A Few New Thoughts From An Old Mind


Now too long ago, I was in the town where my youngest went to college. It was a Friday night, and the sports bars and local coffee shops were full of couples. What made this observation notable was that many of these couples were made up of two young females.

There was hand-holding, and kissing, and arms around shoulders in the same manner hetero couples would be performing, so I have a reasonable expectation that my observations indicated coupledom.

I was very OK with this, I decided, for when a brace of young women bond with each other, that saves two young men from a life of marital servitude.

The other observation had to do with the general SMV of these young women -straight or not- as I perceived them. Some of these I wouldn’t have considered as dating possibilities when I was young. But now that I’m invisible to such young women, I note that they attain a certain desirability merely because they are so much younger than I.

Thoughts?

Tagged with: ,
Posted in Blurkel
109 comments on “A Few New Thoughts From An Old Mind
  1. Tarnished says:

    Some of these I wouldn’t have considered as dating possibilities when I was young.
    Because they were a significantly higher SMV, or a significantly lower one?

    Lower. I was a picky kid

    I was very OK with this, I decided, for when a brace of young women bond with each other, that saves two young men from a life of marital servitude.
    Same can be said for gay men. The laws of our country are certainly going to need some alterations regarding divorces, though it’ll be interesting to see if the homosexual community as a whole has more or less divorces than the heterosexual one. Who knows? Given the decline of marriage numbers, we may find that homos marry at a much higher rate than the heteros of the last decade…

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Cill says:

    I’m sitting here thinking… I’m currently living in my longest spell in NZ since I was a child. It amounts to months rather than years but it’s still long by my standards. The thirst for adventure and challenge is not as strong as it used to be.

    I must be getting old, Blurkel. However I don’t look on young women as you do… yet. A big change would have to occur in me first. Will getting old do that? Who knows. Maybe it’s time for me to let things take their course rather than taking life by the throat and shaking it as I used to. The future is a mystery. I pay attention to the musings of older men, brother B.

    It’s important to me that younger men heed the experiences of elder men over the desires of the lower head, Brother C. That is the only way changes regarding relationships can happen.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Liz says:

    I think youth has a beauty of its own as one ages. I would love to have my 20 year old skin again. Mike used to say the only skin as soft, was a baby’s (this was true at the time). He says now that “I’ve never looked better” but it’s definitely the wife goggles talk (still, nice to hear even so). 🙂

    I think I read a quote at Emma’s that was something like “young men think some young women are beautiful, but older men think all young women are beautiful” or some such (I’m sure I’m botching it, but that’s essentially it).

    Per lesbians, I’m absolutely convinced that 90 percent of the lesbian public displays of affection out there are intended to excite and entice men.

    Maybe. I’ve seen it be a trap set by them to turn on any male who dares to approach with an eye toward joining in on the fun.

    Liked by 3 people

  4. Liz says:

    As a side note, we just revisited our old University with our sons since the oldest is going to be applying this year. That was very surreal. The girls actually look nowhere near as pretty there now, but maybe that’s because it was the summer (or it might have something to do with the ridiculously high barriers to entry).

    Liked by 2 people

  5. Tarnished says:

    “young men think some young women are beautiful, but older men think all young women are beautiful”

    Given the rates of childhood obesity amongst girls (and boys, to be fair), this would probably be more accurate if one included the word “fit” or “healthy”. :/

    OK, I agree. The ones in sight when I came to my conclusion were fit to just a little overweight.

    Liked by 4 people

  6. Tarnished says:

    He says now that “I’ve never looked better” but it’s definitely the wife goggles talk (still, nice to hear even so).
    That’s what love is meant to do…Make the individual beauty/handsomeness of a loved one easier to see. It doesn’t mean there aren’t more attractive men and women out there. It means your looks + personality are still very awesome. 🙂

    Liked by 1 person

  7. fuzziewuzziebear says:

    “Per lesbians, I’m absolutely convinced that 90 percent of the lesbian public displays of affection put there are intended to excite and entice men.”

    I don’t think that they ever bothered to ask the boys what they think of all this.

    Liked by 1 person

  8. fuzziewuzziebear says:

    Blurkel,
    They might be “Lesbians Until Graduation” now but, don’t worry, they are planning on beta bucks and frivorce in their future.

    You could be correct, Brother Bear. Money always enters the evaluation of any man who interests a woman.

    Liked by 1 person

  9. Cill says:

    “I’ve never looked better”

    You will know your husband well by now. If he’s not a bullshitter, you should take him at his word.

    As for the bullshitters, they make things complicated for themselves. When a woman asks me if she looks good in a dress I give a straight yes or no. Anything less direct than that would lure me into the impossible world of whatever it was that made her ask for my opinion.

    Liked by 2 people

  10. Liz says:

    “You will know your husband well by now. If he’s not a bullshitter, you should take him at his word.”

    Thanks, Cill. I believe he sees me that way when he says it.
    Also, it’s unsolicited…I don’t ask. 🙂

    Liked by 2 people

  11. Farm Boy says:

    It is fashionable and cool. What more is needed for young women?

    Liked by 2 people

  12. Farm Boy says:

    They are striking a blow against the “whatever”

    Liked by 2 people

  13. Farm Boy says:

    I wonder if they marry a man in later years if this silliness damages that relationship
    Or is it water over the dike.. er, under the bridge?

