General Music Chat

I still don't understand why anyone would care. It's just sex. We all do it.

There are many laws governing the behavior of sex because it certainly can be destructive to a society to allow an "anything goes" attitude.

What if I was born with a genetic disposition of a rapist? Why should society have any problem with it since animals rape each other all the time?

How about multiple wives? If I have AIDS, but hate wearing condoms, why is it not my "right" to have sex with as many people as possible before it kills me?

Yes, I realize that I'm using extreme examples to make a point, but that point is that there are laws governing sexual behavior for the very purpose of protecting society.

Do you know upwards of 90% of serial murderers in modern American history was either homosexual or bisexual? Why is that bit of trivia never mentioned in the public record? Well, understandably it could cause a backlash by association, but no other behavior seems to have such protected status.

Jimmy....I can't figure out what question it was you'd like me to address. Would you mind repeating it?

Sure, it was on page 6. Sorry to everyone else for the repeat:

Marriage was invented a long time ago because humans are naturally predisposed to non-monogamy. Our closest living relative the chimpanzee is also non-monogamous; there may be an evolutionary advantage to it. The problem is that when a man "took" another man's woman there was often bloodshed. So to keep the peace marriage was invented, which basically meant a man could "own" a woman exclusively. This reduced some of the violence and led to the establishment of other laws. In addition to marriage being a legal arrangement, it was enforced by religion, which said marriage was sanctioned by God. So yes, marriage was originally intended as a legal union of a man and a woman, however like all things it is evolving as our attitudes change. We must allow any two people who are of the age of consent to join in marriage and receive the same benefits as anyone. To fail to do so goes against what this country stands for - freedom.

Ted, in no way do I believe you are anything but a straight heterosexual, but some of the things you believe are just crazy!.. JCP has more of a grip on the problems with gay men.. I believe his theory about it's a brain problem having to do with not being able to mature into an adult mind or something along those lines.. Peter Pan principle or something.. thin and no musculature generally..

That might explain some of them but by no means is that stereotype accurate in most of them.

The music business, the film industry, fashion, even restaurant business is filled with brilliant people who are not suffering any brain problems. They are simply given over to sin and find this pleasurable. Sin is pleasurable for a season but then the piper comes calling....

Being able to visit their loved on in the hospital when it is 'relatives only'.
Coverage on their partner's health insurance.
Joint tax returns.
Able to make decisions for their 'next of kin'.

All of those situations are solved by civil unions. So, again, why the need to mock the institution of marriage? I'll tell you.

It's the sin that people refuse to see in themselves. Envy.



Jimmy, marriage is given mainly for continuing the human species in a family unit. It is a way of protecting the weaker vessel (females) and honoring the selfless sacrifice of a (good) mother and a (good) father. Do I need to prove why being raised by a (good) mother and father is the best possible scenario for a child?

Why does that need to be mocked when any other benefits of marriage are already available?

Why bother?

Sure, it was on page 6. Sorry to everyone else for the repeat:

Marriage was invented a long time ago because humans are naturally predisposed to non-monogamy. Our closest living relative the chimpanzee is also non-monogamous; there may be an evolutionary advantage to it. The problem is that when a man "took" another man's woman there was often bloodshed. So to keep the peace marriage was invented, which basically meant a man could "own" a woman exclusively. This reduced some of the violence and led to the establishment of other laws. In addition to marriage being a legal arrangement, it was enforced by religion, which said marriage was sanctioned by God. So yes, marriage was originally intended as a legal union of a man and a woman, however like all things it is evolving as our attitudes change. We must allow any two people who are of the age of consent to join in marriage and receive the same benefits as anyone. To fail to do so goes against what this country stands for - freedom.

well that certainly has a lot of anthropological holes in it.

if marriage evolution was a matter of pragmatism as you say,
there would dozens of countries with marriage contracts for homosexuals going back through the millennium, seeing hows historically Judaism and Christianity makes up such a small part in human evolution.
how come the gays in civilization haven't got laws to protect their chattels?
if they got laws to protect their whores?


naaa way too simple.

I think the posts are drifting off-topic.. gays are here with us in this world, and God must have had a reason inventing them..I have nothing against them at all.. I used to see sows humping other sows all the time back on the hog farm.. even animals partake in homosexuality..it can not be explained, only theorized..

I think the posts are drifting off-topic.. gays are here with us in this world, and God must have had a reason inventing them..I have nothing against them at all.. I used to see sows humping other sows all the time back on the hog farm.. even animals partake in homosexuality..it can not be explained, only theorized..

I heard an old rabbi say once
that if you accept your chosen status, you must accept that God also chose Hitler for the role he played.




Isaiah 45:7


I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.

who is Henry Rollins?

I think the posts are drifting off-topic.. gays are here with us in this world, and God must have had a reason inventing them..I have nothing against them at all.. I used to see sows humping other sows all the time back on the hog farm.. even animals partake in homosexuality..it can not be explained, only theorized..

And we've all seen dogs that will hump your leg if you stand still.


Sex is one of the basest emotional drives of all beings. It's as strong as hunger or anger. Only love is stronger, but that requires sacrifice so it's the hardest emotion to produce in others.

who is Henry Rollins?

that's what I want to know

who is Henry Rollins?
and why doesn't he answer the phone?

