Plan B Forum

Well, it seems the issue of gay marriage has proven to be a genuine threat to hetero marriages after all! Poor Minnesota Senate Majority Leader Amy Koch (R-Family Values) was working so damn hard trying to legislate away the gay that she just cold started banging a senior staffer (the two of them being straight-married to other people and everything!). Those damn gays, destroying the sanctity of marriage, all the time, all over the place!

Anyway, Minnesota gay rights activist John Medeiros was so chagrined by the incident that he penned an open letter of apology:

An Open Apology to Amy Koch on Behalf of All Gay and Lesbian Minnesotans

Dear Ms. Koch,

On behalf of all gays and lesbians living in Minnesota, I would like to wholeheartedly apologize for our community's successful efforts to threaten your traditional marriage. We are ashamed of ourselves for causing you to have what the media refers to as an "illicit affair" with your staffer, and we also extend our deepest apologies to him and to his wife. These recent events have made it quite clear that our gay and lesbian tactics have gone too far, affecting even the most respectful of our society.

We apologize that our selfish requests to marry those we love has cheapened and degraded traditional marriage so much that we caused you to stray from your own holy union for something more cheap and tawdry. And we are doubly remorseful in knowing that many will see this as a form of sexual harassment of a subordinate.

It is now clear to us that if we were not so self-focused and myopic, we would have been able to see that the time you wasted diligently writing legislation that would forever seal the definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman, could have been more usefully spent reshaping the legal definition of "adultery."

Forgive us. As you know, we are not church-going people, so we are unable to fully appreciate that "gay marriage" is incompatible with Christian values, despite the fact that those values carry a biblical tradition of adultery such as yours. We applaud you for keeping that tradition going.

And finally, shame on us for thinking that marriage is a private affair, and that our marriage would have little impact on anyone's family. We now see that marriage is more than that. It is an agreement with society. We should listen to the Minnesota Family Council when it tells us that marriage is about being public, which explains why marriages are public ceremonies. Never did we realize that it is exactly because of this societal agreement that the entire world is looking at you in shame and disappointment instead of minding its own business.

From the bottom of our hearts, we ask that you please accept our apology.

Thank you.
John Medeiros
Minneapolis MN

http://blogs.citypages.com/blotter/2011 ... odkorb.php

Well...I guess one cannot always control one's heart. Even good people commit sins.

But for comparison, I wonder if any research firm will ever gather data on the lifetime fidelity of male homosexuals who are in "committed" relationships. That is, after all, the essence of marriage.

Carry on.

You mean, in comparison to the 50% of married heterosexual men who sleep around?

Mote in neighbour's eye, meet log in your own.

Dropping her as majority leader seemed to be enough, but booting her completely out of politics seems a bit harsh;

Fairly or not, there surely will be many who will question whether a male leader would have received the same treatment that Koch has received. But Michel, an attorney, tried to make it clear that this was about the modern workplace.

(a) Your 50% number is total bullshit.

(b) I am monogamous.

(c) I merely posed a question. If you were capable to doing so, it would have provoked a little thought on your part.

dgs49 wrote:(a) Your 50% number is total bullshit.

No, actually, it's not

(b) I am monogamous.

So was I. I guess that's proof that all gay men are, then.

(c) I merely posed a question. If you were capable to doing so, it would have provoked a little thought on your part.

Perhaps if first you were capable of composing an intelligible sentence...

loCAtek wrote:Dropping her as majority leader seemed to be enough, but booting her completely out of politics seems a bit harsh;

Fairly or not, there surely will be many who will question whether a male leader would have received the same treatment that Koch has received. But Michel, an attorney, tried to make it clear that this was about the modern workplace.

Um, you read that far; could you not get through the next three sentences?

As of late afternoon, Koch had not responded to calls from reporters, but on Thursday she said in an interview with the Associated Press that the decision to leave the politics was hers and that she was not forced out.

(Emphasis added.)

As it’s turning out, the decision to abruptly leave the political arena apparently wasn’t made solely by Koch. Four veteran Republican senators — David Hann, Geoff Michel, Chris Gerlach and Claire Robling — had an emergency meeting with Koch on Wednesday night.

Um, yeah she was not influenced at all at that closed door confrontation meeting;

The word “resign” came up during that Wednesday meeting, but it’s unclear who uttered it and under what circumstances.

So, they decided for her, but she wasn't forced; got it.

dgs49 wrote:(a) Your 50% number is total bullshit.

(b) I am monogamous.

(c) I merely posed a question. If you were capable to doing so, it would have provoked a little thought on your part.