    Liked by 3 people

  14. SFC Ton says:

    Girls play the bi game for extra masculine attention all the time. Watched a group of married ladies pull that game with their husbands near by regularly. There is no age range where that game isn’t played and generally when I see such overt actions I dismiss it all as attention whoring

    As for old men thinking all young women are good looking, at 45 I can say no to that notion. Maybe that changes if you get old enough but it seems like a beta mindset to me. Lack of options etc driving the “thinking” (ie rationalization)

    Liked by 1 person

  15. Farm Boy says:

    If only the young herd could be encouraged toward good behavior.
    Preferably before they become heifers.

    Liked by 3 people

  16. SFC Ton says:

    Older me ushered in all this bullshit; don’t much cotton to their advice based on age.

    Like

  17. Liz says:

    Mike sent me the following text:
    “You’d make a GREAT mistress!”
    Should I be concerned?
    Or is this a great compliment?

    Okay, just kidding…background is he is proofreading a story I wrote about a mafia mistress..so his text makes sense in that context 🙂
    Anyway, he says I’d be the perfect mistress. I make his pleasure a priority, I’m fun, and there’s no drama.
    “Too bad I wasn’t married when we met!” He stated.
    Yes indeed. My talents are wasted I’m sure. 😛

    …and yes, I’m aware this is, though true, an egregious humble-brag. Won’t happen again but he is on the way home from a trip and I just had a glass of wine…see Tarn? This is what happens 😉

    Liked by 2 people

  18. Cill says:

    “You’d make a GREAT mistress”
    And I would make a great master.
    Between you and me there had better be a great mattress…

    XD

    Uh, wouldn’t that just get in the way, Brother C? I almost remember what sex was like, but having nothing in between was the idea, as I recall.

    Liked by 1 person

  19. Tarnished says:

    Cill,
    I’m stealing that for later use…

    Liz,
    So I see. Pray tell, what happens if you indulge in one more glass? Will you give us another sneak peek of your upcoming novel? 😉

    Re: bisexuality
    I don’t think that it’s as realistically present as many women try to make it out to be. There is something to be said for the “college lesbian” phenomena, which in many instances can either be valid temporary sexual experimentation (which females are more likely to engage in) or the aforementioned attention whoring (the typical answer, imo).

    Using the Kinsey scale…0 = exclusively hetero, 6 = exclusively homo…both me and my guy are 2s. We each have had positive homosexual encounters in our lives that perhaps lend towards our open-mindedness of various sexytimes. But it’s not anything that should be flaunted, or used to gain the excessive attentions of others. The way certain female classmates used to act, it was blatantly obvious they were showing lesbian “love” in hopes of getting free drinks and guys drooling over their “hotness”.

    Liked by 1 person

  20. Liz says:

    “Using the Kinsey scale…0 = exclusively hetero, 6 = exclusively homo…both me and my guy are 2s.”

    I don’t know what I am. Maybe a 1 or2? But Mike is definitely a 0.
    If a guy hands him a cup of coffee at Starbucks he either removes the lid, or makes me wipe it off with a sanitary wipe. It’s seriously like an OCD he has….he will accept a cup of coffee with a lid from no man.

    Liked by 1 person

  21. Tarnished says:

    Why? Sorry if I’m missing the point…entirely possible, btw…but I don’t get it. Is Mike afraid that the other guy sipped it before handing it to him or something? Is he okay accepting a sealed beer or soda handed to him from a male park vendor, or is even that a “Nope”?

    Like

  22. Liz says:

    I have no idea, Tarn. I think it has something to do with “man germs”. He’s fine with someone handing him an open container, but if there’s a lid and it’s a man who hands it to him, he’s weird about it.
    We have compatible OCDs. That might have been the “catch” for him, actually. I not only understand but actually anticipate his germophobic OCD needs.

    Liked by 1 person

  23. Tarnished says:

    Huh. Very different.
    I don’t think I have any similar issues…I’m perfectly fine with sharing food with friends or close family (like taking a lick of an ice cream, or a bite of pizza, etc) so long as they’re not ill. However, I don’t share hairbrushes with anyone. Big “no” for me. Silly, perhaps, but it is what it is.

    I’m continuously surprised by your own germaphobic tendencies, Liz. Being a nurse didn’t get you over them…or did it make them worse? I used to dislike things like worms, maggots, blood, and so on, but after volunteering with injured and dying wildlife for years, I quickly found it didn’t bother me anymore. Most times, you concentrated on getting the “patient” better/more comfortable than whether you had gross stuff on your hands…

    Liked by 1 person

  24. Tarnished says:

    Then again, I’m paralyzingly terrified of roller coasters without any good reason, so…

    Like

  25. Liz says:

    I’m worse after being a nurse, but things like blood, mucus, guck, poo, doesn’t bother me….paradoxically I actually LOVE wound care and puss and stuff.

    But I’m gloved up of course. When I get home (or when I DID, haven’t worked as a nurse in a while) I’d just undress in the garage and leave my shoes there. I didn’t take the stuff into the house, and would throw it in the wash right away. It’s the stuff we don’t see that bothers me more.

    It’s funny, there was another guy in one squadron many moons ago with similar OCDs. And he started dating a woman with the same OCD tendencies and they were engaged within a few weeks (still married, they have sons too…but just two of them). 🙂

    Liked by 1 person

  26. Liz says:

    I should add, one thing I never liked to do was eat at work. If I did, I’d wash very very well. Most nurses just chow down and snack on the floor without washing very well, it was really nauseating.

    Liked by 1 person

  27. Tarnished says:

    Ew. Yeah…no.
    I’m super cool with cleaning up dead skin, removing botfly larvae or mangoworms or fish hooks from flesh, giving injections, rinsing off blood and pus and other bleh stuff, but again that’s just because you *know* getting rid of it is making your patients feel a LOT better.

