Randy Jabsco wrote:

What newsgroup are you posting from, I'll make sure I include it all the
time.

Bob usually only reads soc.men. It's one of the most trolled and flamed
newsgroups becasue so many people hate the notion of MEN getting to
discuss men's issues. It also gets cross-posted a lot by trolls hoping
to find new flamers to attack and disrupt the conversations.

Despite all that we often have interesting conversations on a wide range
of topics of interest to men. You'd be welcome to drop on by.

Usually soc.men discourage top-posting and html. Its a text only,
generally bottom posting newsgroup.

Bob

"Bob" <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3FDE0B73.2040505@hotmail.com...

Randy Jabsco wrote:

That is amazing Bob. Personally, I probably wouldn't have gone through

the

trouble of answering an entire novel like that, but you did it without

one

single word such as "idiot", or "moron", doing nothing more than

a

spade a spade and giving the issue as it is. Good work!!

It did take a while. Maybe Mx. Tobias will listen but probably not.
HE's been fed so much nonsense bye money taking shrinks, and had his
body hacked to pieces by sadistic docs, that he can't go back.

Glad you liked it.

Bob

Anne Marie Tobias wrote:

This is so messed up, and listening to you twits (specifically Bob and
Randy) is giving me an excedrin headache... the only hatred I've seen is
coming from Randy and Bob and if I see "rumprider" one more time I'm
going have begin looking into why Bob has such profound affinty for the
phrase? Mayhaps he protesteth too much? If you could show just the
slightest modicum of respect, and actually read what people are writing
so that you could sanely reply in kind, I would be truly happy, and
deeply grateful.

It always drives the rump riders and lolly lickers crazy when people
actually name their sordid filthy sexual practices. Thanks, Anne, for
demonstrating that.

Anne Marie Tobias wrote:

This is so messed up, and listening to you twits (specifically Bob and
Randy) is giving me an excedrin headache... the only hatred I've seen is
coming from Randy and Bob and if I see "rumprider" one more time I'm
going have begin looking into why Bob has such profound affinty for the
phrase? Mayhaps he protesteth too much? If you could show just the
slightest modicum of respect, and actually read what people are writing
so that you could sanely reply in kind, I would be truly happy, and
deeply grateful.

It always drives the rump riders and lolly lickers crazy when people
actually name their sordid filthy sexual practices. Thanks, Anne, for
demonstrating that.

So just to give you some background, I am a male to female transsexual.

IOW: A eunuch.

Transsexuals are not gay men. Gay men for the most part are sexually
active. More than 90% of all male to female transsexuals are not
sexually active.

With their ***** and balls cut off they can't be. The rest of them still
are attracted to women. Many m>f eunuchs are still straight in whatever
sexual attraction they have. Underneath all their pretense, they are
still sick men attracted to women.

Gay men's life revolves around their penis.
Transsexuals despise their birth genitalia and ultimately get surgery
to find a body sense that is more compatible with their sense of self.

IOW: They hate men and love women so much they want to be one.

Gay men are for the most part about their sexual preference.
Transsexuals are for the most part about the gender with which they
function in society. I my own case, I prefer having relationships with
women, from a outward social context that makes me lesbian, but from you
narrow little world that probably means I straight. I am feminine. I
look feminine, I function as a normal woman in every aspect of my day to
day life. I have a brother and a sister who are fundamentalist
Christian, each is married and has a son. I love them all, especially
the boys, and have a fine relationship with them. I have no hatred,
dislike, distaste or discomfort with straight people, straight kids,
straight families, and I am a staunch defender of my siblings and their
families, so don't give me any of that straight hate crap it won't wash.
As well I know a number of Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual folks. I've found
them decent, caring, and for the most part people of strong moral
character.

Without further delay...

There are two conversations going here and neither side is listening to
the other. The first conversation if Marriage as a societal structure
for raising chldren. The other is Marriage, a sociopolitical construct
for managing a long term relationship.

1. Marriage as an institution upon which to raise children. Clearly Bob,
you have raised uninformed to an artform.

Clearly, as an eunuch, your perspective is completely biased. Denying a
million years of human culture doesn't fly.

So let's go through this by
the numbers. Marriage didn't occur till people had wealth.

Wrong. You missed the first one. The rest are wrong too.

That is, as
long as people were hunter gatherers, loose tribal affiliations held
clans together and mates freely traveled from partner to partner within
the confines of the tribe. We see this in virtually every early
tribal system on the planet (check out your precolumbian cultures Bob.)

Tribal societies all have marriages of some sort or other. You're wrong
there.