Scooter is not a thinker; he is a knee jerker. It is not that he is incapable of thought, he just not interested in the process. I presume it is boring to him.

And you're defending a hateful bigot. While also not actually providing any proof against Scooter.

After all, the simple facts show that dgs49 is the one who doesn't care about thinking. After all, a thinker would have at least checked Google before spouting off about the 50% number being bullshit.

And a thinker would realize that anecdotal evidence doesn't count when talking about large groups of people.

And his original question was just a thinly veiled attack against people in same sex relationships.

Grim Reaper wrote:And you're defending a hateful bigot. While also not actually providing any proof against Scooter.

It was not meant be a statement of fact. It was an opinion, admittedly not scientific and based casual observation, but still my opinion. It appears to me Scooter's thought process can be summed up as: Liberal is good and conservative bad. You and I know that the world is not that simple.

And I don’t know that 49 is a bigot. I have read where people have said such things, but that does not make it so. However, I personally believe he is wrong about the fifty percent; heterosexual male infidelity is probably more like sixty or seventy percent, at least on the basis of a once in a lifetime occurrence.

Christians, by definition, are hypocrits. We have ideals we could never pretend to live up to.


Most Christians, however are not bigots.

dgs49 wrote:And I don’t know that 49 is a bigot. I have read where people have said such things, but that does not make it so.

Just read any thread having to do with homosexuality. He has a deep hatred for those individuals and would do anything in his meager power to deny them any measure of equal treatment. All because of a book written several thousand years ago. And one that he picks and chooses from based on his convenience.

Liberty1 wrote:Christians, by definition, are hypocrits. We have ideals we could never pretend to live up to.


Most Christians, however are not bigots.

speak for yourself there is a difference between having high Ideals to live up to and looking down your nose at those that fail to live up to those ideals.

Here's your 50%:

"Three recent studies in the United States, using nationally representative samples, have found that about 10–15% of women and 20–25% of men admitted to having engaged in extramarital sex."

And let us consider that this encompasses the entire duration of a marriage. I have been married for more than 38 years. If I had engaged in one extramarital boink, that would put me in the "20-25%" of admitted adulterers. A real assault on the institution, eh?

And those with any interest in reality might compare that manifestation of "marriage" (i.e., traditional, heterosexual) with the manifestation that is currently being thrust on us by our beloved "progressives." And amongst those who post here and are always keen to cite statistics to prove their points, I note that none of them has cited any stats for male homosexuals in "committed" relationships (since marriage is generally not an option). We all know what those statistics, if truthful, would indicate.

Mr. Reaper, you are a particularly odious bastard. You type rubbbish.

I invite you to cite a single sentence that I have posted here or anywhere else that indicates I "hate homosexuals." Or anyone else.

I'm not holding my breath for your response.

Happy Christmas.

dgs49 wrote: Mr. Reaper, you are a particularly odious bastard. You type rubbbish.
Happy Christmas.

Now, that is over the top. Perhaps there are people here that deserve such a comment, but I don't see Reaper as one of them. Just because he does not agree with you does not make him a bad Person.

dgs49 wrote:I invite you to cite a single sentence that I have posted here or anywhere else that indicates I "hate homosexuals." Or anyone else.

You have repeatedly stated that you want to deny them marriage just because of their sexual orientation. There is no reason to deny them this simple act, except for hatred of them for being different. You're the one who called homosexuality a biological and sociological absurdity. You also claimed that homosexuality is an abnormality.

Mr. Liberty.

Mr. Reaper has repeatedly called me a "hateful bigot," and other expressions of similar tenor.

This is what is commonly referred to as an "ad hominem" attack.

He does this in spite of the fact that I have never expressed a hateful thought is this forum (or any other forum), and unless he is a total idiot, he knows it. This is why I refered to him as a particularly odious bastard. And knowing nothing about his parentage, you may assume that I use the term, "bastard" in the colloquial sense.

As for his most recent posting, I can only say that unless he is stupid in the extreme, there is no purpose to the posting other than to buttress his vacuous ad hominem "argument" against me.

As for the substance of these issues, I would point out that:

I do not want to "deny them marriage just because of their sexual orientation." I in fact deny that two people of the same gender can ever be married, unless you FIRST totally redefine marriage to mean something that it has never meant in the past 2,000 plus years. His statement is like saying that I deny people who are five feet tall the "right" to be considered "tall." It is possible to consider them "tall," but first you must redefine "tall" to mean, "anyone over 4'6" in height."