    Before eating, I’d wash my hands with pumice-infused antibacterial hand soap. Up to my elbows, lol. 😛

    Liked by 1 person

  28. Cill says:

    Yes I grew up with the blood and guts, and my hands inside the female parts of livestock during birthing on the farms. It hasn’t stopped me being super fussy in my house, though. I keep it steam cleaned and don’t use chemicals inside or outside. There are no steroids or antibiotics or pesticides in my food.

    It works for me, as I never get sick. I suppose I must pick up viruses at times, but not enough to notice.

    Liked by 2 people

  29. fuzziewuzziebear says:

    I had to get away for a while, the original post made me xo mad. All this lesbian PDA is meant to provoke a reaction in men. I think that mine may be perfectly normal and it is NOT lust. It’s disgust.There are exceeding strong social and religious taboos about men doing this and there are none for women. What it all boils down to is men are having their noses rubbed in somenone else’s shit. I wouldn’t recommend this for puppies and not for sentient beings either.

    Until reding this post, I never thought one way or the other much about lesbians. It does seem as if radical feminism is using this as a weapon against men.

    OkCupid had something to say about declared bisexuals. While they may declare themselves as bi, their communication will be primarily with one sex or the other.

    Anecdote.OkCupid used to allow journals, whidh would have their fifteen minutes of fame on the home page. One bisexual woman got so frustrated with women not returning messages that she decided to write to only men. Seeing that, I felt that, at least, one woman understands.

    Liked by 1 person

  30. Mts. Yoda says:

    We have compatible OCDs

    If together for 800 years one is,
    important this would be.

    Liked by 4 people

  31. fuzziewuzziebear says:

    Perhaps the origin of my anger with modern American women posing as lesbians is that they are making a statement. The statement is that6 men aren’t good enough for them.
    It is quickly approaching the point where modern American men will apply a two word response.

    Liz,
    I don’t know where you are planning to send your oldest off to but, I am worried for him.
    I think that your first impfession is correct, they are uglier than when you were therr.
    You shouldn’t play the mistress. In real life, the wife is alwas better looking.

    Liked by 3 people

  32. Tarnished says:

    Mike wouldn’t need a mistress…Liz is the whole package. Mistresses are only needed if something is missing from the home, whether it be sex or appreciation. Maybe that’s along the lines of what Mike meant? That Liz would “make a good mistress” because she provides all that a side-lady happily does as well. I’d take it as a compliment. 😉

    There are exceeding strong social and religious taboos about men doing this and there are none for women.

    I don’t approve of this either, Fuzzie. Whether someone is gay, lesbian, bi, or straight they should be able to have the ability to find a loving, consenting, and consensual relationship with another of their ilk. If it’s okay for men+women to hold hands and kiss in public, the same should be fine for a man+man or woman+woman couple. Love is to be cherished and allowed to flourish, regardless of sex.

    Liked by 2 people

  33. Tarnished says:

    And no, before anyone says it, you aren’t homophobic if you are 100% straight. Only idiotic SJWs believe that. Being straight isn’t a crime…in our efforts to make our country more equal to all, many have forgotten this fact. 😦

    Liked by 1 person

  34. Mts. Yoda says:

    Perhaps the origin of my anger with modern American women posing as lesbians is that they are making a statement.

    “Shallow twits we are” the statement would be?

    Liked by 2 people

  35. Tarnished says:

    Mrs. Yoda now a mountain she is? 😉

    I think the fake lesbians are really just trying to say 1 of 2 things. Either;
    A. We’re pretending to make out to draw copious amounts of male sexual attention to ourselves while retaining the ability to deny it, or
    B. We’re in a culturally legitimized man-hating, male-bashing phase of college life, and want men to “know” they are sexually insufficient for us.

    There are too many who act like this for them all to be actual women who just love women.

    Liked by 2 people

  36. Yoda says:

    background is he is proofreading a story I wrote about a mafia mistress..so his text makes sense in that context

    Part of “Pimpin’ Ma Hoe” series this is?

    Liked by 1 person

  37. Mrs. Yoda says:

    Mrs. Yoda now a mountain she is?

    Two mountains I do have.
    Probably proportionately larger than yours they would be.

    Liked by 1 person

  38. fuzziewuzziebear says:

    Tarnished,
    I’ll take option B.
    Last night I saw a quote from a second wave feminist that stated that you couldn’t be a real feminist unless you were also a lesbian.

    bout Option B, men may see this not as temporary but, as permanent.

    I don’t think that it necessarily follows that lesbians hate men or want to do them harm.

    Liked by 1 person

  39. Tarnished says:

    No doubt, Mrs Yoda! 😉

    Fuzzie,
    Not for actual lesbians, who simply don’t find males attractive. However, I’ve my doubts about the fake ones we’re currently discussing…

    Liked by 1 person

  40. Cill says:

    “Part of “Pimpin’ Ma Hoe” series this is?”

    Part of Pimpin Ma Ho Ho Ho Limited Xmas Edition it would be.
    The first autographed copy to me she promised with her hand on her heart she did.

    Liked by 2 people

  41. poseidon740 says:

    The young lesbians who scoff at men when the men look at them with desire are motivated by spite and anger toward men. For some reason that I do not understand many young women just despise men for finding females sexually desirable. These lesbians are acquiring a feeling a rebellious, spiteful superiority by turning their noses up at the “helpless” male.

    Liked by 2 people

  42. Cill says:

    Give it to M to read I will.

    Liked by 1 person

  43. fuzziewuzziebear says:

    I hadn’t given that any thought about Mrs. Yoda. Considering Yoda is small in the chest, it would be likely that anything on Mrs. Yoda would stand out.

