Among its other benefits, Islam looks like a boon for pedophiles. The joy increases.

"pleasure-marriage contract"? Guess I shouldn't be surprised that absolutists would have some kind of directed weasel words to justify both a red light distirct AND pedo. And what happens to the girl? Think I'm gonna puke.

"And what happens to the girl?" After age 13 or so they retire to begger.

Anyone who can look at a 9-year-old girl and see a mature woman is conning themselves as well as God.

As repugnant as some practices of Islam are, it will look like an increasingly attractive alternative (for men at least) as feminism continues its corrosive march through Western civilization. As feminism makes it increasingly difficult for men to have a family in the West (or even to have respect), they will embrace whatever system will allow it.

Women still think they need men like fish need bicycles? Arrogant delusion, me thinks! Maybe women in the West will eventually conclude they should start being JUST a little nicer to their men-folk as the spectre of Sharia looms ever-closer.

Jay R, that's just a goofy-shit thing to say, even if you believe it, and I can't imagine that you do.

"As repugnant as some practices of Islam are, it will look like an increasingly attractive alternative (for men at least) as feminism continues its corrosive march through Western civilization."

Wow.

That's some intense Kool-Aid that you're drinking, "me thinks!"

I have a hard time believing that you are posting that with any other purpose other than Trolling. If you don't and you actually believe what you're saying, don't tell me.

dunno Jay R, where I come from, no matter how a woman treats me I would defend her to the death, and I mean that explicitly. People are not property, you might imagine the whole western world eventually coming to grips with this, and not in a peaceful way.

Methinks that Jay just doesn't know how to either command or earn respect. But obviously thinks a woman should have to earn his -- by behaving how he dictates. A prize he isn't.

I can think of so many, many, many men I respect. I think it would suck to have no male friends or men to look up to. But I know -- because I'm an independent female -- he'd think I think like that. (I don't.)

T, my sweet guy, this is an example of how not to be. Don't be a doormat and don't be a heel. Be a man, Sir T, think about what that means. Be strong, be responsible, be reasonable -- and expect the same in return.

That, Jay, is how one (man or woman) earns respect. It is not given on demand.

Zowie! It's nice to have fans. ;)

Some of you read too much into my comments.("Projection," anyone?)

Some of you make the (common, but still fundamental) mistake of equating "anti-feminist" with "misogynist," and equating "feminist" with "woman." (Some of the most vile feminists are men, in my opinion.)

Those who protest my comments in knee-jerk fashion are seemingly willing to ignore the tidal-wave of "islamization" of Europe (part of the "West" to which I refer) that is now happening (Right, Amy?)

The men of Europe, good, politically-correct, docile, feminist multiculturists that they have become, are now in no position to resist the cultural encroachment. Today in Britain Sharia courts have been given the right to handle certain types of matters involving Muslims. The camel's nose is already under the tent, doesn't it appear? We have "tolerance" laws here, too.

Also dismissed by my thoughtful and chivalrous critics, apparently, is the ongoing progressive/feminist attack on the West's "oppressive" religious institutions. As our existing religious bastions begin to crumble and/or become feminized, a vacuum is being created -- one that Islam is only happy to fill.

Can anyone plausibly deny that feminist policy makers seem hell-bent on fostering gender relations that make the West a house divided against itself? The prevailing, politically-correct, feminist Western view is that men, addled by and saddled with their noxious, poisonous testosterone, are in need of "fixing." (Sound familiar, Fido?)

Moreover, those same feminists insist that in today's world, women do not need any protection from men, thank you very much, you awful sexists! It is those misguided chauvinists who leap to their feet to protect "their" women, who thereby demean the competence and independence of those women, right? (Now who is treating women like property?)

It seems most of you assume that I refer to a threat from the outside ("Man the barricades!" "Woman the barricades?"). Oh, no. This will for the most part happen internally. If the feminist assault on Western masculinity and the family structure continues, the allure of fundamentalist religions -- whether they be Islamic, Jewish, or Christian -- which provide a system of belief and socialization in which men are not subordinate villains, and which instead honor and promote their presence within a family, will become ever stronger.