Marriage was invented in agrarian cultures personal wealth and status
began to demand that issues of property, and yes children be addressed
by social commitments.

Wrong. More anti-family nonsense won't help.

Remember too that from the beginning there were
also mechanisms for the dissolution of marriage except for those
societies that based marriage on choice b parent and spouses had no say
in their own betrothal (remember, in many cultures marriage has no basis
in romantic love.)

Marriage laws and customs (of pre-literate societies) usually have some
divorce laws, which are generally provisions for the care of the
children of the marriage.

Even today Bob, in Hindu families, the parents match
children often promising them as babies. Dowry was a means of insuring a
good son for one's daughter (sons in these cultures were especially
prized because a good worker meant security.)

A dowry or bride price varies depending on the willingness of men and
women to marry and the amount of financial incentive needed to secure a
suitable partner. A dowry often reflects a perception that the bride
must contribute financially to the expected future cost of raising her
children.

(Look for a rapidly increasing dowry requirement in the US to offset the
current unequal marriage laws and the hesitancy of men to accept today's
women.)

As societies grew more complex so did rituals and rules surrounding
marriage. There have always be homosexuals. It's demonstrably genetic,
that is, a gene has been found as well as a number of environmental
switches that may cause a child to be born with a mild to strong
disposition to being gay (sexual preference like everything else
falls along a continuum from absolutely hetero to bisexual to absolutely
homo.)

Many "gay" people were once happily married and had a family before they
renounced their former life and decided to become gay. One of the rump
riders posted that a couple of times yesterday.

A recent survey from among over 2,000 psychologist in the U.S.
determined that sexual reference was one of the most unchanging aspects
of human nature (the only aspect more firmly set was gender, and once
that is determined it is virtually impossible to change.)

Yada, yada, yada. Same old PC psychobabble. It's irrelevant to the
purpose of marriage.

Different
cultures handled homosexuality differently. Asian, Native American, and
certain African cultures tended to be tolerant. Cultures decended of
the middle east tended to initially be less so. Though as Christianity
spread from the middle east throughout Europe, there is now substantial
evidence that marriage in one form or another was recogised and accepted
among homosexuals.

Yada, yada, yada. Same old PC psychobabble. It's irrelevant to the
purpose of marriage.

It was during the during the inquisitions that homosexuals were
demonized, as well the Jews, witches, and anybody else that got in the
way of the churches grab for power and wealth. The inquistions in Spain
were so severe that they ultimately lead to the collapse of the Spanish
merchant class and Spain has never recovered. Like wise, the
demonization of Jews during the German inquisitions lead ultimately to
the final solutions proposed by German Nazis for their "Jewish Problem".

Sure, bring up Nazis. That makes your argument true. ROFLMAO!!!

Anybody who is even vaguely familiar with this history has heard the
term "Christ Killer" and knows where it comes from. The deep and
profound hatred of homosexuals that is now so pervassive in Christian
cultures spread with Catholacism throughout Europe and Russia. Sects of
Christianity that derrived from Catholacism inheritted the hatred.
This was especially interesting since Gay men and women had been central
religious figures in the church for centuries

Yep, gay priests have been molesting the altar boys for centuries. Some
things don't change. It's irrelevant to the purpose of marriage.

(there are a number of
female saints from the middle ages who were masculinized by the church
when it went through a period in the 13th century when it was deciding
if women had souls.) So until the inquisitions there is ample evidence
of holy unions between men (call it what you will) and it was observed
and accepted by the church.

Yep, gay priests have been molesting the altar boys for centuries. Some
things don't change. It's irrelevant to the purpose of marriage.

The nature of family and marriage has gone through many forms and
variations.

Wrong. While there are variations on the ceremony as diverse as human
cultures, the "nature" of family and marriage" is virtually constant and
universal across cultures and time.

The type of cellular family that you are familiar Bob has
only been around since post WWII. The majorit of families before that
were living in rural areas with three, sometimes more generations lived
under that same roof (so marriage actually took a back seat to the
extended family where the grand parents often took over child rearing
chores while the parents managed the farm.)

Living arrangements are variable with economic conditions, but that's
irrelevant to the nature of marriage.

Surprisingly it was the
advent of the novel and later the motion picture that created then
cemented the concept in American culture of marriage for sake of
romance... i.e. We marry because we love one another. Notice this basis
for marriage is distinctly different than marriage for family building,
and allows for a wide variety of unions including gay and lesbian.

Wrong again. Rump ride and lolly licker unions have never been marriage
since they turn away from the meaning and nature of marriage. How the
partner is selected, whether by "romance" or by negotiations of
families, is also irrelevant to the nature and meaning of the marriage
that is formed.