    Tarn,
    I don’t know what to do about all these man haters. Avoidance seems to be the only option.

    Liked by 2 people

  44. Cill says:

    Fuzzy, you had the right idea a while ago now. Send a few crews of PPPs to these places.

    Liked by 1 person

  45. Tarnished says:

    Can’t let haters get you down all the time, my ursine amigo. I know it’s not the same as real life, but there’s plenty of friendly, feminine ladyfolk here who don’t hate men. Take a bit of comfort from them, yeah? 🌈

    Liked by 1 person

  46. fuzziewuzziebear says:

    Cill,
    I don’t know. The problem with the PPPs is that you only get them once. What do you do if you like your PPP?

    Tarn,
    It’s time for a bear video. One of my favorites. Rocket powered bears

    Like

  47. Cill says:

    “What do you do if you like your PPP?”
    You get out of Dodge a.s.a.p. XD

    Like

  48. fuzziewuzziebear says:

    Those cowboys should have taken their pay and gone straght home to Texas.

    Like

  49. Cill says:

    Yeah tell this to the lezzies:

    Like

  50. fuzziewuzziebear says:

    Cill,
    The problem is that they have minority/protected status.
    We do not. They can just show up in Dodge City one day and order us out.

    Like

  51. SFC Ton says:

    Liz is going to send her boys to Camp Ton Finishing School for the Slap Ahoe Tribe

    Liked by 1 person

  52. molly says:

    Molly’s Inside Knowledge*

    Reasons women pair up with women:
    1 – Snapped up already. Too good to be single.
    2 – Like “When we’ve got each other, who needs a man?”
    3 – To sneer at men who approach them
    4 – Feminist man haters

    *I get propositioned by those types of women.

    Liked by 2 people

  53. fuzziewuzziebear says:

    Molly,
    I’ll bet that there is a whole lot of No.3 going on. Rejection is an exercise in power.
    For some curious reason, very good looking women are above this. Perhaps being apex females leads them to know what it is like to deal with a shortage of appropiate suitors.

    Liked by 2 people

  54. molly says:

    Fuzzie perhaps pretty women don’t have to put up with second best?
    Like we don’t have to pair with other women.
    Like “When we’ve got men, who needs a woman?”
    (heh heh)

    Liked by 3 people

  55. fuzziewuzziebear says:

    Molly,
    You have been described as gorgeous and I get the feeling that they weren’t exaggerating. That gives you a different set of problems. You have to compete with lesser women willing to throw all caution to the wind. Before I forget:
    🌯 🌯 🌯 🐻 🙄

    Like

  56. molly says:

    Fuzzie 🐻
    🌯 🌯 🌯 🌯 🙄

    Liked by 1 person

  57. fuzziewuzziebear says:

    Molly,
    I went to Google and I saw them. One for each paw! A feast!
    It’s my bedtime. So, I will say Good Night.

    Liked by 1 person

  58. Sumo says:

    Ahhhh……”attention seeking” lesbians. I remember those from my bouncer days. Always amusing to observe.

    Additionally, I’ve personally dated two girls who “identified” as lesbian….that didn’t stop them from begging for some SumoLove, even when I was a pathetic, blue pill chump.

    Liked by 1 person

  59. molly says:

    Who’s yer daddy
    Hhahahahaha!!!
    lol

    Liked by 1 person

  60. molly says:

    Sumo I laugh with you 🙂

    Liked by 1 person

  61. BuenaVista says:

    I was talking to The Bulgarian the other day about sexual preferences and practices. She, like most of the overtly sexual women I know, has experimented with girls. I’d say the ratio is in the range of 1/2. In general, I’d say single professional women are far more experimental and adventurous than I ever would have guessed. But they compartmentalize well and simply dismiss it when they decide it’s time to lock a man down. This is the grown-up version of the LUGs (lesbian until graduation) phenomenon Blurkel commented upon.

    ***

    The notion of gay (male) marriage is an elaborate scam, at least if one applies quaint heterosexual definitions of marital sex (i.e., monogamy). I suppose there is a monogamous gay marriage somewhere, but I’ve never encountered one.

    Liked by 2 people

  62. SFC Ton says:

    Queer marriage isn’t about warm fuzzies for pole smokers but about the left’s quest to destroy the building blocks of Westren culture.

    Like

  63. Tarnished says:

    George and Brad Takei probably are monogamous. Maybe not, who knows? Perhaps they have an open marriage arrangement…doesn’t seem like it would be though. I knew a gay couple who were monogamous for 19 years, but they decided to start seeing other people after that. Hey, they lasted longer than most heteros, lol. But yeah…sexual monogamy isn’t as well known between gay men. I wonder if this has/will changed with the advent of marriage and the legalities that come with it?

    Additionally, I’ve personally dated two girls who “identified” as lesbian…
    1. They were lesbians who were experimenting.
    2. They were on the 3-5 of the Kinsey scale, not a 6.
    3. They were calling themselves lesbians because it made them “cool”, just like how I knew Christians in college who’d call themselves Pagans just to be more hippie-like or tick off their parents.

    I’m aiming for #3. 😛
    It’s the most prevalent explanation in my experience.

    Like

  64. Tarnished says:

    I think the left would have to do something a bit more drastic if that’s their goal. Giving equal marriage rights to a whopping 3% of the US population doesn’t seem to be a very effective way to destroy all of Western culture. Now, the attack on one’s right to bear arms…that is something worth worrying about.