So, my suggestion that women be nicer to men in the West is made rationally and in good faith. Did I ever say that men should be nastier to women? No. My suggestion in fact could be viewed as "feminist": women should take responsibility for their own protection, and for the protection of the existing system which supports an egalitarian lifestyle, by doing something positive -- just be nice to and try to support the men with whom you live; give them reason to support the existing system, rather than driving them to a system that, in comparison, will make them feel better about themselves.

Finally, doesn't anyone else find it telling that a mere suggestion that women, to promote their own interests, might want to be "JUST a little nicer to their men-folk" is sufficient to get sooooooo many panties in a twist? If that is all it takes to make one a "misogynist," then I guess I have to plead guilty.

(Is) it just (me) or ) does ) someone ( lik(e their ) s)ym(bols) a() bi(t t)o Muc(h if y)o()u ask me]=/

Jay R:
Misogynist? Nah

Melodramatic? Yep

Stating things in a deliberately inflammatory way (e.g. Islam portrayed as an "attractive alternative" to feminism), and then protesting "misinterpretation"? Yep

Inferring way too much of others comments while accusing them of same? Yep

Overly verbose (and that's saying a lot coming from me)? Yep Yep Yep!

Again, where do you get this fantastic Kool-Aid???

Good post, Jay. Amy has always been a big proponent of being nice to the man in your life, being well groomed, taking care of him, etc.

I can only imagine that the people who objected to your original post think that you should try to find a nice girl instead of hanging around with toxic feminists. And that invoking Sharia law because you have let yourself be treated like a doormat is not the right solution. Let me guess, you live in a college town?

But honestly, I totally relate to what I perceive as the pussification of young men. I have a guy who can quote Plato, kick ass in a bar fight, has impecable manners, and is a electric guitar and gun hobbiest. Being a cool guy does not mean that you have to be a wimp. Quite the contrary...why do you think that gangsta culture has taken off in this day of effeminism of men? Have you read any Camille Paglia?

And after working all day (being the sole breadwinner during the hiring freeze) I made dinner, am doing laundry and not telling anyone that they are patriarchs or rapists.

I don't need a man, but love them in general and specifically. Is that so fucking wrong that you are tempted to wrap me in a burka?

"Totally relate to what YOU perceive".

Gah, of course I totally relate to what I perceive. Rad. Tubular.

Lujlp: Ok, so you don't like punctuation, or, as it appears from your posts, clarity of expression or spelling. I'll try to keep that in mind.

Jamie: Temper, temper! Try to untwist those panties a bit. I'll remember that you don't like too many words, and will try to do better next time. In the meantime, I will note that you responded to not ONE of the substantive points I made, in favor of attacking the WAY I made them and resorting to personal insults. Do you need more time to gather your thoughts, or something? That's ok. I'll wait as long as necessary.

Liz: "I don't need a man, but love them in general and specifically."
-- And my whole point is that women should spend less time stridently shouting the former, and more time gently whispering the latter into their men's ears, if they know what's good for them in the long run.
"Is that so fucking wrong that you are tempted to wrap me in a burka?
-- WTF? Wrap you? Madame, I hardly know you! Seriously, I think you need to read my comments again, but this time pay closer attention. It appears that you have things ass-backwards. Just because I say, "Here comes the tsunami, try to save yourself!" does not mean that I am in favor of tsunamis, or that I hate you. It's just the opposite. Get it?

Liz, one more thing:

"you have let yourself be treated like a doormat is not the right solution. Let me guess, you live in a college town?"

I know that it is important to your world-view that I be a cowed, resentful, threatened nerd who can't get a woman, but this is the profile: Early 50's, three grown kids, never divorced, happily married 29 years, attorney, 6-1, 190 lbs., fifth-degree martial arts instructor.

Doormat? Sure. If you say so ... .

"you should try to find a nice girl instead of hanging around with toxic feminists"

As mentioned, I have found my nice girl, thanks. As to not hanging around with toxic feminists, can you please tell me where, these days, I can find a "feminist-free" environment? Please? PLEASE?!

If marriage is good for straight couples, with or without procreation, it's good for gay people. People can argue all they want about "undermining the family" or whatever when it comes to gay marriage, but I've never once heard anyone make a clear non theological argument against it. Can any of you people who have a problem with gay marriage complete the following sentence with a description of clear cut harm?

Gay marriage hurts society because...

Keep it short and simple.