People form romantic trysts all the time, and break up again, but those
aren't marriages.

The cellular family got it's start when millions of men returned from
WWII, married, and began starting families, most often moving to and
working in the city (the move to urbanize had begun.)

Yes, and no. It's more of a product of the industrial revolution than
W.W.II, but the economic living arrangement is irrelevant to the nature
and purpose of marriage which is age old.

Families were
separated from grandparents and greatgrandparents and this lead to the
working Father, at home Mother paradigm.

The industrial revolution, not the war. You do need some history.

At the same time, intense
homophobia, strict laws, and police violence kept the gay population
down to a tiny number... literally, the only place for gays to meet was
bars that paid the police to exist, and beatings by the police were
frequent and often severe. It wasn't until the spiritual awakenings of
the 60s and the social movements of the 70 that gays and lesbians
finally struck back against the beatings and murders. The stonewall riot
of the early 70s occurred when transsexuals and dragqueens were attack
by the police at the stonewall bar, and a riot ensued. Until this point
gays and lesbians had virtually no right. They could be fired without
cause, they could be beaten and robbed without recourse (often the
people beating and robbing them were policemen.) They could be denied
social services, and their children could be taken away (and still can
in places like Florida, though that is quick changing.)

Irrelevant off topic victimology. Why don't you throw in the kitchen
sink and talk about colors of porcelain?

This was particularly problematic. Hundreds of thousands of gays and
lesbians have children either through prior marriage,

You again point out that all men and women can choose to marry and form
a family, or choose to abandon their family and become rump riders or
lolly lickers. Your own facts contradict your own points.

insemination, or
adoption. Existing laws punish innocent children growing up in gay and
lesbian families.

You got that backward, but we'd expect that.

Here, I'll straighten it out for you.

"Gay and lesbian faux families punish innocent children growing up."

It is essential that committed gay or lesbian partners
who are raising children be allowed to get married that they might
provide a more reliable and stable environment for those children.

Wrong. It is essential that children growing up have their FATHER AND
MOTHER, and that their needs and fundamental human rights are not pushed
aside for the perverted sexual desires of some lolly licker mom. Your
putting the sexual desires of perverts ahead of the needs of children,
shame on you.

2. The sociopolitical contract that marriage is. Besides the idea of
joining to build a family, there is a romantic, social, economic context
for marriage. It is the system by which two people who exist in a life
long committed partnership, must be able to receive the benefits
consistent with marriage.

Wrong again Mac. The sociopolitical context of marriage is to support
and encourage safe, stable families for breeding (gays hate that term)
and raising children. It has nothing to do with "receiving benefits."
Only greed by those who refuse to provide the benefit to the society,
the future children, allow rump riders and lolly lickers to focus on
"benefits" instead of obligations.

These benefits include but aren't limited to
power of attorney, joint property, inheritance, custody of children,
social security, taxes breaks, insurance, legal partnership, and all the
multitude of rights and privileges bestowed upon two people who are
joined by this social contract.

Wrong again Mac. Those considerations are designed for the safety and
protection of the CHILDREN and their homes and families. They support
the creation of the next generation. Any person who refuses to provide
the next generation has not done their half of the bargain and the
society has no incentive to provide any "benefits" in return, not to
facilitate their formation of a faux family.

Whether one calls it marriage or not, it is only fair that if a gay
couple decided to be joined in such a social contract,

No, it's not fair at all. They have CHOSEN not to provide the return
benefit to society by producing children. They want to receive without
giving. That is completely unfair.

that they receive
all the social benefits of this joining consistent with the act, and
that sexual preference is no cause to say you are entitled to more of
better. This goes against the very heart of what our constitution
states. Literally that all people must have equal benefit and protection
under the law.

It goes to the heart of the social agreement between families and the
society in which they live. Families produce and raise children, the
next generation of the society, and the society in turn facilitates
their efforts.

As you pointed out already, rump riders and lolly lickers CAN AND DO
form families and produce children. When they choose not to do so, they
are NOT entitled to the rights and incentives that society provides for
the production of families.

Wal-Mart offers to give you a new suit of clothes if you pay $100. Do
you think it's fair to demand that they give you the suit of clothes
after you refuse to give them the $100? That kind of demand would end
their offer to give clothing right away.

You may offer to work all week for a company in return for wages. Would
it be fair of the company to demand your work while refusing to pay
wages? That kind of demand would destroy your participation in work
quite rapidly.

