PDA

View Full Version : What anti-gay marriage is about


1Taoist
December 11th, 2008, 21:50
Based on feedback I've gotten from people regarding my view on this topic, I thought it would make a great thread. And I think it's perhaps helpful for those who struggle with this issue in their lives.

Anyone feel free to weigh in.

It's my opinion that opponents of gay marriage, and especially those in favor of Prop 8 and other legislation of such ilk, are not so much against gay people but against sanctioning gay sex. Since, to many, marriage is traditionally the sanctioning of sex in general, if gay people get married, the fear is that their sex will be sanctioned, a thought many simply can't swallow (sorry the pun). Many are indeed for "civil unions" because those don't sanction (or include) sex. People love them some gays...til they find out they actually have sex. It's dissociative disorder, this thinking, that gay doesn't really mean sex...just that they "like" members of the same sex. The dissociate the person and the sex.

When they say "marriage is between a man and a woman", they are really saying SEX is between a man and woman. At least righteously. Sex between consenting adults of the same gender can happen, and does, but just don't ask us to sanction it. This is the birth of The Closet.

There seems to be an element to our nature that wants certain things to stay "illegal" or "illicit", which serves to maintain it's appeal. What they don't want is for gay people to have sex and feel good about it. They want gay people to stay ashamed. After all, all the adulterers must stay ashamed of their extra-marital trysts, and maintain the sanctioning of their sex-less marriages.

As I said in the other post, gay and marriage cannot occupy the same sentence for the fact that together they reveal the sham of straight marriages. Gay meant happy, at one time. And "straight", as in "straight marriage", referred to a jacket worn by insane people. One that made having sex pretty difficult. Like marriage.

Anti-gay marriage is a sham for anti-sanctioning of gay sex. Make no mistake about it.

And if the topic comes up at a cocktail party (pun), out this sham for the sex-fear it is.

Joseph
December 13th, 2008, 04:07
I disagree.

I grew up in a very conservative environment, and STRAIGHT sex out of wedlock was not "sanctioned," let alone gay sex.

I think people know exactly that members of the same sex are being sexually intimate with each other.

The problem is that "marriage" is a government institution as well as a religious one. As long as it is a government intitution, conservative Judeo/Christians feel that it must be defined according to how their holy books say it should be defined.

I say this because -I- am not a hard-core conservative, and I too am for "civil unions," because they don't sanction or include sex. Why should it? Who CARES what sex two people are and whether or not they're having genital contact?

"What they don't want is for gay people to have sex and feel good about it. They want gay people to stay ashamed. After all, all the adulterers must stay ashamed of their extra-marital trysts, and maintain the sanctioning of their sex-less marriages."

BINGO. But making you feel ashamed has ALWAYS been the church's plight, hasn't it. If you remember correctly, MASTURBATION was supposed to send you to hell. The Catholic church STILL condemns masturbation. But nobody seems to mind...

"...gay and marriage cannot occupy the same sentence for the fact that together they reveal the sham of straight marriages."

I disagree. The reason "gay and marriage" cannot occupy the same sentence is that to the ultra-conservative mind, it is a paradox. Kind of like calling a straight couple "gay."

I say marriage in and of itself already IS a sham. Why can't we get "married for love," but not lose half our shit when we divorce? If we "love each other," why must there be a piece of paper that says that if we split, you take half my stuff? How is getting married and divorced any different than getting together and breaking up, other than that with "marriage," the government and our church knows?

Marriage is a sham. It is a public plea for recognition of your love between you and your significant other. Not to mention you put your finances in peril.

Marriage shouldn't even be called "marriage," as they should be properly called business mergers. When you "love" somebody, what does all the cash matter then?

"Anti-gay marriage is a sham for anti-sanctioning of gay sex. Make no mistake about it."

I disagree. Anti-gay marriage is quite clear. Religious group leaders don't want to have to recognize the biblically irrecognizeable. Gays were supposed to be stoned to death. Maybe the laws have changed and people have respect others for what they believe, (I hope respect for others and their bodies still stands, because religion or not, I am against the circumcision of minors) but conservative fanatics don't want to have to recognize what their bible calls an abomination.