    Like

  65. SFC Ton says:

    Read the book slow March and something does not have to impact a large number of people to be extremely damaging. Look at how the small number of nergoes wreck nation wide statistics on a host of issues

    Like

  66. Tarnished says:

    How do you think granting marriage rights to all consenting adults is damaging? Or I suppose the question should be *who* is it damaging toward, in your opinion?

    Like

  67. Liz says:

    “How do you think granting marriage rights to all consenting adults is damaging? Or I suppose the question should be *who* is it damaging toward, in your opinion?”

    Because, in a nutshell, state-sanctioned marriage places obligations upon third parties.

    Like

  68. Liz says:

    It is damaging to anyone forced to act contrary to their religious beliefs.

    Liked by 1 person

  69. Liz says:

    MIke’s text to me from the coffee shop this morning. I was sleeping when he left (he took the last 50 pages of my story).

    “Hey lazy bitch. I loved your story!”
    😛

    Liked by 2 people

  70. Liz says:

    As a side note, I think most women are about a one or two on the scale. Women are more lovey and touchy in general so they will probably be more biplayful than the average guy who will come across as unmasculine if he does same with another dude. But PDA isn’t about being bi (unless we’re talking the far end of the gay scale), it’s about “lookit me! look how cool and sexually free I am boyz!!” It’s an enticement. Though I do agree there is also a misandry aspect…it’s only an enticement for a few, for others it’s an “f*-you can’t touch this!”
    These things are not mutually exclusive.

    Liked by 2 people

  71. Tarnished says:

    Because, in a nutshell, state-sanctioned marriage places obligations upon third parties.
    You mean like insurance agencies, hospitals, etc?

    It is damaging to anyone forced to act contrary to their religious beliefs.
    No places of worship should ever be forced to hold a religious marriage ceremony if it’s against their beliefs. The whole “separation of church and state” ideal must work both ways.

    Liked by 1 person

  72. Liz says:

    “You mean like insurance agencies, hospitals, etc?”

    I mean employers who are obligated to provide benefits, businesses (specific examples that come to mind readily: bakers, wedding planners, act), taxpayers (there is a cost burden to conferring tax/government/military benefits to same sex relationships).

    Like

  73. Liz says:

    I’ll give a tiny hypothetical…suppose a wedding planner has religious objections to homosexual marriage. Is he or she obligated to provide this service to homosexuals? How about a baker…to make a wedding cake. These may sound like inconsequential examples but imagine a baker forced to make a cake that says, “God hates homosexuals”.

    Like

  74. Tarnished says:

    Ok…but they’d be obligated to do the same for hetero couples too. So if hypothetical man Steve works at Company W, his spouse would receive benefits regardless if he’s married to Jane or John. What’s the issue?

    Liked by 1 person

  75. BuenaVista says:

    I don’t really care about the same sex marriage debate; I would say that the government has already trampled traditional marriage. Not only is the traditional marriage convention a horse that’s fled the barn, but the barn is on fire. Also, I don’t get worked up about whose bonking whom, and I find the idea of demanding a government stamp of approval for personal choices ludicrous.

    However, there are many ways this ruling damages the country. For example:

    a. persecution of the vast majority of the population, who would decline to participate in this social innovation.

    b. opening of the marriage contract to new combinations: e.g., incestual, plural.

    c. further fracturing of the country because a local and state issue is usurped by five people in robes, claiming that they can read between the lines of the Constitution. FMI: see Roe v. Wade.

    d. damaging to children, who are clearly shown to suffer in same-sex marriage families.

    e. damaging to the culture, as gay promiscuity is normalized and mainstreamed.

    f. criminalizes evangelical Christianity and Biblical literalism.

    g. further de-legitmizes the Federal government in many citizens’ eyes.

    Liked by 3 people

  76. BuenaVista says:

    whoops, I meant “incestuous”.

    Like

  77. Tarnished says:

    Yes, so long as they aren’t being asked to do anything atypical for their job.

    For example, if I were to go to a Christian bookstore to buy some books for a theology course but was refused regular service because of my religion…that’s wrong and stupid. But if I went there and asked them to order an obviously non-Christian book, they’d be right to refuse me service since I’d be asking for something they don’t usually offer to the public.

    Liked by 1 person

  78. Tarnished says:

    a. persecution of the vast majority of the population, who would decline to participate in this social innovation.
    How are they being persecuted? No one is forced to partake in homosexual sex if they don’t want to.

    b. opening of the marriage contract to new combinations: e.g., incestual, plural.
    Plural is a possibility, some Mormons already do it so I see more pressure coming from like-minded religious groups. Incestual? Probably not ever, unless it also includes the clause that at least one of the partners is made infertile so that inbreeding is not a threat. I don’t think this will happen anytime soon.

    c. further fracturing of the country because a local and state issue is usurped by five people in robes, claiming that they can read between the lines of the Constitution. FMI: see Roe v. Wade.
    There was fracturing of the country when gay marriage *wasn’t* the topic on the table. We’ve had 33 amendments to our Constitution…was 100% of the country on board with all of those? No.

    d. damaging to children, who are clearly shown to suffer in same-sex marriage families.
    Source?

    e. damaging to the culture, as gay promiscuity is normalized and mainstreamed.
    Promiscuity has already been normalized, whether gay or straight. Isn’t that one of the issues we discuss here often? This is not a gay vs straight issue…this is a anyone-who-has-sex issue.

    f. criminalizes evangelical Christianity and Biblical literalism.
    Really? People are considered criminals for reading Bibles and being evangelical Christians now? Heck, even the Westboro Baptists are still free to do/say whatever they want, and they’re as loudmouthed as they come.

    g. further de-legitmizes the Federal government in many citizens’ eyes.
    Like this wasn’t happening already?

