have no proof, you say, but I have my word. My existence is the proof. Can you come to me with the exact certainty and tell me that your world of false peace and oppressed consciousness is honestly not the end? If you can, with wholeheartedness and sincerity, tell me that you know better, then I will take you for your word - not agree to disagree, but take your word for it. If you can't - then don't tell me what I know - because I know...
  19. Senori Custom User Title

    Well, I honestly believe that equality will not cause the end of the world.

    Equality would not be psychologically leveling all people to the same level of intelligence, as you seem to think. The equality would be giving everyone equal rights.
    True equality is an unattainable dream, anyway. The more intelligent will end up on top, while the trailer park trash will stay on the bottom.
  20. DÛke Memento Mori


    I'll take it that you're looking at this from a very superficial, quick point of view - "compact" point of view, to be exact. And it's quite funny when you said:
    Stay on the bottom? Are...you...sure...about that? And of course, the majority decides what "intelligence" is...equal rights, you know? One wonders why we have equal rights when it is easily agreed that we are not equal...but this is not a game to play here, not in the United States, probably not in this world. It's too late. Look closer. Slaves and talentless trash already rules this world....

Share This Page