Are conservatives "right?" That's up for a debate. A debate that shouldn't be happening in our legal system. Separation from church and state. I say marriage as the public knows it needs to be abolished from our legal system. Civil unions for ALL couples, regardless of sex or even regardless of whether they're having genital contact or not. Let "marriage" be defined at churches, synagogues, mosques or what have you. Not by our courts.

1Taoist
December 14th, 2008, 20:47
I SAID straight sex out of wedlock is NOT sanctioned either. Did you not read that? FFS.

And the the only people who care about what sex people are having are the people against gay marriage. Gay people want their RELATIONSHIP sanctioned and SANCTIFIED in the same method as straight people. You obviously and totally do not get this.

On gay and marriage occupying the same sentence, I was making an observational joke regarding terminology. Flew over your head like the space shuttle.

Some conservs ARE against gay altogether because in their mind it is an abomination. But that's the fringe crazies. Many semi-conservs are ok with gay life-style, just not...marriage. Or, in my terms, sanctioning of gay sex. I don't think many people have come to terms with this subtlety. They just scratch their heads when somewhat rational people oppose gay marriage.

Joseph
December 15th, 2008, 03:24
And the the only people who care about what sex people are having are the people against gay marriage.

I still don't think it's the sex. I think it goes beyond that. The only reason I can say this is because I'm kind of still living in such an ultra conservative environment. They say it takes one to know one... I myself have renounced Christianity, but I still have to talk to my mother every once in a while, who is constantly reminding me that I should "come back to Jesus," get properly "settled down" and "married." Ergo, she wants grandchildren.

People in that environment are not only concerned about the sex; they also find it abhorent that gay people can be allowed to (gasp!) adopt children! They view it as, the gays want the whole world to think that their lifestyle, they're idea of "family" is "normal." They feel that by not fighting against this they are approving of all of that. "Our nation cannot possibly approve this... we were founded on Christianity..." blah blah blah. "Family" as we know it no longer exists. America is full of broken homes and brady bunches. Conservatives can't say that "that's away America is running," because it's not. To finally approve "gay marriage" not only would sanction "gay sex," it would make their entire world, the image of "Christian America" come crashing down. Oh no. We can't let that happen!


Gay people want their RELATIONSHIP sanctioned and SANCTIFIED in the same method as straight people. You obviously and totally do not get this.

Oh I get it. And gay people can and should fight for what they believe in. However, not even -I- think this is right in the head. First of all, I think the idea of some other group of people "sanctioning" or "sanctifying" any relationship I might have, man or woman, to be utterly ridiculous. If I love or want to be with someone else, what do I CARE that someone else thinks it's right or wrong? Aren't I asking for their condemnation? If I lived that way, I'd be going to hell. Woah is me. I'm having sex out of wedlock! I should be ashamed of myself.

The way I see it, not even straight sex is "sanctified" out of marriage. "Marriage" is what makes homosex, or any other sex outside the Christian definition of marriage for that matter, "sinful." Quite frankly, instead of fighting for their "right to marry," I don't see why gays don't work towards abolishing marriage as we know it. I hate to say it, but if they want to be "sanctioned" or "sanctified" by people, that's never going to happen. Not even if they get the laws they want passed.

So uh... I'm probably going to be hated from now on, and I hope that we can talk about this in a civil manner, but I too think that "gay marriage" is a bad idea. (No, I did NOT vote pro-prop 8 .)Not because I think it is "destroying the sanctity of marriage," but because it would for conservatives. Doesn't the nation in which we live in have to be shared by both gays and conservatives? I think what should happen is, our courts should abolish "marriage," and issue civil unions for couples of any sex, and let religious institutions define what "marriage" will mean for them, and let "gay marriage" be "sanctified" in the religious institutions that will. I hate to say it, but gays are living in a dream world if they think they can make "gay marriage" be "sanctified" and "accepted" by everyone. That's never going to happen. And I say it from an objective perspective, not because I personally would damn a "gay married couple." Quite frankly, gay or straight, I really could hear and care less about other people's relationships. I've already said it, but I think even straight "sanctified marriage" is sham. Whenever I hear a couple got married I think to myself, "So you've been fucking all this time, but you finally got a priest to say it's OK. Wooptie doo."