The social benefits that a society, every society of humans since the
beginning, offers to encourage marriage and families is for the purpose
of helping mothers and fathers to bear and raise the children who will
be it's future. It is not fair to anyone, and indeed destroys the whole
purpose of marriage, to allow the benefits to everyone regardless of
whether or not they participate in their half of the bargain.

This does not weaken heterosexual marriage, on the contrary, it codifies
the key benefits of the relationship and insures that all children will
be properly taken care of no matter the sexual prefence of the parent.

WRONG. Like a demand that Wal-Mart provide clothing to everyone
regardless of payment, like a demand for work without wages, and like a
demand for social benefits without social payments, the whole demand
destroys the basic institution and makes it meaningless history.

It didn't work in the USSR, it didn't work in the Kibbutzim, it doesn't
work in human society.

The only excuse for not providing this, is the belief that homosexuality
is wrong,

LIE. The reason for marriage is to promote and encourage families and
children. That has been the reason for all of human history. It has
nothing to do with rump riding or lolly licking. Your nonsense
accusation is offensive.

and therefore that heterosexuals are justified in going to any
length to attack someone for no other reason than their sexual
preference.

LIE. The reason for marriage is to promote and encourage families and
children. That has been the reason for all of human history. It has
nothing to do with rump riding or lolly licking. Your nonsense
accusation is offensive.

If I am mistaken please enlighten me.
Randy Jabsco wrote:

The faux rhetoric about "enlighten me" is another sham. It is seriously
doubtful if Mx. Tobias will listen to any enlightenment. It gets down
to the usual straight bashing at the end.

Bob

This is so messed up, and listening to you twits (specifically Bob and
Randy) is giving me an excedrin headache... the only hatred I've seen is
coming from Randy and Bob and if I see "rumprider" one more time I'm
going have begin looking into why Bob has such profound affinty for the
phrase? Mayhaps he protesteth too much? If you could show just the
slightest modicum of respect, and actually read what people are writing
so that you could sanely reply in kind, I would be truly happy, and
deeply grateful.

So just to give you some background, I am a male to female transsexual.
Transsexuals are not gay men. Gay men for the most part are sexually
active. More than 90% of all male to female transsexuals are not
sexually active. Gay men's life revolves around their penis.

Transsexuals despise their birth genitalia and ultimately get surgery
to find a body sense that is more compatible with their sense of self.
Gay men are for the most part about their sexual preference.
Transsexuals are for the most part about the gender with which they
function in society. I my own case, I prefer having relationships with
women, from a outward social context that makes me lesbian, but from you
narrow little world that probably means I straight. I am feminine. I
look feminine, I function as a normal woman in every aspect of my day to
day life. I have a brother and a sister who are fundamentalist
Christian, each is married and has a son. I love them all, especially
the boys, and have a fine relationship with them. I have no hatred,
dislike, distaste or discomfort with straight people, straight kids,
straight families, and I am a staunch defender of my siblings and their
families, so don't give me any of that straight hate crap it won't wash.
As well I know a number of Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual folks. I've found
them decent, caring, and for the most part people of strong moral character.

Without further delay...

There are two conversations going here and neither side is listening to
the other. The first conversation if Marriage as a societal structure
for raising chldren. The other is Marriage, a sociopolitical construct
for managing a long term relationship.

1. Marriage as an institution upon which to raise children. Clearly Bob,
you have raised uninformed to an artform. So let's go through this by
the numbers. Marriage didn't occur till people had wealth. That is, as
long as people were hunter gatherers, loose tribal affiliations held
clans together and mates freely traveled from partner to partner within
the confines of the tribe. We see this in virtually every early
tribal system on the planet (check out your precolumbian cultures Bob.)
Marriage was invented in agrarian cultures personal wealth and status
began to demand that issues of property, and yes children be addressed
by social commitments. Remember too that from the beginning there were
also mechanisms for the dissolution of marriage except for those
societies that based marriage on choice b parent and spouses had no say
in their own betrothal (remember, in many cultures marriage has no basis
in romantic love.) Even today Bob, in Hindu families, the parents match
children often promising them as babies. Dowry was a means of insuring a
good son for one's daughter (sons in these cultures were especially
prized because a good worker meant security.)

