Sorry, but I agree with the Oklahoma guy banning the bikini girls. Public drooling over women as objects of lust is not appropriate. I can understand why the authors of the video would like drawings of women with perfect figures, but, it humiliates the 99.99% of us who do not have perfect figures.
@tjttzcspplt "Public drooling over women as objects of lust is not appropriate." According to whom? The women themselves do it voluntarily for fun an profit, the fans like it, its good for the economy and who does it harm? If you don't like it, don't watch it. There are lots of things that people consider "inappropriate", I personally hate it when people buy trucks and never haul anything...but you know what? That is their choice. I don't like it, so I don't do it.
@kev3d Excuse me, if it's a mural in a public place, what choice do I, or my little boys, who I am trying to raise as human beings, rather than animals in heat, have but to look at that juvenile crap. Men have no self control. I don't walk around dressed like that. This type of stuff ruins society. If you get to have that fsmut up, I reserve the right to have you castrated if you cross the line. Now, how about that?
@tjttzcspplt Well first of all, your boys, and you and me and everyone else is an animal. I somehow doubt you reproduced by spores. Secondly, we are not talking about a public mural, we are talking about a private lingerie football game. Men have "no" self control? Generalize much? You don't dress that way....good for you, I'm sure your Rudolph sweater looks great on you. But you are suggesting that somehow, a proud display of sexuality, in private no less, ruins society. Hello Taliban.
@kev3d Oh, like I expect you to say. "I'm so sorry, Madame, you are right", like a real man would. Yes, you assume, because I am not a slut, (or, perhaps, no longer a slut?), that I look frumpy. I am pretty sure you went to my channel to check me out and got the donkey's behind instead. Serves you right. Fact of the matter is, I am 100% correct, and you are a sleaze bag. Wouldn't mind so much, except my poor sons have to share air with the likes of you.
@tjttzcspplt I never said anything about your physique. However you did when you said "I can understand why the authors of the video would like drawings of women with perfect figures, but, it humiliates the 99.99% of us who do not have perfect figures." So you have made your feelings very clear; women with excellent bodies bother you, so everyone else should feel the same way and have things like Lingerie Football banned. Btw, did you poll the other 99.99% of women to see if they agree?
@kev3d Ha!. I said US collectively, as a group. I left myself out of it, which just proves what a porn-addicted pig you are that you fantasize and wonder, in a lustful way, what I look like. Well I have news for you buddy. I am one of those girls. I was exploited by losers like you, and now that I am safely in a marriage with a decent man, I speak out and work to end the oppresion we girls have had against you disgusting, rutting , hogs at a trough. You make me sick.
@tjttzcspplt Oh yeah, you are such a feminist, by telling other women what they cannot do. Here is an idea; how about let adults be adults and whatever consenting adults do is their business....not the mayor's, not the president's, not the city council's.
Your insecurity amazes me. What "oppression" are you working to end exactly? Hooters? Strip clubs where the dancers leave rich and the patrons leave broke? Porn, where women are almost always paid more than men?
@kev3d Don't get me started about those so-called feminists. The originals like Susan B. were the real thing. These ugly, lesbian tom boys hijacked that movement. They don't say a word about those poor women in the Middle East. Couldn't care less. Consenting adults behind closed doors can do what they like. If it affects anyone else, including kids, then it is no longer a private affair. But, that is not what you are defending, is it? You are defending public displays of temptat, to lust.
@tjttzcspplt Well Susan B Anthony never married and was not a christian, so I'm not sure how that fits within your paradigm of what a "real" feminist is.
Anyway, as to what I am defending, I am defending the rights of the organizers of the Lingerie Bowl to hold a match where they please, so long as they pay the necessary fees. But in the broader sense, I'm defending free speech, which includes the bible and porn and free association which includes Nannies and Prostitutes.
@kev3d You need to do more than just a Google search. Susan B. staunchly defended the family and children, and, so did her colleagues-in-arms. She was a Quaker. It makes no difference if she was Christian, or not. YOu make too many assumptions. YOu are shallow. I know of her because her home town is my home town. Nice try, though. Free speech, my behind. Free speech is for political purposes. It is not for porn addicts to push their fetishes on everyone else whether they want it or not
@tjttzcspplt She was BORN a Quaker, she died, as far as the records show, as a Unitarian. Of course her religion means nothing to me, but she clearly didn't follow yours. She was also a prohibitionist and we all know how well that worked out. How am I shallow? Because I treasure a woman's mind AND body?
And lastly, Free Speech is for any purpose, entertainment, religious, political or casual chit chat.
@tjttzcspplt Hmmm, well lets see. Given your distaste for divorce, the shame you associate with masturbation, the fact you are either from or live in Massachusetts....I'm going to go out on a limb and say Roman Catholic.
@kev3d The true faith. Except, I don't consider myself Roman. Eastern rite is where it's at. You forgot respect for family. What a horrible person I must be to you, eh? To hone in on your addiction like that.
@tjttzcspplt Ah, the "true faith" We are so lucky to have so many true faiths.
Anyway, which addiction? I have several; sugar, salt, buying books I don't have room for, photography equipment, calligraphy supplies and yes, sex. Of course its quite juvenile to tell someone they are addicted to something that were are biologically programmed to do. I should get more flak for buying too many Calligraphy nibs.
@kev3d We all have our little vices. Not all vices carry the same weight. An addiction to sugary foods is not the same as obsession with sex. And now you call me juvenile for pointing out the obvious. There is a reason women shouldn't go around flopping their breasts in men's faces. The libido is too strong. This confirms my Faith's teaching that we are fallen, and, can't handle our baser instincts without self discipline. And without it, all heck breaks loose. Timeless truth.
@kev3d Not in public, and, it would still be stupid on her part. Plus, I don't believe a woman, young or old, not off balance somehow would even be tempted to do it. Unless, of course, she were in a committed relationship and they were in private with each other. That is another thing altogether. In any case, I feel guilty about using up all the comment space, here.
@tjttzcspplt Catholic guilt...what a shocker. Such as it is, I know two strippers specifically, who paid for medical and law school respectively and now both work in their fields, debt free. One bought a house at age 25, by herself, and will have it paid, free and clear, by age 32 if I remember. They might be the smartest women I know. In any case, it is stupid in YOUR opinion. That is the whole point.
@kev3d You are so full of shit. Medical School? Med school can cost $300-$500,000 NOT including living costs. Then she bought a house at the same time? Strippers make good money, but not THAT good.
@elvisfan22 Not all medical school costs that much...and the funny thing about loans is that they don't need to be paid back right away. Four years at Harvard Medical, one of the most expensive, runs approximately 280,000. So lets say 300K for medical school and 300K for a house, stretched over 12 years or so comes to $50K per year, and a dancer earning mostly untaxed (undeclared) money can make anywhere between 80 to 100K per year, so if she spends wisely, she can do it.
@kev3d Calligraphy nibs do not result in poorly cared-for children or STD's, cervial or colon cancer. It does not use the other person and leave them an emotional wreck. It harms no one. Not enough calligraphy in the world, anyway.
@tjttzcspplt Oh come off of your high horse. If the pope endorsed condom use decades ago then there would be far less of all those social ills and, as I have always stated, personal responsibility is key. Besides, mosquitoes kill far more people than STDs.
@kev3d Clearly, you are not a medical person. You would realize how bogus that statement is. What is more, who the heck wants a condom? What's the point in even participating? And, that is a very ignorant statement about STD's. Very, very ignorant. You are in deep, fella. The ills of rampant fornication go deeper than physical disease, my friend. You just can't see it.
@tjttzcspplt I want a condom, the women I am with want condoms, that's who. No, it does not feel as good as skin on skin, but its a small sacrifice for being safe. So, again, stop trying to tell everyone else how to live and live your own life.
@kev3d I think you are the one who is insecure. You cannot be satisfied with one woman, assuming you can even attract one, which, if you did, it would not be a very high-caliber one, that's for sure. Dancers make their own bed. But it isn't relagated to just dance halls and porn flicks, is it? (Apparently, you are some sort of expert.) Now, all ages are subject to it. This Halloween, the costume shop had a Jon Benet-aged "French Maid " costume, complete with pout and gobs of makeup.
@tjttzcspplt So don't buy the Jon Benet dress then. Every generation thinks their own was relatively innocent but "today's kids...I don't know..." Today it is the internet and TV, before that it was Penthouse, Before that it was Playboy, before that it was cheesecake photos before that it was Victorian fears that sex was unhealthy, masturbation caused blindness (it doesn't, your grandmother was wrong) and that female orgasms caused mental problems.
@kev3d Not like this, it hasn't. It is way over the top. The weirder it is, the better. For you to even defend a crime like sexually objectifying a young child just shows how far gone you are. Nowadays, it's out and out child molestation. Do you have any idea what that does to a kid? What do you know of ages past? Nothing. And stimulating yourself does cause blindness. Spiritual and psychological blindness. Face it, buddy. You are a hopeless addict.
@tjttzcspplt Defend a crime? I have done nothing of the kind. I have, repeatedly, advocated only voluntarily action between consenting adults when it comes to matters of sex, I have only, ever advocated personal responsibility. That must be the strawman of strawmen. But you, you are all over the map, you claim to be a "true" feminist who doesn't believe in objectifying a woman's body, then you decry the "ugly, lesbian tomboys". Why are women only "ugly" when they disagree with you.
@kev3d You essentially said that making a little girl out to be an object of lust is fine, and that if I have a problem with it, there is something wrong with me. It is a crime to sexualize a young child.. And, that must be your definition of a feminist. A true feminist is not a man hater. It is a person who values a woman for who she is, and supports the fullness of that person. The feminist is a humanist, really. Both genders equally free to be fully who they wish to be.
@tjttzcspplt I have never said anything even remotely close to that assertion either here or anywhere else. Why do you have to lie to make your point?
"A true feminist is not a man hater." Yet you are the one who claimed "Men have no self control"
"Both genders equally free to be fully who they wish to be." Except when they are in the Lingerie Bowl...then it should be banned. You need to decide what you believe before you go around policing everyone else's actions.