On gay and marriage occupying the same sentence, I was making an observational joke regarding terminology. Flew over your head like the space shuttle.

Yep, sorry. Not all of us are as keen as you.

Some conservs ARE against gay altogether because in their mind it is an abomination. But that's the fringe crazies. Many semi-conservs are ok with gay life-style, just not...marriage. Or, in my terms, sanctioning of gay sex. I don't think many people have come to terms with this subtlety. They just scratch their heads when somewhat rational people oppose gay marriage.

It's religious dogma, dude. Such people have it dictated to them day in and day out. 18years can really do it to ya. Still recovering from the damage and re-learning everything.

Joseph
December 15th, 2008, 06:08
So in the end, what is "pro-gay marriage" all about?

Is it about "equal rights?" Which, I believe as a tax-payer, one should be entitled to, or is it about getting recognition? Getting approval? "Sanction?" "Santification?"

Equal rights? I'm sure one day, whether conservatives like it or not.

But being "sanctioned," as you say? Realistically, I doubt that this will ever happen.

***************

{From the moderator:

This thread continues for the convenience of our guests who enjoy thought-provoking hypotheticals.

It is the opinion of this forum that every individual has the right to pursue happiness and receive equal treatment under the law, and to be judged on their individual merits and not on the basis of statistics associated with some group with which they happen to share some traits.

It is the opinion of this forum that sexual orientation, gender identity, chromosomal gender, and genital appearance are four independent dimensions of a person and that every state we observe is a normal and predictable point on the spectrum of possibilities when DNA from two parents combine and the environment acts on the mother during gestation.}

1Taoist
December 15th, 2008, 12:31
Funny how NOwhere in the Christian bible does it say anything about gays. So any Christians talkin about this ain't Christian- they're ex-JEWS, or in other words HANGING THEIR CRAP ON THEIR JEWISH ROOTS.

And according to these same assholes, the gays ARE working to abolish marriage.

They idea that gay people marrying would "destroy marriage for conservs" is like saying black people marrying white people destroys marriage for the Klan. To quote Robert Downey Jr's "black" character in Tropic Thunder: "Just because it's a theme song don't make it not true". Unfortunately, it does.

And Joseph, your intellect on history is staggeringly low, probably because you're looking for your own creative abstract answer to the world. Gays are never gonna get sanctified? Not only do you sound like the condemned background you are sown from, you're also historically ignorant. They said the same shit about blacks marrying whites. And that happened. So your predictions will settle into the dustbin of nay-sayers throughout history and all social progress.

1Taoist
December 15th, 2008, 12:56
All people who follow the business model of love and commitment will be sanctified and...ultimately...sanctioned.

Joseph
December 15th, 2008, 17:18
Funny how NOwhere in the Christian bible does it say anything about gays.

... uh... yeah, I can tell we're not going to get anywhere here. I really dont care what the bible says anymore, so I'm just going to drop it.


So any Christians talkin about this ain't Christian- they're ex-JEWS, or in other words HANGING THEIR CRAP ON THEIR JEWISH ROOTS.

Story of Christianity's life...

And according to these same assholes, the gays ARE working to abolish marriage.

I REALLY hope they do. I thing marriage is a sham, period.

They idea that gay people marrying would "destroy marriage for conservs" is like saying black people marrying white people destroys marriage for the Klan. To quote Robert Downey Jr's "black" character in Tropic Thunder: "Just because it's a theme song don't make it not true". Unfortunately, it does.

What would happen if the government made "bar mitzvahs" a legal ceremony for ALL 13 year olds? I'm sure that would go down great with Jews. "Marriage" has the strange juxtaposition of being both a government AND religious institution. I'ma say what I've always said; separation of church and state. "Civil unions" for all. Let "marriage" be defined in your own brand of Christianity, just like everything else is.


And Joseph, your intellect on history is staggeringly low, probably because you're looking for your own creative abstract answer to the world. Gays are never gonna get sanctified? Not only do you sound like the condemned background you are sown from, you're also historically ignorant. They said the same shit about blacks marrying whites. And that happened. So your predictions will settle into the dustbin of nay-sayers throughout history and all social progress.

MY intellect on history is staggeringly low?