Ted, in no way do I believe you are anything but a straight heterosexual, but some of the things you believe are just crazy!.. JCP has more of a grip on the problems with gay men.. I believe his theory about it's a brain problem having to do with not being able to mature into an adult mind or something along those lines.. Peter Pan principle or something.. thin and no musculature generally..

That might explain some of them but by no means is that stereotype accurate in most of them.

The music business, the film industry, fashion, even restaurant business is filled with brilliant people who are not suffering any brain problems. They are simply given over to sin and find this pleasurable. Sin is pleasurable for a season but then the piper comes calling....

Being able to visit their loved on in the hospital when it is 'relatives only'.
Coverage on their partner's health insurance.
Joint tax returns.
Able to make decisions for their 'next of kin'.

All of those situations are solved by civil unions. So, again, why the need to mock the institution of marriage? I'll tell you.

It's the sin that people refuse to see in themselves. Envy.



Jimmy, marriage is given mainly for continuing the human species in a family unit. It is a way of protecting the weaker vessel (females) and honoring the selfless sacrifice of a (good) mother and a (good) father. Do I need to prove why being raised by a (good) mother and father is the best possible scenario for a child?

Why does that need to be mocked when any other benefits of marriage are already available?

Ted...the ONLY reason the state sanctifies and enforces marriage is STRICTLY to avoid liability for unwanted offspring and homeless women and men. It is a form of population control and accountability.

The moral implication of 'marriage', as sanctified by God, is two fold (according to Christian dogma)
1) It was declared a heirarchy by Christ, such that despite man's laws, a husband and wife had full authority over each other, (body and mind).
2) It unified the temple of God. Two become one and beget another.

In heaven there is no marriage. (There is no need for it) On earth, there is the need for it (for obvious reasons as stated by others).

Whatever perpetuates and advances the security and well being of mortal couples in the secular world, is governed by the state and does not assure refuge in any other domain. If you comply with state laws, you have refuge with that state.

Likewise, whatever perpetuates and advances the security and well being of mortal couples in the spiritual domain, is governed by that spirit and it does not assure refuge in any other domain. If you comply with the spirit, you have refuge in that spiritual domain.

If gays choose to be united under the state, they should have all the rights afforded to them accordingly. But, they should understand that such a union is not sanctified by the spirit in the spiritual domain...

In either case. YOu aand I are never to judge them, nor dismiss their needs as human beings, with respect to civil rights by the state

In either case. YOu aand I are never to judge them, nor dismiss their needs as human beings, with respect to civil rights by the state

I agree, however civil unions do that. Henry Rollins is a misfit.

Marriage has been defined by almost every society in history as one man and one woman.

Why does that definition need to change when civil unions are an equal-rights equivalent for people who don't fit the natural and historic definition? Again the answer is envy. Why should we make laws to establish a protected status for envy?

We all have wished we were able to do something that wasn't natural or possible for us. For example, I wish basketball goals were 5 feet high instead of 10 so I could play professionally against tall guys who are more naturally suited for the higher goals. It's not fair! I don't want to conform to the rules established since the beginning...I want them changed to accomodate my envy of tall people. Why do they discriminate against me?

Obviously the real question is "why can't I just accept that professional basketball is for tall people". I have the freedom to go start a different league for short people, but no, the NBA is discriminating against a recognized minority that was born short!

.

Ted...the ONLY reason the state sanctifies and enforces marriage is STRICTLY to avoid liability for unwanted offspring and homeless women and men. It is a form of population control and accountability.

The moral implication of 'marriage', as sanctified by God, is two fold (according to Christian dogma)
1) It was declared a heirarchy by Christ, such that despite man's laws, a husband and wife had full authority over each other, (body and mind).
2) It unified the temple of God. Two become one and beget another.

In heaven there is no marriage. (There is no need for it) On earth, there is the need for it (for obvious reasons as stated by others).

Whatever perpetuates and advances the security and well being of mortal couples in the secular world, is governed by the state and does not assure refuge in any other domain. If you comply with state laws, you have refuge with that state.

Likewise, whatever perpetuates and advances the security and well being of mortal couples in the spiritual domain, is governed by that spirit and it does not assure refuge in any other domain. If you comply with the spirit, you have refuge in that spiritual domain.

If gays choose to be united under the state, they should have all the rights afforded to them accordingly. But, they should understand that such a union is not sanctified by the spirit in the spiritual domain...

In either case. YOu aand I are never to judge them, nor dismiss their needs as human beings, with respect to civil rights by the state

A very concise and well stated argument,
but;
The state should not sanction any behavior or state of living that it dose not wish promoted, no matter how sympathetic one might feel for the participants.
if you give a place of exception, then a culture will grow and promote it self.
the reason we don't legalize drugs.

it can happen, that these cultures displace those that are healthy for the state.
and the state will fall into decline, or further into decline.
it is impossible to predict the outcome of such changes to the natural and spiritual order.
wealthy cultures are already vulnerable to decline as they are naturally prone to stagnation.
Japan being a prime example.
it is already forecast that Japan will not be able to revers it's decent into extinction, due to basically zero population growth.
that descent will be marked by an aging population that will not have the resources to care for it elf with importing people to care for them .

keep promoting sterilization, homosexuality and abortion and start learning Spanish and Arabic.
(Because those cultures will not be practicing that.)
cause you will need to communicate with your new masters.