If not, you might as well admit that you have a problem with gay marriage because you think there's something wrong with being a gay man or lesbian woman.

You're a dynamic guy, Jay R!

Toolbag -

Whether gay marriage hurts society is beside the point.

Society doesn't get anything from the transaction.

The existence of heterosexual marriage doesn't magically make players into husbands. It's not going to magically make a promiscuous homosexual man monogamous.

In fact, every argument FOR gay marriage is bullshit. There is nothing automatic or incontestible about marriage as it is.

Which means that there are only two possible reasons left for gay marriage - the ability to rub people's noses in your relationship, and the ability to destroy your partner when your relationship ultimately ends.

Do I think there's something wrong with homosexuality? Yep. It's an evolutionary dead end. I see no reason to promote it.

> If marriage is good for straight
> couples, with or without
> procreation, it's good for
> gay people

1. Says who?

2. Who says society needs to be in a rush to do something "good" for gay people? Why aren't we just as eager to do something "good" for short folks, or people who like to go camping, or people who like model trains? What, exactly, does society get in return for doing this "good" thing for such a relatively small number?

> People can argue all they
> want about "undermining
> the family" or whatever

Quotation marks: Who are you qouting? Are you really going to defeat someone's argument by describing it as "whatever"?

> I've never once heard anyone
> make a clear non theological
> argument

It would be great to see evidence that you've been seriously considering the arguments presented, but instead...

> you might as well admit that you
> have a problem with gay marriage
> because you think there's
> something wrong with being a gay

...you're apparently just eager to be snotty and presumptive about what those on the other side of the argument are thinking. And feeling, even. Don't be too ashamed... People have been doing that for years. See the March 4, 2:54 PM comment.

> Gay marriage hurts society
> because...

• It belittles the centrality of genesis as a focus for society's attention, elevating the (often trivial and momentary) romantic feelings of grown men and women to the same position of importance as the well-being of children, our most defenseless members.

• It further degrades, and in fact ignores, the importance of giving every child a loving mother and a loving father. Heterosexual love between age-apropriate, unrelated, unmarried, sane men and women is special for us all, because it's so pivotal for children. I'm sorry if this demographic mapping doesn't flatter you... But civilization has bigger tasks than giving each and every one of us a reassuring pat on the back.

• It imagines that the blessings of marriage that a society offers (tax breaks, legal services, etc.) simply come out of nowhere. I've never, ever heard a gay marriage activist explain how the rest of the culture would be compensated for providing these to gays. The topic just never arrises... It's presumed that this value will come out of nowhere. It won't. Both as a practical matter and as an expression of our seriousness, gay marriage should be rejected.

> Keep it short and simple.

Oh, go bite something "short and simple".

> Society doesn't get anything
> from the transaction

(He's on the right track....)

> It's an evolutionary
> dead end.

(Shucks, derailed just outside of the train station.)

We just never, ever need to worry about keeping evolution out of a "dead end". It will always do what it wants to do. After humanity's last day, when we're dead and buried –or even just picked clean by cockroaches on the ground where we fell– evolution will be chugging along. It won't even bother to snicker at our demise.

> I see no reason
> to promote it.

Again, don't worry about this too much. Sexual desire will do its work whether or not you "[see] reason to promote it."

Every time we do another round of this, it becomes a little more clear how very many people think this is some kind of referendum on buttfucking (or whatever the scariest practice of gays and lesbians is described to be). And indeed, it turns out that some people really care about that stuff ('It's an evolutionary dead end!')

But some of us don't. The topic is marriage.

"• It imagines that the blessings of marriage that a society offers (tax breaks, legal services, etc.) simply come out of nowhere. I've never, ever heard a gay marriage activist explain how the rest of the culture would be compensated for providing these to gays. The topic just never arrises... It's presumed that this value will come out of nowhere. It won't. Both as a practical matter and as an expression of our seriousness, gay marriage should be rejected."

Hmmm. And this doesn't applied to hetro couples? How?

And please don't fall back on their kiddies. Not all have kiddies. And even those that do have no guarantee their kiddies are going to grow up at all let alone to become productive members of society.