Slavery sure as hell ended a while back.

Are you REALLY telling me blacks are treated the same as whites today?

Rodney King? Jena High? Katrina?

Progress, yeah, we've made some. We may have a black president, but how many people were recorded saying "I'd NEVER vote for a black president." "No n***er is going to be MY president..." etc? We've still a ways to go, on racism, let alone the acceptance and "sanctification" of gay people.

Joseph
December 15th, 2008, 17:21
All people who follow the business model of love and commitment will be sanctified and...ultimately...sanctioned.

People have a right to believe whatever they want, and people should fight for what they believe in.

Not sure I quite like the idea that love is a business transaction but... to each their own.

1Taoist
December 15th, 2008, 17:53
Your idea of saying to hell with marriage I hope gays destroy it is just the same anarchy response that immature rebels always espouse. Wreck it! To Hell with it! No. Mature people understand we work to learn how to make things work, not to destroy them. Marriage is fine. It's US that aren't fine. And it's your "abolish marriage altogether" attitude that mistakenly shifts the burden of self-examination and improvement into an "instituition" rather than where it belongs- YOU. That's what your mom is pressing.

What I hate is how badly we do things (like marriage) not marriage itself. It becomes a sham because WE are a sham. THAT'S why so many people still WANNA get married, and do (like gays). It's a great accomplishment for those who pull it off, flaws and all. Those who avoid it, just avoid a lot of things. Like the tough parts of life. Get in the game, then talk. When you're in it, then you'll know marriage is something better than YOU. It is a concept not of this world. It is the pledge toward a divinity none of us understand. And our fucked up society looks down on gays trying to do that? How stupid. Really.

***************

{From the moderator:

This thread continues for the convenience of our guests who enjoy thought-provoking hypotheticals.

It is the opinion of this forum that every individual has the right to pursue happiness and receive equal treatment under the law, and to be judged on their individual merits and not on the basis of statistics associated with some group with which they happen to share some traits.

It is the opinion of this forum that sexual orientation, gender identity, chromosomal gender, and genital appearance are four independent dimensions of a person and that every state we observe is a normal and predictable point on the spectrum of possibilities when DNA from two parents combine and the environment acts on the mother during gestation.}

finman
December 16th, 2008, 12:22
We may have a black president
I thought his mother is white, so he is as white as he is black:p

Statistics from the US show that the children brought up in a stable, I presume heterosexual, marriage do so much better in life than those bought up outside of marriage. There are many measures, such as the percentage in prison.

1Taoist
December 16th, 2008, 14:08
They say gay marriage is the destruction of marriage. Anything that is the destruction of something is it's anti-existence. Divorce isn't even it's anti-existence. The anti-existence of marriage, if you're in one, is death.

Some have said the greatest threat to marriage isn't gay couples, it's polygamy. Marriage is the union of two. And even if it's the union of male and female, many gays are indeed male and female souls (some fem and some butch), regardless of their possession of a penis or vadg. But it's still union of two. That is universal. Polygamy is the union of many, which is not the creative principle. It is the underlying cohesion of creation, but not the creative principle. This is why gays have a stronger tendency toward a functional poly-amorous life-style: they are not creating, they are connecting the one to the many.

Polygammy leads to chaos and an emotional disconnect, and perhaps so does gay poly-amory (or at least multiple sex partners).

Hermetic philosophy says "death is not the destruction of things combined but the dissolution of their union". This is why the greatest threat to marriage is too many things combined; too many past marriages, too many affairs, too many children, too many fights. It is the death of marriage, and even in the good ones...death does not destroy them, but dissolve their union...

fursure
December 16th, 2008, 17:57
finman, are you implying that homosexual marriages/households are unstable?

1Taoist
December 17th, 2008, 10:30
I don't think he's implying it, he's stating it.

finman
December 17th, 2008, 13:43
Sorry, I do not have statistics of marriage versus same sex civil partnerships (as they are called in the UK) so far as stability is concerned.

Recently I read of the heavy price paid by US homosexuals compared with straights as far as expected life span, chance of dying a violent death, incidence of HIV/AIDS, incidence of sexually transmitted diseases etc.