Mark... Go back and read your posts. Once again you have reverted to pure name calling as a "METHOD" to disrupt an honest argument and point of view. You went after Slacker, Dog and Ted. I didn't write this... YOU DID!

glen, i admire your loyalty for sticking up for those who share your views. and your consistency in passively/aggressively attacking those who do not... even if it does comes off as hypocritical and one sided. (it does)

may i suggest you simply scroll up two posts above mine and you can see what prompted my response (or as you insist on referring to it....my "name calling" of slacker)

interesting that you missed (as usual) his shot across the bow and instead you choose to call ME out. this is common pet "tactic" or "METHOD" of your's that you never grow tired of.

here....in case you don't want to do the leg work.....

Generally I wouldn't address such ignorance as yours,

and my response to it....

and still more bullshit from you. "addressing"???...that's ALL you do.

so, somehow you MISSED the name calling that provoked mine? really?


now, please explain where you think i "attacked" grant and yod.

in fact if you reread carefully you'll see i actually agreed w a large point that grant made. conversation w yod was just that. no name calling from either of us.

i understand this is a new diversionary tactic... a "METHOD" of yours but really....no one's buying it and you're better than that.

What? Are you a homosexual?

and what if i was? do you believe that you have to be a homosexual to stick up for homosexuals? do you have to a black to stick up for blacks?

I believe you should stop attacking people in the way you are good at.

thanks for the oft repeated backhanded compliment. now, see above glen. and in the future i'll have more respect for you if you level that same advice at others (from your team) who consistently do the same, yet never get a slap on the hand from you.

as for me being good at it..i learned it from the best...YOU! at least you've given up the attack dog tactic of calling those who disagree w you traitors and america haters.

I thought we had reached some sort of detente... I guess you just wish to go on cursing out people that speak their thoughts.

and that was my take too(detente)

i hope you take this in the way i intend it. you need to stow this BS. we both know that the views i expressed above re. gay marriage....whether you and others agree w them or not, are certainly more than just "cursing out people". for you to dismiss it as nothing more than an "attack" and as "an attempt to disrupt an honest conversation" is bogus and does little for your credibility.

That is shallow. Now I feel sorry for you. I am also wise enough to realize the truth.

no glen, you dismissing what i had to SAY ON THE SUBJECT w this cheap and weak tactic of yours (what... to keep your "opponent" off balance???) is the only thing that's "shallow" (and transparent) here.

please go back and read the substantive points i tried to make above. then tell me that was nothing more than "name calling".

ok, this is the last time i'll spend addressing this silliness of your's.

ted, grant....i look forward to continuing this and other civilized conversation w you.

slacker......as long as you continue w the snarky commments i trust you know you can expect them returned your way. (as it has been. as it is. as it will be)

we can both handle it..even it does rankle glen's delicate sensibilities (when I do it...i'm sure you will continue to get a pass)

Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha. Actually Mark I do appreciate your point of view. You have been a motivational force for civil discussion. You have taught me the value of not allowing any emotional response in an open discourse. I have become so good at it that, That one NY STATE senator is actually stepping down after repeatedly being civil and persistent over his illegal imposition of our new SAFE act here.
Mark I think you are a good guy, great musician, and you are absolutely right... GUYS BE CAREFUL OF THE PERSONAL ATTACKS... It doesn't do anything.

As far as the topic: I don't have any problem with same sex couples... I am the last person to deny them FREEDOM of CHOICE. So be it under the law of man they should be treated equally... If the word marriage is so important... then so be it. What is sad is that if they expect the same blessing from God... That requires an answer from a much different authority.

Thanks for your intelligent input Mark.

right on glen. but i'm confused.....in your previous post you state:

Mark... Go back and read your posts. Once again you have reverted to pure name calling as a "METHOD" to disrupt an honest argument and point of view. You went after Slacker, Dog and Ted. I didn't write this... YOU DID!

and here, this:

Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha. Actually Mark I do appreciate your point of view. You have been a motivational force for civil discussion.

so....which is it?

am i being "a motivational force for civil discussion" or am i "disrupting an honest argument" w "name calling"?

As far as the topic: I don't have any problem with same sex couples... I am the last person to deny them FREEDOM of CHOICE. So be it under the law of man they should be treated equally... If the word marriage is so important... then so be it.

right on. spoken like a true champion of freedom and people's rights.

What is sad is that if they expect the same blessing from God... That requires an answer from a much different authority.

well, i suspect some do, and others don't....same as among heteros. i think it also comes down to one's faith and beliefs. none of us really KNOW what god wants or frowns upon. (or if he even exists...but that's another consversation for another day)....so it all comes down to interpretation... what we THINK god accepts and doesn't. anyhow, that's how I see it.

thanks for the compliments (the check will be in the mail) and the "clarification".