My ex's parents were married 'til death they did part (meaning when she died of breast cancer). All four sons saw the inside of a jail cell. Two wound up suicides. One has turned a new leaf and is now a productive member of society. The other? I just don't know the current info on. But his ex-wife too ran off with kid to protect kid from him. Meaning at least two of the four wound up perverts also. Yay, marriage! It's a magical salve even when fucked up people do it.

My parents were married 20 years and divorced when I was a teen. 8 kids. 1, like brother #4 above, no one knows. Doubtful she's productive. The remaining 7 have been, after various ups and downs and varying degress of personal morality and not one of us has seen the inside of a jail cell.

I am so fucking fed up with the overgeneralizing.

Crid - it's not that I care, it's just that they are asking for the blessings afforded breeders when they themselves cannot breed.

In the long view, I say let them have it. Because if homosexuals decline to take part in heterosexual marriages and reproduction, then they opt out of the gene pool entirely. If homosexuality turns out to be a genetic state of affairs, then homosexuality ends up removed from the gene pool in a couple generations.

Of course, if it turns out not to be, then they are forced to admit that they arrived at their sexuality entirely on the basis of conscious choice.

Jay R:
No temper whatsoever. Please put down the kool-aid, you've clearly had enough. If I was being insulting, I would be a lot more direct. And I wouldn't have said you WEREN'T misogynistic.

My point of contention was the the opening statement that islam was an "attractive alternative" to feminism. After that, the rest just fell into the category of "hot air".

How you present your argument is just as important than what you're saying. They're not mutually exclusive - as you seem to think. If I sit down to debate a topic, there's a difference whether I approach it with respect rather than starting the discussion with "listen here, you stupid twat."

For me to refute your "substantive point," they need to have substance, instead of angry balls of fluff.

Jamie -

We've seen at least one instance of a man turning to Islam because of its promise that he can finally put women "in their place".

Islam offers the disaffected a way out, where they can once again be in control.

"It isn't that women don't like you, it's that you lack the proper context for keeping them where they belong" - this is what Islam says to the boy who blames feminism for his abject lack of dates.

Brian,

Some people turned to the KKK in the 60's because they want to put the black people in their place as a response to what they felt threatened by "repugnant" changes. Do we blame the civil rights movement?

I think the worst issue with Civil Rights (both pro-race and pro-gender) is overcompensation. If you're reaching for equality, that should be the goal, not trying to get revenge.
But to go to the extreme opposite in response (overcompensating for overcompensation) is irrational. And irrationality tends to find justification regardless of the circumstances. Islam has gained and will likely continue to gain plenty of followers without the influence of feminism. Therefore, can you really lay the blame at the feet of radical bra-burners? If so, can't you also lay the blame cross burning and lynching at the feet of black people wanting "compensation"?

I can publicly argue against points of Feminism in any country without getting shot, beaten, or stoned. If the same can't be said of Islam, then it's either giving feminism way too much credit or simply over-generalization.

The KKK is far less violent today than it was previously because the general public is less tolerant of those actions. The best response to any group condoning extreme actions is to speak out against them, not "up the ante" by joining up with something worse, or blame the first group for those condoning worse actions.

You're talking to the wrong person, Jamie. I've never advocated for Islam as a reaction, nor do I think that it's sensible. I'm certainly not blaming feminism for conversion to Islam.

Keep in mind that I'm talking about already-damaged people who are susceptible to such claims.

My comment was exclusively in response to this part of your reply to Jay:

My point of contention was the the opening statement that islam was an "attractive alternative" to feminism. After that, the rest just fell into the category of "hot air".

Jay's statement was completely correct. Islam is, in fact, being sold by its followers as the response to western decadence and the feminization of western culture.

And to a certain subset of people who are always willing to scapegoat someone else for their failure, this is an attractive argument.

Oh, and the reason the KKK is less violent today has little to do with "tolerance" (or lack thereof) and more to do with the violent reaction that good people started having to the KKK.

Imbeciles rarely understand anything more complex than brute force.

Maybe, but it seems more rational to discuss this with you.

"Jay's statement was completely correct. Islam is, in fact, being sold by its followers as the response to western decadence and the feminization of western culture."

Is there really a cause-effect relationship, or is it just another excuse used to rationalize irrational behavior? It sounded like Jay's statement wasn't that idiots were using it for justification - but that Jay was blaming Feminism for Islam's expansion.