    Liked by 1 person

  79. Liz says:

    “Ok…but they’d be obligated to do the same for hetero couples too. So if hypothetical man Steve works at Company W, his spouse would receive benefits regardless if he’s married to Jane or John. What’s the issue?”

    If the company owner has religious objections to homosexual marriage and is forced to provide benefits ipso facto sanctioning it, that makes a great deal of difference.

    The issue of homosexual marriage is far less about “rights” far more about the SJW push for “in” groups and “out” groups. If you don’t believe it, look at the massive paradigm shift in short timeframe from “requesting tolerance” to demanding acceptance. You’re in the serious out-group if you have any problem with homosexual unions now. This is irrespective of the rightness or wrongness of it. We’re in the middle of a massive social conditioning experiment.

    It has been my experience (in my political debate forum of old) that the folks who debate most heatedly over confering traditional marital rights to homosexuals have no vested interest in the traditional marriage at all. They will debate for these “rights” for homosexuals and then claim marriage is an irrelevancy out of the other side of their mouth. But they will slam those who have a great deal of personal interest in it with all sorts of intolerant perjorative statements about their belief system.

    Here is a really interesting piece on “in” groups and “out” groups. Written by something of a SJW, in fact. It’s lengthy, but very much worth the read. Worth keeping in mind and not limited to only the topic of homosexual marriage, or the “red and blue tribes”.

    http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything-except-the-outgroup/

    Like

  80. Liz says:

    In my old forum, I always cringed when someone started one of those topics. It was bound to be a long night for mod notes and deletions (it was a very strict forum). The only more contentious topic was race related issues. It was pretty easy to see bias even in the moderation. Charges like “bigot” were permissible and ubiquitous, but any similarly insulting statements about homosexuality were banned.

    Like

  81. Tarnished says:

    Just to clarify something I said/questioned above:

    I don’t fully know if being raised by homosexual parents gives any kind of disadvantages to kids or not. Different sources say different things. The people I know who had gay/lesbian parents seem to be average in the aspects of their lives I see.

    This doesn’t mean other kids don’t wish they had a mom or a dad, but again it’s all over the board.

    Here’s one article that interviewed those who were raised by same-sex parents and speak positively of it:
    http://www.buzzfeed.com/lynzybilling/children-share-their-experiences-of-growing-up-with-gay-pare#.hp1kWQEyWb

    And here’s another pair of interviews that speak negatively of it:
    http://dailysignal.com/2015/06/16/new-york-times-ignores-children-of-gay-parents-who-want-a-mom-and-dad/

    This is probably a highly individualized topic, and I’m unsure if there could be an absolute positive or negative associated with it.

    Like

  82. Liz says:

    I should add, my participation on that debate site actually changed my opinion on the issue. I started out pro-homosexual marriage. I’m not really anti now, but I think the contracts should be individual for homosexual unions and the government should not be involved. It was the interaction with forum participants and the open level of hostility that changed my mind. Mike has no problem with homosexual marriage. He didn’t discuss the topic for years, nor does he watch the news or most media outlets.

    He hasn’t noticed the paradigm shift that i have. When I feel like I’m on the receiving end of a social justice warrior trying to feed me a spoon full of castor oil while singing, “look at the airplane! Wee!” I pause and reflect.

    Liked by 1 person

  83. Tarnished says:

    If the company owner has religious objections to homosexual marriage and is forced to provide benefits ipso facto sanctioning it, that makes a great deal of difference.

    How does his providing benefits necessarily mean he approves of/sanctions the marriage? The marriage is sanctioned by the state, like any other marriage certificate. His personal feelings on the matter have precisely 0 to do with what he is legally obligated to provide for his employees. What if he is a staunch Catholic and finds out one of his employees is divorced? Can he refuse to give benefits to that person? What if an employee he formerly assumed was a fellow Christian turns out to be an atheist? Or if a man and woman aren’t married, but have been living in sin for 10 years and have a child together? Maybe he’ll find out that all his employees eat shellfish…

    My point is, if someone is going to use 1 segment of their religion to create laws or deny secular benefits to others, they should be consistent about it.

    You’re in the serious out-group if you have any problem with homosexual unions now.
    There’s out groups in all aspects of society. There are still people who think women shouldn’t vote, and slavery should still be legal, or that marijuana should be freely available for purchase, or that children shouldn’t be vaccinated, or that stranger rape was a good motivator for women to stay at home, or that we should be able to carry weapons wherever we go without consequence. Nobody will ever agree on 100% of the same things.

    Hell, my love and I can have very heated arguments about male circumcision. I’m very much against it, he thinks it’s perfectly acceptable and should continue to be done routinely. Being in an out group in some way is a fact of life.

    It has been my experience (in my political debate forum of old) that the folks who debate most heatedly over confering traditional marital rights to homosexuals have no vested interest in the traditional marriage at all.
    Well, you know I have no personal interest in it, vested or otherwise. You also know I’m a big supporter of MGTOW, that I was raised by my grandmothers til age 7, and that I basically grew up with divorce as the norm in my family. I don’t have much experience with traditional marriage being amazingly awesome or worthwhile.

    But, I do see that it has worked for a very long time, and I also can see that the kids of my friends and coworkers have good lives together. I can also see that while it is certainly possible to have a single-parent or completely unmarried home and raise good kids (courtesy of some of our commenters here), that more stability is important for our young. I may have my doubts about marriage in general…yet I still think that it is a concept worthy of continuing. The fact that marriage between 2 consenting, loving adults who want to formalize their relationship and receive all the legal benefits that go with it is now open to another very small part of the population is, to me, just an evolution of it, not a death knell.