If you do not like the statistics, tough, it is not my job to do this kind of research, but I am just repeating them. There were numbers attached to them too.

***************

{From the moderator:

This thread continues for the convenience of our guests who enjoy thought-provoking hypotheticals.

It is the opinion of this forum that every individual has the right to pursue happiness and receive equal treatment under the law, and to be judged on their individual merits and not on the basis of statistics associated with some group with which they happen to share some traits.

It is the opinion of this forum that sexual orientation, gender identity, chromosomal gender, and genital appearance are four independent dimensions of a person and that every state we observe is a normal and predictable point on the spectrum of possibilities when DNA from two parents combine and the environment acts on the mother during gestation.}

admin
December 17th, 2008, 15:26
With respect to the benefits of being raised in a gay household vs a straight adoption situation vs remaining in an orphanage or bouncing around in foster care,...

In one of the Penn & Teller documentaries, they presented research showing that children adopted by gays were more likely to have higher grades, be judged as leaders by their peers, and have varied extra-curricular acivities. It was season 3 or 4.

-Ron

finman
December 17th, 2008, 17:00
Are Penn and Teller a reliable source of information? I thought they were the conjurors who said they did not use camera tricks but then showed they did to amuse the audience. Is not one or both homosexual?

Life expectancy for a 20 year old gay or bisexual man is 8 to 20 years less than all men. The authors estimate that " nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently age 20 years will not reach their 65th birthday." Source: Hogg. RS., Strathdee, SA., Craib, KJP., O'Shaughnessy, MV., Montainer, JSG., Schechter, MT., " Modeling the impact of HIV Disease on Mortality in Gay and Bisexual Men," International Journal of Epidemiology, Vol. 26, No. 3, 1997, pp. 657-61.

In 1998, another study using four contemporary databases suggested that homosexual activity may be associated with a lifespan shortened by 20 to 30 years. Source: Cameron, P., Cameron, K., Playfair, WL., " Does Homosexual Activity Shorten Life? ", Psychological Reports, 1998, 83, pp. 847-66.

Study after study reveals that homosexuality, whether male or female, can take anywhere from 10, 20 to 30 years off of someone's lifespan. Yet there is so much attention on smoking, which the National Cancer Institute says takes just 7 to 10 years off someone's life

fursure
December 17th, 2008, 17:36
Do these assume that gay people inevitably go out and have sex with every single man they meet, getting all sorts of STDs?

There's nothing dangerous about "being gay." I can't say the same for living the "gay lifestyle," but not all gay people, nay, a majority of gay people, do not follow this lifestyle.

Are you getting them confused?

finman
December 17th, 2008, 17:55
They are just statistics. It is not for me to interpret them. Maybe this is just an average, where certain lifestyles are very much more dangerous than others.

fursure
December 17th, 2008, 18:23
If you're using statistics as part of an argument, it is indeed your job to interpret them. While I agree that certain lifestyles are more dangerous, do your numbers prove that merely being a person whose sexual and romantic interests are of the same gender causes instability and life expectancy issues, or just those who have indiscriminate sex, take drugs to enhance sex, prostitute themselves for said drugs, and act like completely immature teenaged girls? If your numbers show the latter, then why not apply this to straight people who fit this description?

***************

{From the moderator:

This thread continues for the convenience of our guests who enjoy thought-provoking hypotheticals.

It is the opinion of this forum that every individual has the right to pursue happiness and receive equal treatment under the law, and to be judged on their individual merits and not on the basis of statistics associated with some group with which they happen to share some traits.

It is the opinion of this forum that sexual orientation, gender identity, chromosomal gender, and genital appearance are four independent dimensions of a person and that every state we observe is a normal and predictable point on the spectrum of possibilities when DNA from two parents combine and the environment acts on the mother during gestation.}

Tally
December 17th, 2008, 19:21
If you're using statistics as part of an argument, it is indeed your job to interpret them.
I agree wholeheartedly with this. Sheeple read things and believe them without question. I've even seen studies that say circumcision reduces the risk of AIDS by 60%!

Not all studies are garbage, but there are a lot of junk science studies. These are studies that use questionable science or are biased with tainted results. An objective examination of the study will often reveal the bias. But, sometimes it takes someone familiar with the science to detect the flaws in the study.