@kev3d A fact is a fact. Most men have no self control. My husband admits that this is true. A lingerie bowl. What is the purpse of a lingerie bowl? Are you telling me you appreciate those women for their minds? You are the liar, not me.
@tjttzcspplt A lingerie bowl? The purpose is fun, obviously. I don't watch any sports, but if I did, the purpose would not be for appreciating the player's intellectual capacity. One of my favorite scientists is theoretical physicist Lisa Randall, but listening to her talk fulfills a different part of my brain. (Though she is pretty attractive I admit). With singers, I appreciate their voice, with thinkers, their mind, with lingerie clad models, their bodies and so on.
@kev3d Am I supposed to be impressed that you have a fave scientist? Good grief. If you want to appreciate you "lingerie" clad models, do the decent thing and keep it in your own private little club or room, or house, and, make sure the rest of us don't have to have it shoved down our throats. Otherwise, expect a little static. Well, maybe more than a little. Then again, unlike those other girls, I have self-respect. Maybe they will grow up to realize they are being exploited. One can hope.
@kev3d I just let ABC have it for dirtying up the only family-friendly show on TV, about the young kid fixing his mother's bra. There IS a line that can be crossed, and it was crossed. Push the filth to see how far one can go. They've got patsies like you who neither notice nor care how coarse, crass and kid-unfriendly society has become. Remember, as you lie in the gutter on your dying day, as I'm sure you will, how much you contributed. Maybe then you'll repent. My prophesy for you.
@tjttzcspplt Ah yes, those ABC Disney bastards....How DARE they?! Of course women's breast should never be joked about! Never shown! It causes divorce! Unless of course a baby is hungry. That said, I hardly think actors on a show, about breasts or not, is considered oppression. As for your "prophecy", like strippers, I make my own bed, but I will say this, I can actually say the word "Vagina" without shame, for it is not a shame to be human.
@kev3d That is because you are obsessed with it, tha's why. And, I don't watch a tv program to look at a woman's breasts. It just shows how deep the addiction is. You are not capable of "getting it", apparently, if you can't follow the thread that winds through all of it.
@tjttzcspplt You know what, I must be wrong. You aren't a Roman Catholic, you are a devout Muslim. Muslim women are "free" from men's judgments by wearing veils. Since men have "no self control", women are encouraged (or mandated) to be escorted by male relatives or the husband. Some Muslim countries ban porn, and even cleavage is censored. Divorce rates are much lower (not as low as Hindus, however) and of course, they are deeply spiritual. Clearly, you are not a Roman Catholic after all.
@kev3d The one, and only one thing I respect about Muslims is their recognition of their fallen natures as regards this. It is a fact that women who are unescorted are prone to attack. That is because of their stone age laws against women. They are family-oriented, and, I admire them for that. They, of course, got that from the Catholics, since that religion is a corruption of the Christian Faith to begin with. You'll have to do better than that, if you want to insult me.
@tjttzcspplt Oh, and another thing, since when does dressing in Lingerie, for sports or any other reason make someone a "slut" as you imply? It is not an insult for LeBron James to play Basketball well, it is not offensive for Bill Gates or Steve Jobs to exhibit their genius, it is not humiliating for a Meryl Streep to act....thus it follows that it is only natural for those who, for whatever reason, have excellent bodies to entertain people with them, so long as they do it voluntarily.
@kev3d When it is done in public. That's when. LeBron James playing baseball, and Bill Gates are not analogies. Their activities don't bring inadvertent hard ons and fantasies that result in rape, fornication, divorce,
unfathered babies and the like. Having that crap hanging in the locker room does nothing to warm me up to those creeps. As public figures, they have a responsibility to keep their activities, for which they are paid well, G-rated. Like it or lump it.
@tjttzcspplt Does it ever get hot under your burka? I am mystified how a private sports match is somehow "public". I further do not understand how you can group together "hard-ons" with divorce, or with rape or with "unfathered babies" (I'm not sure what an "unfathered" baby is, unless you are talking about Jesus.)
The first is a biological necessity, the second the termination of a contract, the third, a horrific crime and the fourth, an impossibility.
@kev3d I shouldn't take the bait of your blasphemy, but, Jesus did have a father. If you don't get the connection between encouraging lust and those social ills, you need to remind yourself of what your grandmother said about you-know-what causing blindness. It's true. They had wisdom, back then. My husband was an unfathered baby. You know what I mean. I didn't mean a sperm-donor absent baby. I meant father-absent. Nice dodge, but what it is, it is. Whether you admit to it, or not.
@tjttzcspplt So you don't mean Parthenogenesis, okay. Such as it is, it takes two to tango, and if the man is not the type to stick around, perhaps the woman should not sleep with him in the first place or use protection. Responsibility cuts both ways.
@kev3d Girls are psychologically coerced into it. Often, they are taken the first time by an older, more street savvy guy. Then it's all down hill from there. Often, they are molested frequently as young girls, as I was.
@kev3d You are in denial, of course, but, try to follow along. From babyhood, a girl is taught that her worth is in her looks. She is sexualized and evaluated on that basis, and that basis alone. Unless she has been raised with a strong, male, protective influence, minus the cultural pressures of only being as good as she is desirable, she is a sitting duck for any guy that can bring her self-esteem, which is based on her "putting out". Molestation is part of this general environment.
@tjttzcspplt The proper raising of children is the parent's responsibility, it has nothing to do with a Lingerie Bowl or humorously adjusting bras on TV (seriously...that was your gripe? What is this, 1950?)
@kev3d Like I said. You are in denial. And, if this crap is all over the TV, billboards. internet, schools, checkout counters, etc, etc, ad infinitum, then, your argument is empty. A parent cannot insulate their children from an all pervading porn free-for-all. It is impossible. It shows how much thought you put into these things. The comment by the kid in the show turned my stomach. Innuendo here. Innuendo there. Next season, one step more. Please.
@tjttzcspplt And who forces you to watch TV? For some reason, people think they have the right to not be offended or that companies need to respond to them, and them alone. Believe it or not, children actually have a brain and they can assimilate all sorts of things. Children raised in war zones (which I would wager is far more dangerous than the occasional breast or ass) can grow up to be healthy, productive adults with parental care. So spare me the "for the children" routine.
@kev3d Why should I not be able to watch? Nobody said you couldn't have your sleazy channels. The TV is dominated by two or three huge congolomerates that control everything. Okay, so there's one or two kooky local televangelist channels full of cheesy Protestant blather. How about the old days when our parents could at least let the kids watch in the mornings, including Saturday, and in the eves. from 8-9 and not worry? Now, the sleaze runs all day. I've even seen a scene where a girl was...
@kev3d ...being raped at 11am on a Saturday. Why? What purpose does it serve? Don't give me that "you can turn it off, crap". Why should I have to fold up and die because your kind wants to be tintillated all day long. You can't even wait until 9pm, or buy your own channel, like we who try to stick to family programs have to. What's so special about your kind?
@tjttzcspplt Oh gee...yes, clearly you have no choice in the matter...except for Disney, Discovery, Animal Planet, The Learning Channel, Home and Garden, Nickelodeon, The Family Channel, PAX, Food Network, The Hub and TVLand. There are only 24 hours in a day; how many channels do you need? You know why I tell you "you can turn it off"...because you can. Heaven forbid kids play with chemistry sets, climb on jungle gyms, build forts and play games outside. A television isn't a parent.
@kev3d Hello, those cost money. Plus, I can't just support the good channels. I have to buy the whole package, which includes the crap. What, I'm going to get a lecture on how to raise kids from the likes of you? Spare me.
@tjttzcspplt Those cost money? No Shit...so does web access...you seem to afford your internet a-okay. (Jungle Gyms are usually free, by the way) And, guess what! You can ACTUALLY PROGRAM YOUR TELEVISION REMOTE to skip over any channels you don't like. You can even buy locking devices that block out certain channels or programs. Its a hell of a lot more effective than writing angry letters that no one will read.
@kev3d You didn't answer my question. Why should I have to purchase the product I want and circumnavigate around the filth, and not the other way around? Huh? I want to know, why. It should be YOU circumnavigating your way around the decent programming in the interest of polite society. What a world it would be, huh?
@tjttzcspplt Neither way is absolutely true. I have to deal with the bibles in the hotel rooms, the religious programming on tv, the knocks on my door, all religious holidays and all the rest, and you know what? That's fine. So you feel you have to avoid tits on occasion, big deal, welcome to real life. I have to buy the stuff I want too. The world is not a magical wish granting machine that gives us what we want, we have to work for it and there are bumps along the way. What a concept.
@kev3d You still didn't answer my question. Why shouldn't the default position be G-rated? That way, no one is harmed. Big people like you and me can find our stuff. It sounds very reasonable to me, and very easy. To do otherwise is self-centered and crass. Why not do the right thing instead of the wrong? Well, I know why, and it confirms me in my Faith. I just resent the attitude.
@tjttzcspplt Because the world is not G-rated...its mixed, all the time, virtually everywhere. Besides, you are looking at the few exceptions rather than the rule. Drive down any street and, in almost every case, you'll see Target and Walmart and McDonalds and Sony and Apple and all the rest, all very vanilla and neutral. Occasionally you'll see a billboard with cleavage...tough shit. Your kids will be fine.
@kev3d Plus, I see you did not refute the fact that a girl is raised to be an object of lust for a man. You know it to be the case. Most girls, these days, don't have a stable father who gives enough of a hoot, these days to raise a man. YOu feel no responsibility, at large, for promoting this, do you? Couldn't care less, as long as you get yours. Well, I do care about my little sisters.
@tjttzcspplt What girls are raised to be "an object of lust" for men? Again, that responsibility is on the parents and further I have never met a parent who even remotely suggested it. "Most girls, these days, don't have a stable father who gives enough of a hoot, these days to raise a man." That sentence doesn't make any sense, and even if it did, where is the study showing this is the case? Of course women today have far more opportunities than ever.
@kev3d Ask the next ten random girls under 20 you see on the street and ask them. My occupation puts me in contact with many, many people from all walks of life. There are studies out there, but, I don't need a study to tell me what I see every day.
I went to San Fran this year for the first time- what a crap hole. All the bureaucracy in the world is no replacement for hard working citizens with self interest in mind.