    That’s only my own views on it, though.

    Liked by 2 people

  84. Tarnished says:

    When I feel like I’m on the receiving end of a social justice warrior trying to feed me a spoon full of castor oil while singing, “look at the airplane! Wee!” I pause and reflect.
    I can appreciate that.
    Hopefully I’m not coming off that way? If so, I apologize. Like yourself, I’ve been subjected to a section of the paradigm (though the opposite one…my immediate family is either blatantly anti-gay or actually homophobic. As in, one of my sisters broke down in tears after school one day because a girl asked her to a dance. The girl accepted my sister’s refusal, but sis was so irrationally afraid that she somehow “looked like a lesbian” that she cried while telling us about it.) And like you, I’ve made decisions based on what I was told vs what I have seen as an individual. I wonder what would have happened if our circumstances had been switched?

    Liked by 1 person

  85. Liz says:

    “My point is, if someone is going to use 1 segment of their religion to create laws or deny secular benefits to others, they should be consistent about it.”

    And here is where we get to the meat of the issue…the actual purpose of marriage and reason the government has a vested interest in those sanctions. Raising families. Homosexuals can adopt, but their unions will never produce children. Now, you ask…what about people who are infertile and can’t produce children? The answer is, exceptions do not make the rule and it would be far less efficient (as well as a privacy infringement) to demand that every couple prove fertility. On the flip side, it is completely efficient and no privacy infringement to deny homosexuals sanction on those grounds (though one could argue exceptions for individuals…much like we argue exceptions for juvenile emancipation).

    I do not intend to discuss the issue further…I’ve read and debate this issue so many times I don’t have the strength or interest. We’ll just have to disagree.

    “Hopefully I’m not coming off that way?”

    Not at all, Tarn. I’m refering to about eight years of online discussion with a lot of different people on the subject. Got to the point I could predict what everyone was going to say to every comment with a great deal of precision.

    I actually made a lot of friends in that debate forum, we became well acquainted and met up several times in the “real world”. The closest friend from the group I had was a homosexual man and his partner of over 25 years (they were not monogamous, very intelligent and interesting people though). Our politics were very different in a lot of ways, but I had a great deal of respect for them (and I think the appreciation was mutual). He was one of the few people who was capable of discussing the subject reasonably, but even he went off the deep end quite often.

    Like

  86. Tarnished says:

    Thanks, Liz.
    I think agreeing to disagree is the best option for such a topic, too. Neither of us are out to change the other’s opinion regardless, right?

    As a quick aside, I’ve never heard the viewpoint that marriage is necessarily meant for raising families/having kids. I always have thought of it and heard it toted as a statement of commitment…intention to have kids or no. (Though I’ll readily agree that reason is why the government has interest in it!) It’s a new idea for me, so thanks for broadening my debate horizons. 🙂

    Liked by 1 person

  87. Liz says:

    “I’ve never heard the viewpoint that marriage is necessarily meant for raising families/having kids. I always have thought of it and heard it toted as a statement of commitment…intention to have kids or no.”

    The statement of commitment is advantageous as far as state sanction is concerned to the extent it involves offspring. The state has a vested interest in offspring (see Roe, YES ROE even states this objective fact).
    For the individual couple that might be a different matter, but as far as the state goes that is the reason for confering benefits/advantages.

    Pleasure to debate with you, Tarn. 😉

    Liked by 1 person

  88. Tarnished says:

    Likewise, Liz. 🙂

    Liked by 1 person

  89. Choicy says:

    Marriage is just a joke, like Cillo’s joke about marrying his dog. Fair dinkum, in the future we will a have the State bowing to animal rightist pressure to allow marriage to animals, my mates.

    Feminism already made marriage a joke. It can hardly be more broken than it already is. Who gives a flying fuck what the SJWs do with it from here. Marriage has gone to the dogs, mates.

    If serious people want to enter traditional marriage it is private between themselves and to hell with the State and SJWs and Feminism. If they are sane they will think of it as a different thing altogether than the “marriage” of the fembot world. The problem is, who wants to “dignify” or “legitimize” the barmy Establishment by applying for a marriage certificate?

    Liked by 3 people

  90. Cill says:

    APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATE OF MARRIAGE

    THE 30TH DAY OF FEBRUARY IN THE YEAR OF OUR LORD 2016

    BETWEEN Super Cillious, Night Labourer, and Dog Dog, Security Officer, both of Paradise in New Zealand.

    The marriage is to be solemnised at: The Edge of a Precipitous Cliff

    Officiating Minister: Friar Tuck

    Denomination: Merry Men

    In the presence of: The solemn people of Spawny Space

    Signatures:
    (thumb)
    (paw)

    Liked by 3 people

  91. Mrs. Yoda says:

    I’ve never heard the viewpoint that marriage is necessarily meant for raising families/having kids.

    Been exiled to Degoba your whole life you have?

    Liked by 1 person

  92. Tarnished says:

    Lol. No, Mrs Yoda.
    It has simply not been a viewpoint uttered by any parents, teachers, or friends of mine. Marriage is certainly a way to provide stability for raising children…but I’ve never heard it referred to as the *main* reason for the institution of matrimony to exist. Like I told Liz, marriage has always been defined (to me) as the legalization of commitment between 2 adults, no children necessary.