If there is no actual cause-effect (or even correlative) relationship then it's distracting others from discussing a productive response.
That's why I had issue with the statement.

"Oh, and the reason the KKK is less violent today has little to do with "tolerance" (or lack thereof) and more to do with the violent reaction that good people started having to the KKK."

I'll disagree with you there. I think it had more to do with the fact that they weren't being tolerated, that instead of everything being swept under, they were getting arrested for the crimes the committed - which forced them to change tactics from emphasizing outright violence to protests and political activism. At least that's what I see when reviewing the history of it.

I could care less what people believe or any other thoughts (or delusions) they carry around in their head. But when they commit crimes, they should be arrested and brought to justice. "Honor Killing" should be treated the same as "Killing" and not justified or excused due to multi-culti BS. Even imbeciles start to notice the pressure when they can't hide behind fear-tactics or behind multi-culti "tolerance."

> And this doesn't applied to
> hetro couples?

No, it doesn't. Society decided early in the day that hetero couples, likely as they are to make babies, were an investment that would pay great returns.

I don't think you've thought this through.

> then homosexuality ends up removed
> from the gene pool in a couple
> generations.

How would this improve the world?

> if it turns out not to be, then
> they are forced to admit that
> they arrived at their sexuality
> entirely on the basis of conscious
> choice.

Not at all.

Firstly, who really gives a fuck whether or not homosexuality is chosen or given? I just don't understand this fascination. (As Ben-David noted earlier, there's substantial evidence that preferences can be scrambled by dramas in childhood, but these insights are the dry fog of scholarship. There aren't many useful principles to be taken from them yet. We already know better than to abuse children.)

Secondly, we have to surrender all fantasies of cornering people and 'forcing them to admit' things. The world doesn't work that way. It's just silly. It's a child's fantasy of comeuppance, and it's never, ever worked that way our entire history. (Jerry Falwell eventually admitted that the church's racial discrimination of during his childhood was a mistake; this was not as satisfying as you might imagine.)

Thirdly, we see from #2 that even if homosexuality isn't inherited, culture can steer souls in that direction without a "conscious" selection taking place.

Again, homosexuality isn't the topic, marriage is the topic.

I didn't get any vote on that, Crid! Why should my tax dollars reward you and your wife any more than they should reward a gay couple?

Bullshit. (And you have probably noticed by now that I call bullshit on bullshit.) You're just applying different standards because you don't want same-sex couples having recognized legal status and seem to think they should be happy with second-class citizenship.

Deal. They're fed up with sitting in the back of the bus. I don't blame them.

And also deal with this -- and I, too, don't give a flying fig whether it's a choice or not -- you can't legislate love and desire. By denying same-sex marriage, that's exactly what's being attempted. It ain't working because that's rather like legislating that a rose by another name doesn't smell as sweet.

> I didn't get any vote on that,

Right. You have to do it anyway.

> Why should my tax dollars reward
> you and your wife any more than
> they should reward a gay couple?

Because heterosexual unions (of pairs of unmarried, unrelated, sane, age-appropriate, opposite-sex) people are special, and particularly good for raising children.

> And you have probably noticed
> by now that I call bullshit on
> bullshit.

I was speaking with some friends about it just the other day!

> you don't want same-sex couples
> having recognized legal status

That's true!

> and seem to think they should be
> happy with second-class
> citizenship

They have identical citizenship as everyone else. Identical.

Again, you just need to settle down and think this through.

> By denying same-sex marriage,
> that's exactly what's being
> attempted.

That's 100% ass-backwards. There's never been gay marriage of the kind you support. NEVER. There's been no global movement through the ages toward gay marriage. This is not an "attempt", it's been the standard for thousands, maybe tens of thousands, of years.

This isn't a long-smoldering eruption of decency; it's a fast-spreading episode of childishness.

Haven't met an attorney yet who didn't think he or she was the sole exception to the reputation of their ilk. Physical specimen of the highest fitness order! Martial arts expert! Successful long-term marriage! Sperm proven effective by zygotes brought to full term! You wish you were me!
Bleh.

Gog,

Don't hate me because I'm beautiful! ;)

"It ain't braggin' if you can do it."

By the way, what's your "ilk"? Above reproach and immune to snide, bigoted comments, no doubt.