(Chinatown and the innermost financial district were pretty nice though... may have something to do with being tourist locations)
As long as we let them have their way with us, intruding into every facet and dynamic of human existence, they will keep sucking parasitically from us until there is nothing left but a huge IOU and whatever residual protections from persecution your particular Identity Group has gouged out for itself.
Bottled water is not regulated. Who knows what's inside the (plastic, already a swirling muck at the bottom of the ocean) bottle? At least with tap water you are entitled to a water report so you know what's in there.
How long has the water been in there.. leeching plasticines into pristine water. Mmm.. estrogen. It's an ecological nightmare. I know I want my city spending my tax $ on bottled water!
It takes oil to get here. So, we all know who buying bottled water makes happy.
@nghtrsnl there is a reason why the Bush family and T. Boon Pickens are buying water rights all over the country and the rest of the world. Water is the new oil. People who do not have access to clean water are dying of disease and dehydration while Coca Cola is bottling up the good water in their backyard and selling it to us for 3.00 a bottle when we have perfectly good tap waer here at home.
Just when I think the SF insanity couldn't get any worse, the politicians come to work the next day and prove me wrong. SF is a nice city and I love to visit, but it is governed by a bunch of people who seem to have some sort of psychological illness.
Hah. I thought it was a reference to an old Academy Awards show (I think from the 1970s) where a streaker really did run across the stage. But yeah, I think you're right. It was a clever way of making a statement. Good for Reason TV.
@Chibiwaza Well, really SF is a very nice city, but it is strongly governed, so if your main goal is freedom from government, then SF is not the city for you. Other the other hand you are far more free openly be your self, be gay, Hippie, like to dress oddly, of a different race then the major, ect. where as many other places in the county you could be been and the cops would do nothing to help. It is all a question of what is free. If I want to live in a city where movie poster are ban, cant I?
@Loathomar Thats what makes America great, you can choose to live were your state or city has taken away all your rights, ..or somewhere else were the feds did...
@FFarmerCharlie LOL, true. But I care a lot less if cities regulate, hopeful cause the people want it, then the feds. It is generally easy to move cities, but leaving the county is hard.
@Loathomar Strongly governed? Give me a break! Any city that encourages bums to pee against buildings in the financial district is not strongly governed--it's run by socialist utopian aging hippie idiots. This, too, will pass.
And here's a news flash--one can be a different race anywhere in the country and not be targeted. In California, the gay population seems to have a very visible discrimination position against Mormons, though. What's your though about that?
@citizenintime Yes, money coming from out of state to oppress gays... And it is not even all of CA that is participially gay friendly. The prop 8 vote lost with over 75% for NO in SF. Though I fine the whole proposition system in CA to be generally bad, it is either some special interest group or a huge unfunded project. If it where tweaked for finical regulations and all project need to be funded in the same bill it would be reasonable.
@citizenintime I did go to public school and then I got a degree in EE from one of the best schools in the nation thanks. What is your degree in, making moronic pointless statement?
My source? Go there and have a look. Smell the bum stench, but wipe your feet after walking through the yellow puddles. And be sure to avoid the backsplash when the act is in progress.
Are you really suggesting that hatred doesn't breed discrimination? Didn't hatred of blacks breed Jim Crow? Aren't Mormon businesses being targeted by gay activists in CA? It's discrimination, and it's ugly.
@citizenintime Mormon businesses where being targeted by gay activists for a boycott back in 2008. Mormoms where the group that where funding Prop 8 and as almost all Mormom give to the church, giving business to Mormoms was giving to the Yes to Prop 8 fund. The Mormom church was actively working against gays, why should gays not try to defend there rights? Would to say blacks where be have to shop at stores that openly support the KKK? That is not discrimination, it is common sense.
@Loathomar You should end your comments with 'Seig Heil!" I mean, you sound just like them. some Mormon did something you disagree with, so all mormons are evil? Jeez. I guess that we should logically conclude that since you are a dweeb, all homosexuals are dweebs, huh.
@blogegog I have know many Mormon, some of them are friends of mine. The problem is not with Mormom personally, but with the church and it's anti-gay politics. So, if you want to attack the Mormom church's money supply, how do you do it? You have to go after the business who profit will go to the Mormom Church, ei boycott Mormom owned business. I never call any Mormoms evil, nor did I even call the Mormom Church evil, but the Mormom Church is anti gay, so why should gays support them in any way?
@Loathomar You implied that doing business with Mormons is akin to shopping at a store owned by the KKK. That's pretty much the same as calling Mormon's evil. However, if you're now walking back your statement, then kudos to you.
@blogegog And btw I am also not gay, but I find the idea of banning gay marriage to be nothing but hateful discrimination. The government has two choices, either let any to consenting adults get marriage or get out of marriage altogether. I don't care which.
@Loathomar Gay marriage was not banned anymore than marriage between a twig and a olive seed was banned. It's just that neither is considered marriage, because marriage is between a man and woman... or at least it has been for a few thousand years.
If you'd prefer to CHANGE the definition of marriage to be something other than between a man and a woman, why are you stopping at gay stuff? Why not two women and three men? Or a man, a woman, and a dog... who love each other?
@blogegog True, and since marriage, a union betwixt a man and woman, is by the very definition religious, there should be no such thing as a legal "marriage". Everyone should apply for civil unions when they get married that way there is no conflict between government and religion.
@CHUCKLZLORD That is a completely reasonable answer, marriages are done only by religion and the government can change all "marriage" to "civil unions" allowing any two adults to be joined by the state.
@blogegog Well, really, same sex marriage had existed in the early Roman Empire and China. Personally, I don't care if people want multiple marriages, though moving to bestiality is very different. Dogs are not people and their for do not have rights and can not enter into any contract, like marriage.
@Loathomar I'm assuming you know that there were no same sex marriages in Roman times, and that you only mentioned it in the hopes that I didn't know better. I do :(. No, the west is the first to offer such a concept in the history of civilization. I should mention that I'm not against it, though I wouldn't call it marriage. You know, because it's not.
I see now that you are speciest and won't let me marry my dog. Will you be ok with me marrying my grandmother? We promise not to have kids
@blogegog Emperor Nero was married to with one of his male slaves. Emperor Elagabalus married a Carian slave named Hierocles. It was not until 342 AD with the passing of Theodosian Code that prohibited same-sex marriage in Rome. I don't see why you and your grandmother should not be married as long as you are both adults. You can even have kid if you agree that the medical costs will not be on the state for all I care.
I am very much a "speciest", I don't thing animals should be given rights.
@Loathomar Your stories are simply untrue. I doubt I'd be able to convince you though. But everyone else knows that Roman free men were not allowed to marry slaves. Male/male marriage was not banned in Rome. It just wasn't ever considered, much like marriage between a rock and a tree. Or a dog and a cat. It just makes no sense to call it marriage.
I do appreciate you giving me the go ahead to marry my grandma though. She's totally hot :)
@blogegog Try reading "Same Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe." by John Boswell. The idea that free people where not allowed to marry slaves is silly, at any time a slave owner could grant a slave his or her freedom. Making them a citizen of Rome was far more difficult from my understanding. If they where required to become free people to be married, the owner has the forms written up to free them before marring them.
@Loathomar No need, Loath. Boswell's mischaracterization of truth does not interest me. I'm kind of curious why it interests you, but not overtly. You've got this belief of a gay marriage loving Rome, and I don't want to disenfranchise you from it. I'm all for allowing you to continue in your romantic homosexual beliefs, so long as no one else falls prey to the deception.
I'm pretty sure no one else does, so we can both be happy :). Have a great life!
@blogegog I see, you have no disagreement with my statement other then to say that "you don't believe it" and that is a proof that it is false. How said... If you do not believe in evolution, is that not true? How about gravity? Can you not believe in gravity and fly into the sky unaided?
@Loathomar Wait... what? How did you move from gay guys calling themselves married to evolution and gravity? Are these things connected somehow in your world?
@blogegog Where do you get the idea that there were no gay marriages during Roman times? From the founding of the Republic to the end of the Western Empire was just under a thousand years...quite a long time to say there were no same sex marriages. That assumption aside, we have what the Romans themselves told us and men like Suetonius, Cicero and Juvenal all report the relatively common existence of male-male unions, it would appear that such activity did not cause the Empire's collapse.
@kev3d If something as strange as same sex marriage occurred in Rome, there would certainly be books or laws written about it at the time. There weren't. Because it was not legal, or even thought of as a possibility.
Are you suggesting that there was homosexual sex in Roman times? That's not exactly a bombshell, kev. Though I don't follow your logic that 'such activity did not cause the Empire's collapse.' How do you come to that conclusion?
@blogegog If you would look at the sources;Cicero, Suetonius, Juvenal and Cassius Dio, they did write books in reference to Gay Unions. Why does the Theodosian Code in 342AD out the practice? It seems odd to ban something in the Christian era that, by your reckoning, should have already been banned in the Pagan Era. Cicero was both a prolific writer and lawmaker and he causally refers to gay unions as though they were legal and not terribly unusual. Cicero knows better than you.
@blogegog As to the second point; We are told by the ancient writers that (arguably) the Greatest of all Emperors, Trajan, had at least some homosexual tendencies, as were many Pagan Emperors. Under them, the empire generally grew. Under the Christian Emperors, who eventually banned and punished homosexual practices, the Empire was split and was conquered piecemeal. That is not to say homosexuality was the cause of the Empire's success, but it cannot be said that it caused it's decline.
@kev3d Our discussion seems to have devolved. Whether Rome collapsed because of the feminization of Roman men or homosexuality or whatever is too broad of a concept to breach in 500 char snippets on youtube. I am merely making the point that marriage between two people of the same sex was NOT an option in Rome, or any other society until modern times. It's an entirely new concept. That's all I'm saying, and it's quite correct. It's not an idea rooted in history. Deal with it.
@blogegog That is just plain incorrect, again, why does, specifically, Cicero refer to a gay union with the same word for marriage as a heterosexual union? He was a lawmaker, he deeply understood Roman and Greek history and law, we have over 800 documents written by him, yet not a single word of condemnation, not a single hint that a gay union is anything strange or illegal. If you just read the sources, or what the scholars say about the matter, it is very clear.