I have also posted here, and in other places, that (1) I don't propose to deny adult and legally competent humans the right to have any relationships they choose to have, regardless of their genders, biological relationship, or anything else. They can live in lifelong monogamy or otherwise, and it doesn't bother me one way or another. But under current law, the state legislatures are empowered to define "marriage" in civil law - not the courts (e.g., the Massachusetts Supreme Court), not popular vote of the people, not the President, and certainly not me or anyone who posts here. Queers cannot be "married," except in a very few states. It's not my decision, and not my concern.

(2) Further, I do not give a fat fuck how the legislature of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (where I reside and vote) chooses to define marriage in the future. If they want to re-define it to include queer couples of whatever sort, and to create policies that make sense for those couples, it is no sweat off my scrotum. I won't vote for or against any candidate based on this issue.

And having (barely) passed High School biology, I can say for an absolute biological fact that one man buggering another is a biological absurdity, and it is abnormal in the extreme (engaged in regularly by less than 3% of the adult male population). The penis is a reproductive organ (when sexually stimulated), and the anus is the end of the reproductive system. It is not designed or intended for insertion of foreign objects, no matter how sincerely done. Anyone can verify these facts by researching the "digestive system" and the "reproductive system," respectively, on the internet or otherwise. It is not my opinion, it is a fact. If that makes anyone uncomfortable, that's not my problem, it is theirs.

If pointing out facts makes one a bigot, then I guess we need to redefine "bigot" as well.

Calypso Louie was famously quoted as saying, "Anti-Semite used to mean 'someone who hates Jews,' but now it seems to mean, 'someone whom Jews hate.'" Maybe it's the same with "bigot." It used to mean someone who is irrationally hateful, but now maybe it means someone who is irrationally hated.

Happy New Year.

dgs49 wrote:And amongst those who post here and are always keen to cite statistics to prove their points, I note that none of them has cited any stats for male homosexuals in "committed" relationships

In the universe which everyone except you inhabits, it is not up to anyone else to prove the assertions you make.

And I always find it fascinating when purportedly exclusively heterosexual men take such an interest in the sexual habits of gay men. Perhaps they should think about what they are telegraphing.

dgs49 wrote:This is what is commonly referred to as an "ad hominem" attack.

Wrong. Try again with a real argument.

And it's especially hypocritical of you to call my posts an ad hominem attack when it's followed by the completely unsubstantiated vitriol in your post. You are pathetic and hateful. This is easily shown by the posts in this forum that I have linked to in this thread. You call homosexuals abnormal and absurd. You want do deny them equality. You can not refute this simple fact so you choose instead to attack me personally.

dgs49 wrote:I do not want to "deny them marriage just because of their sexual orientation." I in fact deny that two people of the same gender can ever be married, unless you FIRST totally redefine marriage to mean something that it has never meant in the past 2,000 plus years. His statement is like saying that I deny people who are five feet tall the "right" to be considered "tall." It is possible to consider them "tall," but first you must redefine "tall" to mean, "anyone over 4'6" in height."

More incoherence here, especially with his silliness of trying to compare homosexuality with tallness.

Oh, and of course he uses "never meant" to exclude any places where homosexuality was allowed, obscure places like say.. the Roman Empire. But they don't count. Totally.

dgs49 wrote:I have also posted here, and in other places, that (1) I don't propose to deny adult and legally competent humans the right to have any relationships they choose to have, regardless of their genders, biological relationship, or anything else. They can live in lifelong monogamy or otherwise, and it doesn't bother me one way or another. But under current law, the state legislatures are empowered to define "marriage" in civil law - not the courts (e.g., the Massachusetts Supreme Court), not popular vote of the people, not the President, and certainly not me or anyone who posts here. Queers cannot be "married," except in a very few states. It's not my decision, and not my concern.

Sure, they can live together, but they can't receive any of the benefits of being married that everyone else gets.

dgs49 wrote:And having (barely) passed High School biology, I can say for an absolute biological fact that one man buggering another is a biological absurdity, and it is abnormal in the extreme (engaged in regularly by less than 3% of the adult male population). The penis is a reproductive organ (when sexually stimulated), and the anus is the end of the reproductive system. It is not designed or intended for insertion of foreign objects, no matter how sincerely done. Anyone can verify these facts by researching the "digestive system" and the "reproductive system," respectively, on the internet or otherwise. It is not my opinion, it is a fact. If that makes anyone uncomfortable, that's not my problem, it is theirs.

You never did explain how homosexuals engaging in sex is any more "absurd" than two infertile people of different genders engaging in sex. The end result in either case is no possible chance of reproduction. Again, you have a specific hatred for homosexuals and using flawed scientific understanding to support your bigotry.