I know you to be capable of reasoned analysis with respect to the points I made. I always welcome thoughtful comments or criticism. This pot-shot is beneath you.

you can't legislate love and desire.

Emotion is a not sound basis for either relationships or law.

By denying same-sex marriage, that's exactly what's being attempted.

Name one positive thing that society gets from granting this special relationship to homosexuals.

Woot. Trolling win!

"They have identical citizenship as everyone else. Identical."

No, they don't. Unlike you and me, they are denied the right to marry the person they love and desire. Your argument that they have the right to marry the gender they don't desire to is outright absurd. It's no right. It's a dictate as to who they should love and desire. Because, Goddamn it that's what right for gawd and country.

Brian, legal marriage for hetros is all about love and desire and emotion too. Maybe we should discuss doing away with all marriages but that would be a bigger stink than allowing two people who are going to make a home together legal status simply because they can't be forced to love who you think they should.

T's Grammy said, "Brian, legal marriage for hetros is all about love and desire and emotion too."

No, it isn't. Sorry, but family law is (and should be) indifferent to "love, desire and emotion." Legal marriage exists primarily to promote the raising of children in a stable household by the man and woman who conceived them, and secondarily to provide a one-size-fits-all template for dividing up the kids and/or other "stuff" upon divorce. That certain hetero couples allowed to marry will be intentionally or involuntarily infertile is irrelevant.

It is great that civil unions now exist. It is also great that gay couples can adopt children who have been orphaned due to tragedy or a failure of parenting. The key distinction, though, is that society has an interest in promoting and protecting children's entitlement to be reared, whenever possible, by their natural parents -- the people who have the greatest inherent investment in that child. However loving a gay couple may be, they can never both be the genetic parent of "their" child. As such, from a child-rearing perspective, gay parenting (and all other models) simply can never be the same as, nor equal to, a child being raised by its own mother and father. The exceptions only prove the rule, as they say.

If we remember that it should be "all about the kids" and also about our society's best interest in the long run, then a societal distinction for hetero-only "marriage" starts to make a lot more sense. And remember, in light of the domestic partner law, the privilege for "marriage" is slim, indeed, and is non-existent for purposes of California state law. The idea that gays are being persecuted by exclusion is melodramatic, hysterical nonsense.

If the (at least temporary) happiness of the individual is paramount, then gay marriage is a natural result of that sensibility. Of course, the natural result of that sensibility will also be a "fundamental" right to marry one's own close relative (brothers or sisters have no worry of pregnancy, and a brother and sister can employ sterilization, contraception and/or abortion to avoid offspring), or to marry more than one person ("I want to be married to her, but she wants to be married to another woman, who in turn wants to be married to me. See? Now we all get to marry each other and everybody gets the person they love! It's our fundamental right!")

Many gay people who have either recently been married or who would like to get married make no bones of the fact that they have been married before to members of the opposite sex, and often have had children. They are gay, but chose to marry, and did so. They received all of the societal benefits. Now they are divorced, and want to have the rules changed so that they can marry the "person they love." How is this not special privilege, as opposed to a denial of rights?

It really just comes down to semantics. I say, let the heteros keep "marriage." All we need is a good term for gay couples. I nominate "HOMOGENIZED."

It will be up to gay homogenized couples to show society that they deserve all of the status and significance of hetero married couples. More power to them!

> they are denied the right to
> marry the person they love
> and desire.

There is no such 'right'. Any number of women I've loved and desired have declined to marry me. You're confusing your personal emotional conditions with needs of the broader civilization.

Don't do that.

Are you truly this dense, Crid, or just pretending to be? If so, sorry. Didn't realize I had to spell out the obvious: who also wanted to marry them.

Jay, not that old tired kid thing. Yet again. If your argument about genetic kids flies, we should be likewise discouraging adoption. I'm sure all those orphans would appreciate that one. And all those kids with abusive parents too.

There are other arguments against close relations and multiple marriages that simply don't apply to gays. Your brother-sister nonsense aside.

The only thing that applies to denying gay marriage is gender discrimination. Whether to limit it to two and ban it between close relations (yeah, just look at all those brothers and sisters clamoring to get married) is a whole other discussion that has nothing to do with the subject at hand. You're comparing apples to oranges.