    Like

  93. fuzziewuzziebear says:

    Liz,
    A couple of years ago on another blog, I saw a photo of a very cute blonde college girl holding up a sign. The sign read, “I get more pussy than you get.”
    I think that there are a lot of women out there that can’t pass up an opportunity to hurt men.
    Looking at it from the perspective of a contemporary, I would say that she deserves the two word response. After that, turn on my heel, gom home, and learn how to play video games.

    Liked by 1 person

  94. Tarnished says:

    If you weren’t 12 hours away, Fuzzie, I could teach you. 😉

    More seriously, that girl was being needlessly hurtful towards men, most especially those who have trouble finding sexual partners. And what did it accomplish? Nothing, except creating more distrust between the sexes.

    Liked by 1 person

  95. fuzziewuzziebear says:

    It should not come as a sruprise to this compny that fembots would love to see the death of marriage between heterosexuals. While their minions are busy with that, they can distract everyone with arguing about gay marriage.
    From what I have heard, for gays, it was always about spousal benefits. The controversey is way out of proportion.

    Liked by 1 person

  96. Tarnished says:

    True, Fuzzie.
    Most (not all) of the pro-gay marriage people I know weren’t after the right to use the word “marriage”. Maybe if civil unions had actually been changed to confer all the same spousal benefits as marriage, this “fracturing of the country” might never have happened. I really can’t blame anyone for wanting the ability to make medical decisions for their partner of 15 years, be able to adopt their partner’s child as their own, and be allowed to visit them in a hospital. (To name a few.)

    The controversy was indeed way out of proportion.

    Like

  97. Mrs. Yoda says:

    It has simply not been a viewpoint uttered by any parents, teachers, or friends of mine.

    Pathetic parents, teachers and friends you do have.

    Like

  98. Tarnished says:

    Hey now…leave my friends out of this. 😛

    Besides, it’s not like a common topic of conversation between us is the definition of marriage. We do talk about it, but regarding concepts like love, sex, gender roles, double standards, pressures to marry, etc.

    Like

  99. Cill says:

    For me personally, children would be the only reason for marriage. I can’t see any other reason for any man in his right mind to go into marriage. Tarn, in pre-feminism days people did not want to have children out of wedlock. It was not a good thing for a child to be a bastard. Children were the main reason for marriage, surely?

    Liked by 1 person

  100. Sumo says:

    1. They were lesbians who were experimenting.

    Well, they certainly collected a lot of, um…..”data”. 😉

    Liked by 1 person

  101. Tarnished says:

    It’s possible, Cill.
    I’m not going to say “Yes, Definitely” because I don’t know…I’ve not done any research on the reasons for marriage in the past. I *think* it has a lot to do with religious and social conformity. Namely that if you wanted to have sex, you were expected to get married to have it. And because there weren’t very many forms of contraception that worked to the extent we see nowadays, children happened.

    So, it could be that people married to have “sinless” sex and children were a natural byproduct of this OR it could be that both men and women greatly desired children and thus married to provide a stable home. Probably a combination thereof. I don’t know which is more correct, or if either one is. I’m not in a educational position to say which was the major causality.

    I can say that if I were marriage minded, I’d do it for the legal benefits it would grant my spouse and I, with no thought to having kids or extending our family beyond the 2 of us. However, even if I wanted to give up my freedom, I wouldn’t wed in our current culture since it’s decidedly one-sided and misandric.

    Liked by 1 person

  102. Tarnished says:

    Also note, Sumo, that I thought #3 was the most likely answer, not #1. 😛

    Like

  103. Sumo says:

    #1 had the better comedic potential. Although, dating me didn’t exactly shower them with heaps of parental approval. 😀

    Liked by 1 person

  104. SFC Ton says:

    It denigrates generations of tradition and culture.

    Queers elect.to live out side of culture norms and are.free.to do.so. they also should pay Tue price for doing so. Societies that allow perverted practices are quickly replaced by people who breed.

    No long term good will come of queer marriage but who gives a fuck as long as they are being treated as “equals”….. really a very weak argument Tarn. History shows it doesn’t work and it won’t be different this time. It never is

    We can also look to see who pushed for legal queer marriage and know they do not have the best interests of Westren culture in mind.

    Like

  105. SFC Ton says:

    Debates are fucking stupid. Might make right. Long term strength prosperity etc of your people makes right.

    Everything else is bullshit.

    Marriage is about child production and property rights; the state backs that up (or did) because it was the best way to reproduce your self as a people and culture. Marriage ha fuck all to do with spousal benefits, love medical decisions or any of the rest. The left wages war on all fundamental traditions and building blocks because it is about replacing White people and Western culture.

    A free people would have the right to refuse service for any reason. Sex, religion, race, being left handed etc etc

    Mostly when leftist debate they demonstrate a profound lack of knowledge

    Like

  106. fuzziewuzziebear says:

    SFC Ton,
    You didn’t say “might makes righr” sis you?
    Warning: this does not end well for the bear.

    If you watch it hrough to the end, you’ll see evidence that it was fortunate these Keystone Cops did blow up a propane tank.

    Support your right to arm bears!

    Like

Comments are closed.

Recent Comments
cameron232 on Chelsea
cameron232 on Chelsea
RIchardP on Chelsea
professorGBFMtm2021 on Chelsea
Elspeth on Chelsea
professorGBFMtm2021 on Chelsea
Farm Boy on Chelsea
Farm Boy on Chelsea
Farm Boy on Chelsea
Farm Boy on Chelsea
Farm Boy on Chelsea
Farm Boy on Chelsea
b g on Chelsea
Cheque d'Out on Chelsea
Cheque d'Out on Chelsea
%d bloggers like this: