Why "protecting marriage" is retarded

what's wrong with pedophilia?...

According to Kinsey’s pedophiles, who became “trained observers” in his reports [Kinsey’s Sexual Behavior in the Human Male], signs of “orgasm” for children as young as infants included “violent cries,” “loss of color,” and an “abundance of tears.--What’s wrong with this picture Josh?

[These are my comments]

From the Special Committee to Investigate Tax-Exempt Foundations and Comparable Organizations July 2-9, 1954 [Reece Committee, 83rd Congress], p. 69:

“It does not matter that the report [Kinsey’s Sexual Behavior in the Human Male] is unscientific, the important thing is that it be publicized and serve as a basis for reform of sexual behavior and laws which deal with violations of sexual mores.”

The Committee wonders whether The Rockefeller Foundation, which made the Kinsey study possible by the investment of substantial funds, is proud of its work. Research of this type, of which there is much outside the sex field, seems predicated upon the premise that what is wrong with our society is that our moral codes are seriously in need of re-study and revision.

These excerpts from Professor Hobbs’ testimony before this Committee are illuminating (Hearings, p. 124):

The Chairman. As I understand, you are raising a question about the scientific approach which Dr. Kinsey made in conducting this research in the first place, and then some of his comments and conclusions which he wrote into his report, which did not necessarily arise from the basis of his research which he had made? [Actually, Kinsey didn’t verify anything. Child molesters with whom he corresponded with supposedly “documented the existence of sexual capacity in children.” Kinsey took them at their word, and dressed up their findings as “science.”]

Dr. Hobbs. Yes, sir.

The Chairman. And which might have damaging effect on the psychology of the people, particularly the young people of the country. [The irony…]

Dr. Hobbs. Yes, sir.

The Chairman. And at the same time undertaking to give to the country the overall impression that his findings and his comments were based upon a scientific study which had been made, as the basis of a grant. [This junk science: Kinsey’s Sexual Behavior in the Human Male]

Dr. Hobbs. Yes, sir; a scientific study of the type by implication which you have in physics and chemistry, and, therefore, its conclusions cannot be challenged. [After the suppression of this report, it took almost 30 years for academics to mount a serious challenge to Kinsey. In 1981, when Judith Reisman exposed Kinsey’s pseudoscience…talk about absurd belief structures]

The Chairman. Enumerating in the preface that it was made by a grant from one of the foundations giving it further prestige, possibly, that it was of scientific value, and so forth. [The Rockefeller Foundation]

Dr. Hobbs. That would be correct. I have a statement to that effect to show that very type of influence, which I will come to a little bit later. [Rockefeller and influence, small wonder…]”

Aversion to child-adult sexual contacts, Kinsey’s Sexual Behavior in the Human Male maintained, is “culturally conditioned.” Pedophiles don’t harm children in most cases, the Indiana University professor argued, but the “hysteria” caused by police, parents, and others in authority does. According to Kinsey’s pedophiles, who became “trained observers” in his reports, signs of “orgasm” for children as young as infants included “violent cries,” “loss of color,” and an “abundance of tears.” This wasn’t science. This was Pedophiles rationalizing their criminal behavior.

Question?

According to Kinsey’s pedophiles, who became “trained observers” in his reports, signs of “orgasm” for children as young as infants included “violent cries,” “loss of color,” and an “abundance of tears.--What’s wrong with this picture Josh?

Kinsey's Pedophiles: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2061305218446628970&hl=en
 
Last edited:
According to Kinsey’s pedophiles, who became “trained observers” in his reports, signs of “orgasm” for children as young as infants included “violent cries,” “loss of color,” and an “abundance of tears.--What’s wrong with this picture Josh?

About as wrong as murdering and kidnapping children, the wrong is in the behavior, not the mentality. But I asked you a question, what should we do to pedophiles? I think we should lynch them if they harm anybody innocent, how about you?
 
About as wrong as murdering and kidnapping children, the wrong is in the behavior, not the mentality. But I asked you a question, what should we do to pedophiles? I think we should lynch them if they harm anybody innocent, how about you?

I do not believe in lynching nor the death penalty; prison is sufficient for crimes with actual victims.

Iconoclastic: Kinsey’s revolutionary Sexual Behavior in the Human Male was nothing more than cooked/junk-science furthering a facet of an overall malefic 'policy agenda', brought to you by the Rockefeller Foundation with generous subsidizes of US government tax exempt status--1954 US Congressional Reece Committee.
 