@kev3d The answer is, "He didn't." Look, I get that you're gay and want to legitimize your feelings for your boyfriend. And frankly, I don't care. Smooch whatever you want to smooch with. Just don't look to Rome for it is all I'm saying. It's historically incorrect to suggest that there were gay marriages in Rome. There weren't. Repeating the falsehood that Cicero said there were won't make it anymore true. Why is this so important to you that you wish to change the history?
@blogegog To Quote Cicero directly; "But very soon Curio stepped in, who carried you (Antonius) off from your public trade, and, as if he had bestowed a matron's robe upon you, settled you in a steady and durable wedlock." Perhaps this is metaphor, but then Martial reports "The bearded Callistratus has been taken in marriage by the lusty Afer (a male)" Cassius Dio says "The husband of this "woman"(the effeminate Emperor Elagabalus) was Hierocles, a Carian (male)slave. To name a few.
@blogegog The Roman period from the Republic to the Fall of the west was nearly 1000 years, at times stretching from England to Egypt, Portugal to Iran, with such a mix of people and customs over time, there were differing opinions on homosexuality and unions. Some were critical of the passive role some men played, others mention gay unions in passing, with no particular slant one way or another. So to say there were no gay unions betrays what the ancients and modern scholars tell us.
@kev3d Yes, yes, it was a very long time. And yet a law allowing a man to marry another man was never codified. In almost a thousand freakin' years. No laws, almost 1,000 years. Not one law. But you keep believing that they were big fans of gay marriage. History disproves it.
If I may put forth a slice of humble pie, why is it important to you that a long failed Roman dictatorship was a big fan of homosexual marriage? I find your desire to be right baffling. But interesting.
@blogegog Most roman laws have disappeared from the record entirely referenced but not directly quoted by other authors. But, again, it seems strange to ban something in 342 if it was already unrecognized. In other words, if people weren't doing it, why ban it? And, as I have pointed out, several authors refer to the practice, with various levels of acceptance or condemnation...but not as it being illegal, which one would think critics, ancient and modern, would be quick to point out.
@blogegog Further, it is critical to report history as accurately as possible. Everything must be taken in the context of the time and, if we are to be scholars, we must set aside our modern cultural, moral, political, religious and even linguistic biases while at the same time recognize the possible biases the ancient authors may have had. What the ancient authors tell us, directly, is that at least some same sex unions existed and were accepted, at least by some, not unlike today.
@blogegog Suetonius, of course, looks disapprovingly upon Nero's own homosexual unions, partly because Nero was taking the passive role, rather than the active role, which was seen as unmanly. But Nero in general is condemned for a variety of reasons...and Suetonius was working for Hadrian at the time, not Nero. Hadrian, while he is not described as being married to a man named Antinous, he was deeply devoted to him, founding a city in his name after drowning in the Nile.
@kev3d ok, so you agree with me. None of these creepy guys were married to each other. Why are we discussing this anymore?
I'm glad we could resolve this silly discussion once and for all, and invite you to fantasize about Cassius, Suetonius et al to your heart's desire. If you keep it in your bedroom, the whole world will be happier. do that for us? Thanks in advance.
@blogegog No, I do not agree with you. I doubt you even know who Cassius or Suetonius even were, let alone what they wrote. Yes, some authors, ancient and modern may have disapproved of certain unions, not unlike today when many disapprove of marriages like Anna Nicole Smith to J. Howard Marshall, such unions may have attracted condemnation, but that does not mean they did not take place. Your "keep it in the bedroom" remark only exposes your homophobia.
@blogegog I am not wrong and you need only look at the several sources that I and others have mentioned. I have pointed out, specifically in some cases, where my assertion is true, based on the works of the ancient authors themselves. You have not refuted anything, you simply state that it is not true with no supporting evidence and that's that. It is clear that you want a monopoly on the word "marriage" (ignoring the wide range of marriages throughout history) and keep it "traditional".
@kev3d Nah, I don't really care about marriage, gay or otherwise. As I've said previously, you can do whatever gay stuff you like to with whomever agrees to do them with you. It's no skin off of my back.
I do care about history though. So when I see you continually trying to change Roman hstry, it does tend to get on my nerves. But your attempt to rewrite history has failed, at least on this comment thread. Everyone here knows that there were no gay marriages in Rome. Have a great life!
@blogegog And yet you are at a loss to explain the quotes from the ancient authors themselves and what scholars have said. "Everyone here knows that there were no gay marriages in Rome."
You see, again, this is another blatant assumption, two assumptions actually. Even if we ignore ALL the ancient writers who mention same sex unions, how can someone state that over the course of a thousand years that it never happened, especially considering "marriage" has lots of meanings over time.
@kev3d Not agreeing or disagreeing with your point, but the Roman empire collapsed, and we know there was a lot of male-male action going on... so, for you to say it definitely wasn't a cause means that you are ignoring possibilities. Correlation doesn't always equal causation, but sometimes it does.
@BillySmooth55 Christians had pretty well taken over the Roman Empire around 300 AD and with that, Homosexual activity would be outlawed as well as same sex marriage. So if there was any causation/correlation it would be that Christianity caused the collapse, since Alaric I who sacked Rome in 410 and Odoacer in 476, were both Christians. Its far more complex than that, but the fact remains that when homosexuality was very prevalent in Rome, for whatever reason, Rome was strong.
@citizenintime It's possible to hate people without trying to get the government to punish them. So once again give me a source about how the gays are targeting them.
Simply amazing!
felpaluche 3 months ago
I enjoyed Your video
freesites1 8 months ago
It's the Coalition, against Coalitions....
meandale 1 year ago
Any guys like to see my Strip Videos.
Lana4Sex 1 year ago
Sorry, but I agree with the Oklahoma guy banning the bikini girls. Public drooling over women as objects of lust is not appropriate. I can understand why the authors of the video would like drawings of women with perfect figures, but, it humiliates the 99.99% of us who do not have perfect figures.
tjttzcspplt 1 year ago
@tjttzcspplt "Public drooling over women as objects of lust is not appropriate." According to whom? The women themselves do it voluntarily for fun an profit, the fans like it, its good for the economy and who does it harm? If you don't like it, don't watch it. There are lots of things that people consider "inappropriate", I personally hate it when people buy trucks and never haul anything...but you know what? That is their choice. I don't like it, so I don't do it.
kev3d 1 year ago
@kev3d Excuse me, if it's a mural in a public place, what choice do I, or my little boys, who I am trying to raise as human beings, rather than animals in heat, have but to look at that juvenile crap. Men have no self control. I don't walk around dressed like that. This type of stuff ruins society. If you get to have that fsmut up, I reserve the right to have you castrated if you cross the line. Now, how about that?
tjttzcspplt 1 year ago
@tjttzcspplt Well first of all, your boys, and you and me and everyone else is an animal. I somehow doubt you reproduced by spores. Secondly, we are not talking about a public mural, we are talking about a private lingerie football game. Men have "no" self control? Generalize much? You don't dress that way....good for you, I'm sure your Rudolph sweater looks great on you. But you are suggesting that somehow, a proud display of sexuality, in private no less, ruins society. Hello Taliban.
kev3d 1 year ago
@kev3d Oh, like I expect you to say. "I'm so sorry, Madame, you are right", like a real man would. Yes, you assume, because I am not a slut, (or, perhaps, no longer a slut?), that I look frumpy. I am pretty sure you went to my channel to check me out and got the donkey's behind instead. Serves you right. Fact of the matter is, I am 100% correct, and you are a sleaze bag. Wouldn't mind so much, except my poor sons have to share air with the likes of you.
tjttzcspplt 1 year ago
@tjttzcspplt I never said anything about your physique. However you did when you said "I can understand why the authors of the video would like drawings of women with perfect figures, but, it humiliates the 99.99% of us who do not have perfect figures." So you have made your feelings very clear; women with excellent bodies bother you, so everyone else should feel the same way and have things like Lingerie Football banned. Btw, did you poll the other 99.99% of women to see if they agree?
kev3d 1 year ago
@kev3d Ha!. I said US collectively, as a group. I left myself out of it, which just proves what a porn-addicted pig you are that you fantasize and wonder, in a lustful way, what I look like. Well I have news for you buddy. I am one of those girls. I was exploited by losers like you, and now that I am safely in a marriage with a decent man, I speak out and work to end the oppresion we girls have had against you disgusting, rutting , hogs at a trough. You make me sick.
tjttzcspplt 1 year ago
@tjttzcspplt Oh yeah, you are such a feminist, by telling other women what they cannot do. Here is an idea; how about let adults be adults and whatever consenting adults do is their business....not the mayor's, not the president's, not the city council's.
Your insecurity amazes me. What "oppression" are you working to end exactly? Hooters? Strip clubs where the dancers leave rich and the patrons leave broke? Porn, where women are almost always paid more than men?
kev3d 1 year ago
@kev3d Don't get me started about those so-called feminists. The originals like Susan B. were the real thing. These ugly, lesbian tom boys hijacked that movement. They don't say a word about those poor women in the Middle East. Couldn't care less. Consenting adults behind closed doors can do what they like. If it affects anyone else, including kids, then it is no longer a private affair. But, that is not what you are defending, is it? You are defending public displays of temptat, to lust.
tjttzcspplt 1 year ago
@tjttzcspplt Well Susan B Anthony never married and was not a christian, so I'm not sure how that fits within your paradigm of what a "real" feminist is.
Anyway, as to what I am defending, I am defending the rights of the organizers of the Lingerie Bowl to hold a match where they please, so long as they pay the necessary fees. But in the broader sense, I'm defending free speech, which includes the bible and porn and free association which includes Nannies and Prostitutes.
kev3d 1 year ago
@kev3d You need to do more than just a Google search. Susan B. staunchly defended the family and children, and, so did her colleagues-in-arms. She was a Quaker. It makes no difference if she was Christian, or not. YOu make too many assumptions. YOu are shallow. I know of her because her home town is my home town. Nice try, though. Free speech, my behind. Free speech is for political purposes. It is not for porn addicts to push their fetishes on everyone else whether they want it or not
tjttzcspplt 1 year ago
@tjttzcspplt She was BORN a Quaker, she died, as far as the records show, as a Unitarian. Of course her religion means nothing to me, but she clearly didn't follow yours. She was also a prohibitionist and we all know how well that worked out. How am I shallow? Because I treasure a woman's mind AND body?
And lastly, Free Speech is for any purpose, entertainment, religious, political or casual chit chat.
kev3d 1 year ago
@kev3d What is my religion?
tjttzcspplt 1 year ago
@tjttzcspplt Hmmm, well lets see. Given your distaste for divorce, the shame you associate with masturbation, the fact you are either from or live in Massachusetts....I'm going to go out on a limb and say Roman Catholic.
kev3d 1 year ago
@kev3d The true faith. Except, I don't consider myself Roman. Eastern rite is where it's at. You forgot respect for family. What a horrible person I must be to you, eh? To hone in on your addiction like that.
tjttzcspplt 1 year ago
@tjttzcspplt Ah, the "true faith" We are so lucky to have so many true faiths.
Anyway, which addiction? I have several; sugar, salt, buying books I don't have room for, photography equipment, calligraphy supplies and yes, sex. Of course its quite juvenile to tell someone they are addicted to something that were are biologically programmed to do. I should get more flak for buying too many Calligraphy nibs.
kev3d 1 year ago
@kev3d We all have our little vices. Not all vices carry the same weight. An addiction to sugary foods is not the same as obsession with sex. And now you call me juvenile for pointing out the obvious. There is a reason women shouldn't go around flopping their breasts in men's faces. The libido is too strong. This confirms my Faith's teaching that we are fallen, and, can't handle our baser instincts without self discipline. And without it, all heck breaks loose. Timeless truth.
tjttzcspplt 1 year ago
@tjttzcspplt If an adult woman chooses to "flop her breasts" in adult men's (or women's, for that matter) faces, that is between them, isn't it?
kev3d 1 year ago
@kev3d Not in public, and, it would still be stupid on her part. Plus, I don't believe a woman, young or old, not off balance somehow would even be tempted to do it. Unless, of course, she were in a committed relationship and they were in private with each other. That is another thing altogether. In any case, I feel guilty about using up all the comment space, here.
tjttzcspplt 1 year ago
@tjttzcspplt Catholic guilt...what a shocker. Such as it is, I know two strippers specifically, who paid for medical and law school respectively and now both work in their fields, debt free. One bought a house at age 25, by herself, and will have it paid, free and clear, by age 32 if I remember. They might be the smartest women I know. In any case, it is stupid in YOUR opinion. That is the whole point.
kev3d 1 year ago
@kev3d You are so full of shit. Medical School? Med school can cost $300-$500,000 NOT including living costs. Then she bought a house at the same time? Strippers make good money, but not THAT good.
elvisfan22 1 year ago
@elvisfan22 Not all medical school costs that much...and the funny thing about loans is that they don't need to be paid back right away. Four years at Harvard Medical, one of the most expensive, runs approximately 280,000. So lets say 300K for medical school and 300K for a house, stretched over 12 years or so comes to $50K per year, and a dancer earning mostly untaxed (undeclared) money can make anywhere between 80 to 100K per year, so if she spends wisely, she can do it.
kev3d 1 year ago
@kev3d Calligraphy nibs do not result in poorly cared-for children or STD's, cervial or colon cancer. It does not use the other person and leave them an emotional wreck. It harms no one. Not enough calligraphy in the world, anyway.
tjttzcspplt 1 year ago
@tjttzcspplt Oh come off of your high horse. If the pope endorsed condom use decades ago then there would be far less of all those social ills and, as I have always stated, personal responsibility is key. Besides, mosquitoes kill far more people than STDs.
kev3d 1 year ago
@kev3d Clearly, you are not a medical person. You would realize how bogus that statement is. What is more, who the heck wants a condom? What's the point in even participating? And, that is a very ignorant statement about STD's. Very, very ignorant. You are in deep, fella. The ills of rampant fornication go deeper than physical disease, my friend. You just can't see it.
tjttzcspplt 1 year ago
@tjttzcspplt I want a condom, the women I am with want condoms, that's who. No, it does not feel as good as skin on skin, but its a small sacrifice for being safe. So, again, stop trying to tell everyone else how to live and live your own life.
kev3d 1 year ago
@kev3d I think you are the one who is insecure. You cannot be satisfied with one woman, assuming you can even attract one, which, if you did, it would not be a very high-caliber one, that's for sure. Dancers make their own bed. But it isn't relagated to just dance halls and porn flicks, is it? (Apparently, you are some sort of expert.) Now, all ages are subject to it. This Halloween, the costume shop had a Jon Benet-aged "French Maid " costume, complete with pout and gobs of makeup.
tjttzcspplt 1 year ago
@tjttzcspplt So don't buy the Jon Benet dress then. Every generation thinks their own was relatively innocent but "today's kids...I don't know..." Today it is the internet and TV, before that it was Penthouse, Before that it was Playboy, before that it was cheesecake photos before that it was Victorian fears that sex was unhealthy, masturbation caused blindness (it doesn't, your grandmother was wrong) and that female orgasms caused mental problems.
kev3d 1 year ago
@kev3d Not like this, it hasn't. It is way over the top. The weirder it is, the better. For you to even defend a crime like sexually objectifying a young child just shows how far gone you are. Nowadays, it's out and out child molestation. Do you have any idea what that does to a kid? What do you know of ages past? Nothing. And stimulating yourself does cause blindness. Spiritual and psychological blindness. Face it, buddy. You are a hopeless addict.
tjttzcspplt 1 year ago
@tjttzcspplt Defend a crime? I have done nothing of the kind. I have, repeatedly, advocated only voluntarily action between consenting adults when it comes to matters of sex, I have only, ever advocated personal responsibility. That must be the strawman of strawmen. But you, you are all over the map, you claim to be a "true" feminist who doesn't believe in objectifying a woman's body, then you decry the "ugly, lesbian tomboys". Why are women only "ugly" when they disagree with you.
kev3d 1 year ago
@kev3d You essentially said that making a little girl out to be an object of lust is fine, and that if I have a problem with it, there is something wrong with me. It is a crime to sexualize a young child.. And, that must be your definition of a feminist. A true feminist is not a man hater. It is a person who values a woman for who she is, and supports the fullness of that person. The feminist is a humanist, really. Both genders equally free to be fully who they wish to be.
tjttzcspplt 1 year ago
@tjttzcspplt I have never said anything even remotely close to that assertion either here or anywhere else. Why do you have to lie to make your point?
"A true feminist is not a man hater." Yet you are the one who claimed "Men have no self control"
"Both genders equally free to be fully who they wish to be." Except when they are in the Lingerie Bowl...then it should be banned. You need to decide what you believe before you go around policing everyone else's actions.
kev3d 1 year ago
@kev3d A fact is a fact. Most men have no self control. My husband admits that this is true. A lingerie bowl. What is the purpse of a lingerie bowl? Are you telling me you appreciate those women for their minds? You are the liar, not me.
tjttzcspplt 1 year ago
@tjttzcspplt A lingerie bowl? The purpose is fun, obviously. I don't watch any sports, but if I did, the purpose would not be for appreciating the player's intellectual capacity. One of my favorite scientists is theoretical physicist Lisa Randall, but listening to her talk fulfills a different part of my brain. (Though she is pretty attractive I admit). With singers, I appreciate their voice, with thinkers, their mind, with lingerie clad models, their bodies and so on.
kev3d 1 year ago
@kev3d Am I supposed to be impressed that you have a fave scientist? Good grief. If you want to appreciate you "lingerie" clad models, do the decent thing and keep it in your own private little club or room, or house, and, make sure the rest of us don't have to have it shoved down our throats. Otherwise, expect a little static. Well, maybe more than a little. Then again, unlike those other girls, I have self-respect. Maybe they will grow up to realize they are being exploited. One can hope.
tjttzcspplt 1 year ago
@kev3d I just let ABC have it for dirtying up the only family-friendly show on TV, about the young kid fixing his mother's bra. There IS a line that can be crossed, and it was crossed. Push the filth to see how far one can go. They've got patsies like you who neither notice nor care how coarse, crass and kid-unfriendly society has become. Remember, as you lie in the gutter on your dying day, as I'm sure you will, how much you contributed. Maybe then you'll repent. My prophesy for you.
tjttzcspplt 1 year ago
@tjttzcspplt Ah yes, those ABC Disney bastards....How DARE they?! Of course women's breast should never be joked about! Never shown! It causes divorce! Unless of course a baby is hungry. That said, I hardly think actors on a show, about breasts or not, is considered oppression. As for your "prophecy", like strippers, I make my own bed, but I will say this, I can actually say the word "Vagina" without shame, for it is not a shame to be human.
kev3d 1 year ago
@kev3d That is because you are obsessed with it, tha's why. And, I don't watch a tv program to look at a woman's breasts. It just shows how deep the addiction is. You are not capable of "getting it", apparently, if you can't follow the thread that winds through all of it.
tjttzcspplt 1 year ago
@tjttzcspplt You know what, I must be wrong. You aren't a Roman Catholic, you are a devout Muslim. Muslim women are "free" from men's judgments by wearing veils. Since men have "no self control", women are encouraged (or mandated) to be escorted by male relatives or the husband. Some Muslim countries ban porn, and even cleavage is censored. Divorce rates are much lower (not as low as Hindus, however) and of course, they are deeply spiritual. Clearly, you are not a Roman Catholic after all.
kev3d 1 year ago
@kev3d The one, and only one thing I respect about Muslims is their recognition of their fallen natures as regards this. It is a fact that women who are unescorted are prone to attack. That is because of their stone age laws against women. They are family-oriented, and, I admire them for that. They, of course, got that from the Catholics, since that religion is a corruption of the Christian Faith to begin with. You'll have to do better than that, if you want to insult me.
tjttzcspplt 1 year ago
@tjttzcspplt Oh, and another thing, since when does dressing in Lingerie, for sports or any other reason make someone a "slut" as you imply? It is not an insult for LeBron James to play Basketball well, it is not offensive for Bill Gates or Steve Jobs to exhibit their genius, it is not humiliating for a Meryl Streep to act....thus it follows that it is only natural for those who, for whatever reason, have excellent bodies to entertain people with them, so long as they do it voluntarily.
kev3d 1 year ago
@kev3d When it is done in public. That's when. LeBron James playing baseball, and Bill Gates are not analogies. Their activities don't bring inadvertent hard ons and fantasies that result in rape, fornication, divorce,
unfathered babies and the like. Having that crap hanging in the locker room does nothing to warm me up to those creeps. As public figures, they have a responsibility to keep their activities, for which they are paid well, G-rated. Like it or lump it.
tjttzcspplt 1 year ago
@tjttzcspplt Does it ever get hot under your burka? I am mystified how a private sports match is somehow "public". I further do not understand how you can group together "hard-ons" with divorce, or with rape or with "unfathered babies" (I'm not sure what an "unfathered" baby is, unless you are talking about Jesus.)
The first is a biological necessity, the second the termination of a contract, the third, a horrific crime and the fourth, an impossibility.
kev3d 1 year ago
@kev3d I shouldn't take the bait of your blasphemy, but, Jesus did have a father. If you don't get the connection between encouraging lust and those social ills, you need to remind yourself of what your grandmother said about you-know-what causing blindness. It's true. They had wisdom, back then. My husband was an unfathered baby. You know what I mean. I didn't mean a sperm-donor absent baby. I meant father-absent. Nice dodge, but what it is, it is. Whether you admit to it, or not.
tjttzcspplt 1 year ago
@tjttzcspplt What am I thinking? You probably ARE one of those fathers who've left their babies.
tjttzcspplt 1 year ago
@tjttzcspplt So you don't mean Parthenogenesis, okay. Such as it is, it takes two to tango, and if the man is not the type to stick around, perhaps the woman should not sleep with him in the first place or use protection. Responsibility cuts both ways.
kev3d 1 year ago
@kev3d Girls are psychologically coerced into it. Often, they are taken the first time by an older, more street savvy guy. Then it's all down hill from there. Often, they are molested frequently as young girls, as I was.
tjttzcspplt 1 year ago
@tjttzcspplt "Girls are psychologically coerced into it." Sex is sex and molestation is molestation, stop confusing the two.
kev3d 1 year ago
@kev3d You are in denial, of course, but, try to follow along. From babyhood, a girl is taught that her worth is in her looks. She is sexualized and evaluated on that basis, and that basis alone. Unless she has been raised with a strong, male, protective influence, minus the cultural pressures of only being as good as she is desirable, she is a sitting duck for any guy that can bring her self-esteem, which is based on her "putting out". Molestation is part of this general environment.
tjttzcspplt 1 year ago
@tjttzcspplt The proper raising of children is the parent's responsibility, it has nothing to do with a Lingerie Bowl or humorously adjusting bras on TV (seriously...that was your gripe? What is this, 1950?)
kev3d 1 year ago
@kev3d Like I said. You are in denial. And, if this crap is all over the TV, billboards. internet, schools, checkout counters, etc, etc, ad infinitum, then, your argument is empty. A parent cannot insulate their children from an all pervading porn free-for-all. It is impossible. It shows how much thought you put into these things. The comment by the kid in the show turned my stomach. Innuendo here. Innuendo there. Next season, one step more. Please.
tjttzcspplt 1 year ago
@tjttzcspplt And who forces you to watch TV? For some reason, people think they have the right to not be offended or that companies need to respond to them, and them alone. Believe it or not, children actually have a brain and they can assimilate all sorts of things. Children raised in war zones (which I would wager is far more dangerous than the occasional breast or ass) can grow up to be healthy, productive adults with parental care. So spare me the "for the children" routine.
kev3d 1 year ago
@kev3d Why should I not be able to watch? Nobody said you couldn't have your sleazy channels. The TV is dominated by two or three huge congolomerates that control everything. Okay, so there's one or two kooky local televangelist channels full of cheesy Protestant blather. How about the old days when our parents could at least let the kids watch in the mornings, including Saturday, and in the eves. from 8-9 and not worry? Now, the sleaze runs all day. I've even seen a scene where a girl was...
tjttzcspplt 1 year ago
@kev3d ...being raped at 11am on a Saturday. Why? What purpose does it serve? Don't give me that "you can turn it off, crap". Why should I have to fold up and die because your kind wants to be tintillated all day long. You can't even wait until 9pm, or buy your own channel, like we who try to stick to family programs have to. What's so special about your kind?
tjttzcspplt 1 year ago
@tjttzcspplt Oh gee...yes, clearly you have no choice in the matter...except for Disney, Discovery, Animal Planet, The Learning Channel, Home and Garden, Nickelodeon, The Family Channel, PAX, Food Network, The Hub and TVLand. There are only 24 hours in a day; how many channels do you need? You know why I tell you "you can turn it off"...because you can. Heaven forbid kids play with chemistry sets, climb on jungle gyms, build forts and play games outside. A television isn't a parent.
kev3d 1 year ago
@kev3d Hello, those cost money. Plus, I can't just support the good channels. I have to buy the whole package, which includes the crap. What, I'm going to get a lecture on how to raise kids from the likes of you? Spare me.
tjttzcspplt 1 year ago
@tjttzcspplt Those cost money? No Shit...so does web access...you seem to afford your internet a-okay. (Jungle Gyms are usually free, by the way) And, guess what! You can ACTUALLY PROGRAM YOUR TELEVISION REMOTE to skip over any channels you don't like. You can even buy locking devices that block out certain channels or programs. Its a hell of a lot more effective than writing angry letters that no one will read.
kev3d 1 year ago
@kev3d You didn't answer my question. Why should I have to purchase the product I want and circumnavigate around the filth, and not the other way around? Huh? I want to know, why. It should be YOU circumnavigating your way around the decent programming in the interest of polite society. What a world it would be, huh?
tjttzcspplt 1 year ago
@tjttzcspplt Neither way is absolutely true. I have to deal with the bibles in the hotel rooms, the religious programming on tv, the knocks on my door, all religious holidays and all the rest, and you know what? That's fine. So you feel you have to avoid tits on occasion, big deal, welcome to real life. I have to buy the stuff I want too. The world is not a magical wish granting machine that gives us what we want, we have to work for it and there are bumps along the way. What a concept.
kev3d 1 year ago
@kev3d You still didn't answer my question. Why shouldn't the default position be G-rated? That way, no one is harmed. Big people like you and me can find our stuff. It sounds very reasonable to me, and very easy. To do otherwise is self-centered and crass. Why not do the right thing instead of the wrong? Well, I know why, and it confirms me in my Faith. I just resent the attitude.
tjttzcspplt 1 year ago
@tjttzcspplt Because the world is not G-rated...its mixed, all the time, virtually everywhere. Besides, you are looking at the few exceptions rather than the rule. Drive down any street and, in almost every case, you'll see Target and Walmart and McDonalds and Sony and Apple and all the rest, all very vanilla and neutral. Occasionally you'll see a billboard with cleavage...tough shit. Your kids will be fine.
kev3d 1 year ago
@kev3d That is only because people like me insist on it.
tjttzcspplt 1 year ago
@kev3d Plus, I see you did not refute the fact that a girl is raised to be an object of lust for a man. You know it to be the case. Most girls, these days, don't have a stable father who gives enough of a hoot, these days to raise a man. YOu feel no responsibility, at large, for promoting this, do you? Couldn't care less, as long as you get yours. Well, I do care about my little sisters.
tjttzcspplt 1 year ago
@tjttzcspplt What girls are raised to be "an object of lust" for men? Again, that responsibility is on the parents and further I have never met a parent who even remotely suggested it. "Most girls, these days, don't have a stable father who gives enough of a hoot, these days to raise a man." That sentence doesn't make any sense, and even if it did, where is the study showing this is the case? Of course women today have far more opportunities than ever.
kev3d 1 year ago
@kev3d Ask the next ten random girls under 20 you see on the street and ask them. My occupation puts me in contact with many, many people from all walks of life. There are studies out there, but, I don't need a study to tell me what I see every day.
As I said before, you are simply in denial.
tjttzcspplt 1 year ago
@kev3d Wow, you know a big word. Good for you, you know how to google.
tjttzcspplt 1 year ago
This was funny! I hope you do it again next year!
elvisfan22 1 year ago
thumbs up
yougiberishtube 1 year ago
To be fair, Gavin Newsom vetoed the legislation that would have banned Happy Meals, but the city board overturned it in an 8 to 3 vote.
Crawdaddy79 1 year ago
Mmm, bacon.
ObedientMasses 1 year ago
Well, that was...perfectly legal.
Funniest thing I've seen since the funeral I went to yesterday.
But, to be fair, it was a fucking funny funeral.
tommytimp 1 year ago
San Francisco, well deserved! the other runners up were pretty close, though.
throwntomato 1 year ago
Tyranny comes with a smile, a handshake and the words "we're here to help you".
yakyakyak69 1 year ago
Stores that sell puppies and bottled water deserve to be banned.
alfyakuza 1 year ago
I went to San Fran this year for the first time- what a crap hole. All the bureaucracy in the world is no replacement for hard working citizens with self interest in mind.
(Chinatown and the innermost financial district were pretty nice though... may have something to do with being tourist locations)
EisenFeuer 1 year ago
that was great guys....
MegaDuke1 1 year ago
Frisco Blows!
averagejoe040 1 year ago
F**K THE NANNY STATE!!
ricadrew 1 year ago
love the format,
getnick77 1 year ago
LIBERAL FASCISM -- FANNIE FASCISM
As long as we let them have their way with us, intruding into every facet and dynamic of human existence, they will keep sucking parasitically from us until there is nothing left but a huge IOU and whatever residual protections from persecution your particular Identity Group has gouged out for itself.
Oops, too late
TylerNull 1 year ago
Great one, Reason!
freesk8 1 year ago
@derfy26 Yes.
Bottled water is not regulated. Who knows what's inside the (plastic, already a swirling muck at the bottom of the ocean) bottle? At least with tap water you are entitled to a water report so you know what's in there.
How long has the water been in there.. leeching plasticines into pristine water. Mmm.. estrogen. It's an ecological nightmare. I know I want my city spending my tax $ on bottled water!
It takes oil to get here. So, we all know who buying bottled water makes happy.
nghtrsnl 1 year ago 2
@nghtrsnl there is a reason why the Bush family and T. Boon Pickens are buying water rights all over the country and the rest of the world. Water is the new oil. People who do not have access to clean water are dying of disease and dehydration while Coca Cola is bottling up the good water in their backyard and selling it to us for 3.00 a bottle when we have perfectly good tap waer here at home.
CoconutsandBananas 1 year ago
@derfy26 Why pay $5 a bottle, every bottle, when you can buy a $5 reusable bottle, and get it from your own tap? It's the same stuff. H2O.
SeraphimPwnsU 1 year ago 2
Stay classy San Francisco.
edAVP1138 1 year ago
Bottled water truly is bullshi* if you know anything about the issue. I can't even begin.
nghtrsnl 1 year ago
Just when I think the SF insanity couldn't get any worse, the politicians come to work the next day and prove me wrong. SF is a nice city and I love to visit, but it is governed by a bunch of people who seem to have some sort of psychological illness.
elsquibbs 1 year ago
That naked man was the Major?
ALFTUBE50 1 year ago
I was pulling for Louise Fletcher!
campusliberty1 1 year ago
Nurse Ratched!!!!!
moomoo4u2moo 1 year ago
San Francisco... isn't that a little cliche?
WalridgeWalrus 1 year ago
@WalridgeWalrus Not at all-they earned it.
citizenintime 1 year ago
ROFL at Louise Fletcher.
schulwitz 1 year ago
Lol, the emperor has no clothes. I get it!
zetsway5000 1 year ago 33
@zetsway5000
Hah. I thought it was a reference to an old Academy Awards show (I think from the 1970s) where a streaker really did run across the stage. But yeah, I think you're right. It was a clever way of making a statement. Good for Reason TV.
mmille10 1 year ago
People sometimes talk about their state succeeding from the Union, I think we should kick the PRK (Peoples Republic of Kalifornia) out.
SrgGoofy 1 year ago
Okay, I get it. It sucks to live in San Fransico.
Chibiwaza 1 year ago
@Chibiwaza Well, really SF is a very nice city, but it is strongly governed, so if your main goal is freedom from government, then SF is not the city for you. Other the other hand you are far more free openly be your self, be gay, Hippie, like to dress oddly, of a different race then the major, ect. where as many other places in the county you could be been and the cops would do nothing to help. It is all a question of what is free. If I want to live in a city where movie poster are ban, cant I?
Loathomar 1 year ago
@Loathomar Thats what makes America great, you can choose to live were your state or city has taken away all your rights, ..or somewhere else were the feds did...
FFarmerCharlie 1 year ago
@FFarmerCharlie LOL, true. But I care a lot less if cities regulate, hopeful cause the people want it, then the feds. It is generally easy to move cities, but leaving the county is hard.
Loathomar 1 year ago
@Loathomar Strongly governed? Give me a break! Any city that encourages bums to pee against buildings in the financial district is not strongly governed--it's run by socialist utopian aging hippie idiots. This, too, will pass.
And here's a news flash--one can be a different race anywhere in the country and not be targeted. In California, the gay population seems to have a very visible discrimination position against Mormons, though. What's your though about that?
citizenintime 1 year ago 23
@citizenintime Yes, money coming from out of state to oppress gays... And it is not even all of CA that is participially gay friendly. The prop 8 vote lost with over 75% for NO in SF. Though I fine the whole proposition system in CA to be generally bad, it is either some special interest group or a huge unfunded project. If it where tweaked for finical regulations and all project need to be funded in the same bill it would be reasonable.
Loathomar 1 year ago
@Loathomar I have no idea what you're trying to say. Is English your first language, or were you educated in California's union-first public schools?
citizenintime 1 year ago
@citizenintime I did go to public school and then I got a degree in EE from one of the best schools in the nation thanks. What is your degree in, making moronic pointless statement?
Loathomar 1 year ago
@Loathomar Riiiiiight......
citizenintime 1 year ago
@citizenintime Source for peeing on buildings. Also a hatred of Mormons does not equal discrimination.
FatherTime89 1 year ago
@FatherTime89 - Of course it isn't discrimination. And you're not indoctrinated.
/sarcasm
thomaserossi 1 year ago
@FatherTime89 Did you go to school with Loathomar?
My source? Go there and have a look. Smell the bum stench, but wipe your feet after walking through the yellow puddles. And be sure to avoid the backsplash when the act is in progress.
Are you really suggesting that hatred doesn't breed discrimination? Didn't hatred of blacks breed Jim Crow? Aren't Mormon businesses being targeted by gay activists in CA? It's discrimination, and it's ugly.
You must be an equivocating liberal.
citizenintime 1 year ago 2
@citizenintime Mormon businesses where being targeted by gay activists for a boycott back in 2008. Mormoms where the group that where funding Prop 8 and as almost all Mormom give to the church, giving business to Mormoms was giving to the Yes to Prop 8 fund. The Mormom church was actively working against gays, why should gays not try to defend there rights? Would to say blacks where be have to shop at stores that openly support the KKK? That is not discrimination, it is common sense.
Loathomar 1 year ago
@Loathomar You should end your comments with 'Seig Heil!" I mean, you sound just like them. some Mormon did something you disagree with, so all mormons are evil? Jeez. I guess that we should logically conclude that since you are a dweeb, all homosexuals are dweebs, huh.
blogegog 1 year ago
@blogegog I have know many Mormon, some of them are friends of mine. The problem is not with Mormom personally, but with the church and it's anti-gay politics. So, if you want to attack the Mormom church's money supply, how do you do it? You have to go after the business who profit will go to the Mormom Church, ei boycott Mormom owned business. I never call any Mormoms evil, nor did I even call the Mormom Church evil, but the Mormom Church is anti gay, so why should gays support them in any way?
Loathomar 1 year ago
@Loathomar You implied that doing business with Mormons is akin to shopping at a store owned by the KKK. That's pretty much the same as calling Mormon's evil. However, if you're now walking back your statement, then kudos to you.
blogegog 1 year ago
@blogegog And btw I am also not gay, but I find the idea of banning gay marriage to be nothing but hateful discrimination. The government has two choices, either let any to consenting adults get marriage or get out of marriage altogether. I don't care which.
Loathomar 1 year ago
@Loathomar Gay marriage was not banned anymore than marriage between a twig and a olive seed was banned. It's just that neither is considered marriage, because marriage is between a man and woman... or at least it has been for a few thousand years.
If you'd prefer to CHANGE the definition of marriage to be something other than between a man and a woman, why are you stopping at gay stuff? Why not two women and three men? Or a man, a woman, and a dog... who love each other?
blogegog 1 year ago
@blogegog True, and since marriage, a union betwixt a man and woman, is by the very definition religious, there should be no such thing as a legal "marriage". Everyone should apply for civil unions when they get married that way there is no conflict between government and religion.
CHUCKLZLORD 1 year ago
@CHUCKLZLORD That is a completely reasonable answer, marriages are done only by religion and the government can change all "marriage" to "civil unions" allowing any two adults to be joined by the state.
Loathomar 1 year ago
@blogegog Well, really, same sex marriage had existed in the early Roman Empire and China. Personally, I don't care if people want multiple marriages, though moving to bestiality is very different. Dogs are not people and their for do not have rights and can not enter into any contract, like marriage.
Loathomar 1 year ago
@Loathomar I'm assuming you know that there were no same sex marriages in Roman times, and that you only mentioned it in the hopes that I didn't know better. I do :(. No, the west is the first to offer such a concept in the history of civilization. I should mention that I'm not against it, though I wouldn't call it marriage. You know, because it's not.
I see now that you are speciest and won't let me marry my dog. Will you be ok with me marrying my grandmother? We promise not to have kids
blogegog 1 year ago
@blogegog Emperor Nero was married to with one of his male slaves. Emperor Elagabalus married a Carian slave named Hierocles. It was not until 342 AD with the passing of Theodosian Code that prohibited same-sex marriage in Rome. I don't see why you and your grandmother should not be married as long as you are both adults. You can even have kid if you agree that the medical costs will not be on the state for all I care.
I am very much a "speciest", I don't thing animals should be given rights.
Loathomar 1 year ago
@Loathomar Your stories are simply untrue. I doubt I'd be able to convince you though. But everyone else knows that Roman free men were not allowed to marry slaves. Male/male marriage was not banned in Rome. It just wasn't ever considered, much like marriage between a rock and a tree. Or a dog and a cat. It just makes no sense to call it marriage.
I do appreciate you giving me the go ahead to marry my grandma though. She's totally hot :)
blogegog 1 year ago
@blogegog Try reading "Same Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe." by John Boswell. The idea that free people where not allowed to marry slaves is silly, at any time a slave owner could grant a slave his or her freedom. Making them a citizen of Rome was far more difficult from my understanding. If they where required to become free people to be married, the owner has the forms written up to free them before marring them.
Loathomar 1 year ago
@Loathomar No need, Loath. Boswell's mischaracterization of truth does not interest me. I'm kind of curious why it interests you, but not overtly. You've got this belief of a gay marriage loving Rome, and I don't want to disenfranchise you from it. I'm all for allowing you to continue in your romantic homosexual beliefs, so long as no one else falls prey to the deception.
I'm pretty sure no one else does, so we can both be happy :). Have a great life!
blogegog 1 year ago
@blogegog I see, you have no disagreement with my statement other then to say that "you don't believe it" and that is a proof that it is false. How said... If you do not believe in evolution, is that not true? How about gravity? Can you not believe in gravity and fly into the sky unaided?
Loathomar 1 year ago
@Loathomar Wait... what? How did you move from gay guys calling themselves married to evolution and gravity? Are these things connected somehow in your world?
blogegog 1 year ago
@blogegog You seem to be willing to ignore all facts in one subject, I was wondering how many other subjects it extended to.