As societies grew more complex so did rituals and rules surrounding
marriage. There have always be homosexuals. It's demonstrably genetic,
that is, a gene has been found as well as a number of environmental
switches that may cause a child to be born with a mild to strong
disposition to being gay (sexual preference like everything else
falls along a continuum from absolutely hetero to bisexual to absolutely
homo.) A recent survey from among over 2,000 psychologist in the U.S.
determined that sexual reference was one of the most unchanging aspects
of human nature (the only aspect more firmly set was gender, and once
that is determined it is virtually impossible to change.) Different
cultures handled homosexuality differently. Asian, Native American, and
certain African cultures tended to be tolerant. Cultures decended of
the middle east tended to initially be less so. Though as Christianity
spread from the middle east throughout Europe, there is now substantial
evidence that marriage in one form or another was recogised and accepted
among homosexuals.

It was during the during the inquisitions that homosexuals were
demonized,

as well the Jews, witches, and anybody else that got in the
way of the churches grab for power and wealth. The inquistions in Spain
were so severe that they ultimately lead to the collapse of the Spanish
merchant class and Spain has never recovered. Like wise, the
demonization of Jews during the German inquisitions lead ultimately to
the final solutions proposed by German Nazis for their "Jewish Problem".
Anybody who is even vaguely familiar with this history has heard the
term "Christ Killer" and knows where it comes from. The deep and
profound hatred of homosexuals that is now so pervassive in Christian
cultures spread with Catholacism throughout Europe and Russia. Sects of
Christianity that derrived from Catholacism inheritted the hatred.
This was especially interesting since Gay men and women had been central
religious figures in the church for centuries (there are a number of
female saints from the middle ages who were masculinized by the church
when it went through a period in the 13th century when it was deciding
if women had souls.) So until the inquisitions there is ample evidence
of holy unions between men (call it what you will) and it was observed
and accepted by the church.

The nature of family and marriage has gone through many forms and
variations. The type of cellular family that you are familiar Bob has
only been around since post WWII. The majority of families before that
were living in rural areas with three, sometimes more generations lived
under that same roof (so marriage actually took a back seat to the
extended family where the grand parents often took over child rearing
chores while the parents managed the farm.) Surprisingly it was the
advent of the novel and later the motion picture that created then
cemented the concept in American culture of marriage for sake of
romance... i.e. We marry because we love one another. Notice this basis
for marriage is distinctly different than marriage for family building,
and allows for a wide variety of unions including gay and lesbian.

The cellular family got it's start when millions of men returned from
WWII, married, and began starting families, most often moving to and
working in the city (the move to urbanize had begun.) Families were
separated from grandparents and greatgrandparents and this lead to the
working Father, at home Mother paradigm. At the same time, intense
homophobia, strict laws, and police violence kept the gay population
down to a tiny number... literally, the only place for gays to meet was
bars that paid the police to exist, and beatings by the police were
frequent and often severe. It wasn't until the spiritual awakenings of
the 60s and the social movements of the 70 that gays and lesbians
finally struck back against the beatings and murders. The stonewall riot
of the early 70s occurred when transsexuals and dragqueens were attack
by the police at the stonewall bar, and a riot ensued. Until this point
gays and lesbians had virtually no right. They could be fired without
cause, they could be beaten and robbed without recourse (often the
people beating and robbing them were policemen.) They could be denied
social services, and their children could be taken away (and still can
in places like Florida, though that is quick changing.)

This was particularly problematic. Hundreds of thousands of gays and
lesbians have children either through prior marriage, insemination, or
adoption. Existing laws punish innocent children growing up in gay and
lesbian families. It is essential that committed gay or lesbian partners
who are raising children be allowed to get married that they might
provide a more reliable and stable environment for those children.

2. The sociopolitical contract that marriage is. Besides the idea of
joining to build a family, there is a romantic, social, economic context
for marriage. It is the system by which two people who exist in a life
long committed partnership, must be able to receive the benefits
consistent with marriage. These benefits include but aren't limited to
power of attorney, joint property, inheritance, custody of children,
social security, taxes breaks, insurance, legal partnership, and all the
multitude of rights and privileges bestowed upon two people who are
joined by this social contract.

Whether one calls it marriage or not, it is only fair that if a gay
couple decided to be joined in such a social contract, that they receive
all the social benefits of this joining consistent with the act, and
that sexual preference is no cause to say you are entitled to more of
better. This goes against the very heart of what our constitution
states. Literally that all people must have equal benefit and protection
under the law.

This does not weaken heterosexual marriage, on the contrary, it codifies
the key benefits of the relationship and insures that all children will
be properly taken care of no matter the sexual prefence of the parent.

The only excuse for not providing this, is the belief that homosexuality
is wrong, and therefore that heterosexuals are justified in going to any
length to attack someone for no other reason than their sexual
preference. If I am mistaken please enlighten me.

Randy Jabsco wrote:

Hey, I thought you faggots said that people were "accepting" you now.