I didn't have the time to read through the entire thread so if I am duplicating someone I apologize.

Protecting marriage is retarded because its protection of a institution that government licenses and controls.

We are pro freedom minded people right ?

We dont need government permission to be married.

Most pastors, Ministers, priests, ETC will not marry a man and woman without a licence. this is because they have accepted the secular mark of the beast and accepted his tax advantage IE 503c and or 508 non profit status.

In doing this they must do as government says and this means telling couples they need a licence before they can be married.

This is hog wash.

This Crap needs to be changed we need our freedoms back in this respect and a lot of other areas.

I will post more info on this in the morrow if its requested and I have time.
 
but gays will never be respected unless and until they are respected and accepted, doesn't matter if they're legally called marriage or given the same rights, whether society wants to recognize their unions is another issue altogether.

just like even when slavery was illegal and blacks were free, nothing stopped white men from spitting on blacks since it was socially acceptable. When government enforces values, it's tyranny, when values shape the government, it's freedom.

Stupid, ludicrous comparison. Homosexuals are nothing like black slaves. Sexual orientation is not a race, or a nationality. Homosexuality is a preference, a choice, and a lifestyle. It is NOT and ethnic group.

What is it with militant gays? Who are they to push their agenda on people like me who happen to disagree with the life style? Does my disagreement equate to intolerance? Does my disagreement with gays violate their rights? NO. Their insistence that I accept the gay life style IS intolerant, and goes against the idea of freedom of speech, and of ideas.

You'll not hear me insist to a gay person that they accept my heterosexuality. They deserve no more rights than anybody else, and are protected by laws just like everybody else. To assume gays should be given some sort of preference or extra protection (such as "hate crime" laws), is ridiculous. The blacks were angry, and rightly so, because they were NOT being given the rights they deserve under our Constitution (however, affirmative action is wrong, and seeks extra rights and preferences based on race, thus defeating the purpose of equal rights altogether).

You state, "...but gays will never be respected unless and until they are respected and accepted." Why should I accept a life style I find wrong? I am free to associate with whoever I want, and I choose not to associate with gays. Does that mean I hate them? No. Does that mean I give a shit if they get married? No. I just disagree with it. But I also don't propose to convert any of them to my way of thinking because they're free to do as they will so long as they don't violate anybody else's rights.

Is it respect the gays are looking for? That sir, is relative, and its earned. If you expect people to respect people based solely on their sexual preference, you'll be waiting a long time. Why not leave sexuality out of it and let people base their opinion on merit, abilities, and character? Who gives a shit if you like men or women?

The entire gay agenda is much like Jesse Jackson's race-brokering organization. It seeks out prejudice for the sole sake of perpetuating it. It’s done for money, influence, intimidation, preferential treatment, and for headlines. The gay movement practices the very thing it claims to hate: Intolerance. By forcing their beliefs and lifestyle down our throats, by accusing people who disagree with them of being bigoted or intolerant, the gays have resorted to the very behavior they claim to combat.

Go your own way, but don't attempt to drag me with you, or to label me a bigot if I disagree with your route.
 
Stupid, ludicrous comparison. Homosexuals are nothing like black slaves. Sexual orientation is not a race, or a nationality. Homosexuality is a preference, a choice, and a lifestyle. It is NOT and ethnic group.

Go your own way, but don't attempt to drag me with you, or to label me a bigot if I disagree with your route.

Ok, but is it more or less ok to hate gays than it is to hate blacks?

If I hate blacks am I a bigot for not being dragged into your Marxist tolerance of blacks as people?
 
The entire gay agenda is much like Jesse Jackson's race-brokering organization. It seeks out prejudice for the sole sake of perpetuating it. It’s done for money, influence, intimidation, preferential treatment, and for headlines. The gay movement practices the very thing it claims to hate: Intolerance. By forcing their beliefs and lifestyle down our throats, by accusing people who disagree with them of being bigoted or intolerant, the gays have resorted to the very behavior they claim to combat.

And so you see the comparison.

Just because there's an idiot black agenda doesn't mean all blacks are in on it, just because there's a Zionist lobby doesn't mean all Jews are guilty of it, just because there's a sick ass fag agenda doesn't mean all gays are with it.
 
I do not believe in lynching nor the death penalty; prison is sufficient for crimes with actual victims.

SO you're a bigot who doesn't believe in justice, but that's just my opinion.

So what should we do to gays? What are victims of gays?
 
And so you see the comparison.

Just because there's an idiot black agenda doesn't mean all blacks are in on it, just because there's a Zionist lobby doesn't mean all Jews are guilty of it, just because there's a sick ass fag agenda doesn't mean all gays are with it.


Agreed. And my point was to compare the more radical fringe of the gay agenda with Jessi Jackson's race-brokering. The connection is there alone.

If Man A is gay, and Man B is straight, and both are assaulted and injured, why should Man A be protected by MORE rights than Man B? Weren't they both assaulted? Aren't they allready protected by the same laws? The person doing the assault is guilty nonetheless, and should be held accountable for the ACT not the sexual persuasion of the victim.

But what the gays want is EXTRA protection such as "Hate Crime" laws. Its complete bullshit.
 
Ok, but is it more or less ok to hate gays than it is to hate blacks?

If I hate blacks am I a bigot for not being dragged into your Marxist tolerance of blacks as people?

I don't hate gays. I don't hate anybody...well, I do hate Bush and his cronies....I disagree with the lifestyle, just as I disagree with the gangsta, hiphop lifestyle. Disagreement does not equate to hate (hey, I rhymed that!).

It takes too much energy to hate. Indifference is more of how I feel about such things most of the time. Of course, I'm realistic. Some people do hate gays and blacks...but not me. I speak only for myself on this issue. As long as you don't hurt anybody, then go along with your pursuits...thats my libertarian streak showing.
 
Last edited:
This is a pretty interesting thread. I am not in Cali, but right next door so I like to keep an eye on them as Oregon tries to copy a lot of their worst idea. I thought for sure I would want to see this fail... but protecting freedom of religion is more important than a marriage license and I am starting to switch sides. Knowing California all religion freedom will be gone after this bill passes and they will force statewide curriculum down even private schools throats and they will use this for hate crime legislation. That scary enought to vote yes. But both side seem like they will use it for fascism in the future, if they were to win.
 
But what the gays want is EXTRA protection such as "Hate Crime" laws. Its complete bullshit.

I agree, hate laws are bullshit.

ANd I don't see how protecting marriage is anything but making "hate crime against trad marriage" a hate crime.
 
It takes too much energy to hate. Indifference is more of how I feel about such things most of the time. Of course, I'm realistic. Some people do hate gays and blacks...but not me. I speak only for myself on this issue. As long as you don't hurt anybody, then go along with your pursuits...thats my libertarian streak showing.

Agreed, is letting gays marry hurting you? Nobody asked you to agree with their marriage, their sex life, or call them "two married men" when you get to say "filthy fags to who deserve hell".
 
Josh, Marriage is my religion's sacrament (we started it first)

The state wants to redefine it "for me and everyone"

to me this is a clear violation of church and state. simply really.....


letting the state redefine religious practise....is retarded (and dangerous)
 
Last edited:
I think marriage should be nothing more than a religious ceremony. The legal part of it should be open to any parties of any size. I don't care if it's a guy and a girl, two guys, two girls, four guys and eight girls, three guys and a tranny, etc. The government shouldn't be involved in marriage in the first place. But if you want to sign a legal contract than sign a legal contract and mind your own business.
 
It saddens me that we waste all of these resources arguing the wrong issue. The issue should not be "should we allow gays to marry" the issue should be "why is the government in the marriage business"

When we get the government out of the marriage business and end all of the automatic special rights (via law) associated with marriage. Then marriage can be the personal ceremony between to parties.

The major driving force behind gay marriage is the over 1000 federal benefits and protection tied to marriage. I am sure each state has even more benefits and protections tied to marriage. It is easy for me to understand why two people would want these same protections and benefits to apply to their relationship if they are willing to make the civil commitment.

Now, can we please vote no to more government regulation and return to fighting for freedom :)
 
Fuck the government, and disgusting religious influence on it. How dare the totalitarians say whether homosexuals can marry. There are homosexual couples who have raised great kids. I don't mind if you want to practice your stupid religious ceremony, just don't direct it on my life.

I despise the religious culture, and I will always be disgusted with it. If any of you try to censor what I say on these forums(mods)then wouldn't that be hypocrisy on the freedom of speech part?
 
Back
Top