Loathomar 1 year ago
@blogegog Read it over again, more slowly.
tjttzcspplt 1 year ago
@tjttzcspplt For you, anything. Ok, here goes. Waaaaaiiiit........... whaaaaaaat? Hooooooowwwwww dddddiiiiidddd yooooooooouuuuuuuuu mmmmmmmmmmoooooovvvvvvvvveeeee ffrrrrrrrrroooooooommmmm ggaaaaaaayyyyy ggggggguuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuyyyyyysssss
Hey wait, can't you do this yourself? Just take it one word at a time. You'll get through it, tjttzcspplt. It just takes practice.
blogegog 1 year ago
@tjttzcspplt Whoops, wrong person. I meant to say it to Loathomar.
tjttzcspplt 1 year ago
@tjttzcspplt Then I apologize. It's not my intention to piss off the good guys :).
blogegog 1 year ago
@blogegog LOL.
tjttzcspplt 1 year ago
@blogegog Where do you get the idea that there were no gay marriages during Roman times? From the founding of the Republic to the end of the Western Empire was just under a thousand years...quite a long time to say there were no same sex marriages. That assumption aside, we have what the Romans themselves told us and men like Suetonius, Cicero and Juvenal all report the relatively common existence of male-male unions, it would appear that such activity did not cause the Empire's collapse.
kev3d 1 year ago
@kev3d If something as strange as same sex marriage occurred in Rome, there would certainly be books or laws written about it at the time. There weren't. Because it was not legal, or even thought of as a possibility.
Are you suggesting that there was homosexual sex in Roman times? That's not exactly a bombshell, kev. Though I don't follow your logic that 'such activity did not cause the Empire's collapse.' How do you come to that conclusion?
blogegog 1 year ago
@blogegog If you would look at the sources;Cicero, Suetonius, Juvenal and Cassius Dio, they did write books in reference to Gay Unions. Why does the Theodosian Code in 342AD out the practice? It seems odd to ban something in the Christian era that, by your reckoning, should have already been banned in the Pagan Era. Cicero was both a prolific writer and lawmaker and he causally refers to gay unions as though they were legal and not terribly unusual. Cicero knows better than you.
kev3d 1 year ago
@blogegog As to the second point; We are told by the ancient writers that (arguably) the Greatest of all Emperors, Trajan, had at least some homosexual tendencies, as were many Pagan Emperors. Under them, the empire generally grew. Under the Christian Emperors, who eventually banned and punished homosexual practices, the Empire was split and was conquered piecemeal. That is not to say homosexuality was the cause of the Empire's success, but it cannot be said that it caused it's decline.
kev3d 1 year ago
@kev3d Our discussion seems to have devolved. Whether Rome collapsed because of the feminization of Roman men or homosexuality or whatever is too broad of a concept to breach in 500 char snippets on youtube. I am merely making the point that marriage between two people of the same sex was NOT an option in Rome, or any other society until modern times. It's an entirely new concept. That's all I'm saying, and it's quite correct. It's not an idea rooted in history. Deal with it.
blogegog 1 year ago
@blogegog That is just plain incorrect, again, why does, specifically, Cicero refer to a gay union with the same word for marriage as a heterosexual union? He was a lawmaker, he deeply understood Roman and Greek history and law, we have over 800 documents written by him, yet not a single word of condemnation, not a single hint that a gay union is anything strange or illegal. If you just read the sources, or what the scholars say about the matter, it is very clear.
kev3d 1 year ago
@kev3d The answer is, "He didn't." Look, I get that you're gay and want to legitimize your feelings for your boyfriend. And frankly, I don't care. Smooch whatever you want to smooch with. Just don't look to Rome for it is all I'm saying. It's historically incorrect to suggest that there were gay marriages in Rome. There weren't. Repeating the falsehood that Cicero said there were won't make it anymore true. Why is this so important to you that you wish to change the history?
blogegog 1 year ago
@blogegog To Quote Cicero directly; "But very soon Curio stepped in, who carried you (Antonius) off from your public trade, and, as if he had bestowed a matron's robe upon you, settled you in a steady and durable wedlock." Perhaps this is metaphor, but then Martial reports "The bearded Callistratus has been taken in marriage by the lusty Afer (a male)" Cassius Dio says "The husband of this "woman"(the effeminate Emperor Elagabalus) was Hierocles, a Carian (male)slave. To name a few.
kev3d 1 year ago
@blogegog The Roman period from the Republic to the Fall of the west was nearly 1000 years, at times stretching from England to Egypt, Portugal to Iran, with such a mix of people and customs over time, there were differing opinions on homosexuality and unions. Some were critical of the passive role some men played, others mention gay unions in passing, with no particular slant one way or another. So to say there were no gay unions betrays what the ancients and modern scholars tell us.
kev3d 1 year ago
@kev3d Yes, yes, it was a very long time. And yet a law allowing a man to marry another man was never codified. In almost a thousand freakin' years. No laws, almost 1,000 years. Not one law. But you keep believing that they were big fans of gay marriage. History disproves it.
If I may put forth a slice of humble pie, why is it important to you that a long failed Roman dictatorship was a big fan of homosexual marriage? I find your desire to be right baffling. But interesting.
blogegog 1 year ago
@blogegog Most roman laws have disappeared from the record entirely referenced but not directly quoted by other authors. But, again, it seems strange to ban something in 342 if it was already unrecognized. In other words, if people weren't doing it, why ban it? And, as I have pointed out, several authors refer to the practice, with various levels of acceptance or condemnation...but not as it being illegal, which one would think critics, ancient and modern, would be quick to point out.
kev3d 1 year ago
@blogegog Further, it is critical to report history as accurately as possible. Everything must be taken in the context of the time and, if we are to be scholars, we must set aside our modern cultural, moral, political, religious and even linguistic biases while at the same time recognize the possible biases the ancient authors may have had. What the ancient authors tell us, directly, is that at least some same sex unions existed and were accepted, at least by some, not unlike today.
kev3d 1 year ago
@blogegog Suetonius, of course, looks disapprovingly upon Nero's own homosexual unions, partly because Nero was taking the passive role, rather than the active role, which was seen as unmanly. But Nero in general is condemned for a variety of reasons...and Suetonius was working for Hadrian at the time, not Nero. Hadrian, while he is not described as being married to a man named Antinous, he was deeply devoted to him, founding a city in his name after drowning in the Nile.
kev3d 1 year ago
@kev3d ok, so you agree with me. None of these creepy guys were married to each other. Why are we discussing this anymore?
I'm glad we could resolve this silly discussion once and for all, and invite you to fantasize about Cassius, Suetonius et al to your heart's desire. If you keep it in your bedroom, the whole world will be happier. do that for us? Thanks in advance.
blogegog 1 year ago
@blogegog No, I do not agree with you. I doubt you even know who Cassius or Suetonius even were, let alone what they wrote. Yes, some authors, ancient and modern may have disapproved of certain unions, not unlike today when many disapprove of marriages like Anna Nicole Smith to J. Howard Marshall, such unions may have attracted condemnation, but that does not mean they did not take place. Your "keep it in the bedroom" remark only exposes your homophobia.
kev3d 1 year ago
@kev3d Heh.
blogegog 1 year ago
@kev3d "No, I do not agree with you."
Then you are wrong :). Don't worry. You'll get used to it. It happens all the time when people try to rewrite history.
blogegog 1 year ago
@blogegog I am not wrong and you need only look at the several sources that I and others have mentioned. I have pointed out, specifically in some cases, where my assertion is true, based on the works of the ancient authors themselves. You have not refuted anything, you simply state that it is not true with no supporting evidence and that's that. It is clear that you want a monopoly on the word "marriage" (ignoring the wide range of marriages throughout history) and keep it "traditional".
kev3d 1 year ago
@kev3d Nah, I don't really care about marriage, gay or otherwise. As I've said previously, you can do whatever gay stuff you like to with whomever agrees to do them with you. It's no skin off of my back.
I do care about history though. So when I see you continually trying to change Roman hstry, it does tend to get on my nerves. But your attempt to rewrite history has failed, at least on this comment thread. Everyone here knows that there were no gay marriages in Rome. Have a great life!
blogegog 1 year ago
@blogegog And yet you are at a loss to explain the quotes from the ancient authors themselves and what scholars have said. "Everyone here knows that there were no gay marriages in Rome."
You see, again, this is another blatant assumption, two assumptions actually. Even if we ignore ALL the ancient writers who mention same sex unions, how can someone state that over the course of a thousand years that it never happened, especially considering "marriage" has lots of meanings over time.
kev3d 1 year ago
@kev3d Not agreeing or disagreeing with your point, but the Roman empire collapsed, and we know there was a lot of male-male action going on... so, for you to say it definitely wasn't a cause means that you are ignoring possibilities. Correlation doesn't always equal causation, but sometimes it does.
BillySmooth55 1 year ago
@BillySmooth55 Christians had pretty well taken over the Roman Empire around 300 AD and with that, Homosexual activity would be outlawed as well as same sex marriage. So if there was any causation/correlation it would be that Christianity caused the collapse, since Alaric I who sacked Rome in 410 and Odoacer in 476, were both Christians. Its far more complex than that, but the fact remains that when homosexuality was very prevalent in Rome, for whatever reason, Rome was strong.
kev3d 1 year ago
@Loathomar Blind to violence against Mormons, are you? Typical leftist.
citizenintime 1 year ago
@citizenintime It's possible to hate people without trying to get the government to punish them. So once again give me a source about how the gays are targeting them.
FatherTime89 1 year ago
@FatherTime89 OK, let's summarize the leftist position on hate, in leftist first person:
"I's OK to hate anyone that I hate, but if you hate anyone that I support, then you're a dangerous racist." Is that about right?
citizenintime 1 year ago 3
@citizenintime All I hear is 'blah blah blah I don't have a source'. Now quit stalling.
FatherTime89 1 year ago
@FatherTime89 That's all you hear? The problem is yours. As Paul Simon wrote, "...People hearing without listening". You really needto listen.
citizenintime 1 year ago
@citizenintime well give me a source that gays are discriminating against Mormons (and boycotting them doesn't count).
FatherTime89 1 year ago