1Taoist
December 17th, 2008, 20:05
Interesting conversation. Maybe it's cuz gay men ejaculate more than straight men. According to Taoist ideals, ejaculating too often does lower your life span. I wonder if it's true. But here's the twist- jackin it just voids sperm, but actually fuckin depletes essence (chi). Gay men have many more partners and much more sexual encounters frequently than straight men. But I've seen reports saying straight people who have sex more often live longer and stay healthier. Is there something to gay sex that has...a deleterious effect? Can we all say...POLITICALLY INCORRECT. Come on, altogether now...

Maybe the drug thing. Meth is a prob. Maybe not so much the actual STD's but they say the more sexual partners you have the more different "germs" you introduce into your body (every person has em), and I've long heard this abstract concept taxes the immune system in subtle ways, which leads to STDs. Interesting to consider.

Another thing to consider is who really digs the last 20 years of their life anyway. Anything over 65 is just shot anyway- nobody is attracted to you, you can't piss, salt and sugar kicks your ass, you're too slow, everything hurts, you forget shit, you shit and piss yourself, you lose all sense of style, erections are impossible...but you get Medicare. That's good.

I think it's gotta have something to do with gay people fuckin themselves to death. After all, straight people would too if they could, but they eat themselves to death instead.

My brother, who's gay, had thanksgiving recently with a 90yr-old gay man whose partner of 65 years just died. So there. Everything I said isn't true.

Can you imagine two 90yr-olds plowin each other? Neither can I.

RobertW
December 17th, 2008, 20:12
Statistics showing gays at a disadvantage to heteros are not necessarily false but they do slant things and even blame the victim. Over the years we've all seen:


Gay suicides higher? Hmm. Wonder why. Not due to gaydom per se, possibly due to persecution by non-gays? Hmm how to fix that. Call it a sin and try to end gayness? Or end the persecution.



Gays more susceptible to blackmail? Hmm. How to deal with that. Refuse to hire them into the FBI, CIA or NSA so they can't be blackmailed? Or normalize gaydom so it's not a blackmailable offense.



Gays get more HIV? Hmm. How to deal with that. Stress abstinence? Say the sinner is fine but the sin is bad? Or embrace gays' attempt to formalize monogomous unions.



I could think of more situations but I'll stop here.

Time after time, the conservative base chooses the former of each possible response, not the latter. It has not worked, and it is still easier and more effective for them to blame the victim and cite the raw statistics rather than unleash the more interpretive "why" part of the equation.

RobertW
December 17th, 2008, 20:22
Can you imagine two 90yr-olds plowin each other? Neither can I.

Who said they were? At the end of my 20 year relationship with a man, we rarely if ever had sex. Yet we were still gay. Sex < > Gay.

admin
December 18th, 2008, 00:12
Would anybody mind if I moved this thread to the Dark Side?

-Ron

***************

{From the moderator:

This thread continues for the convenience of our guests who enjoy thought-provoking hypotheticals.

It is the opinion of this forum that every individual has the right to pursue happiness and receive equal treatment under the law, and to be judged on their individual merits and not on the basis of statistics associated with some group with which they happen to share some traits.

It is the opinion of this forum that sexual orientation, gender identity, chromosomal gender, and genital appearance are four independent dimensions of a person and that every state we observe is a normal and predictable point on the spectrum of possibilities when DNA from two parents combine and the environment acts on the mother during gestation.}

1Taoist
December 18th, 2008, 15:07
Yeah, I would.

1Taoist
December 18th, 2008, 15:12
And on Robert W's comments above: does anyone ANYWHERE know ANYONE hetero who got HIV from hetero sex?? I'm not talkin about some chick who gets it from her husband who fucks guys on the side, or does IV drugs after work. I'm talkin good ole fashioned straight sex between two people who don't do drugs or gay sex.

Probably not. That's another reason why conserves don't want gay sex sanctioned. Like they don't want IV drug use legalized either. The two are inexorably linked.

Now that should sit well with everybody.

1Taoist
December 18th, 2008, 15:22
And the idea that sex does not make u less or more gay is funny, cuz it's often said that if a straight guy blows a gay guy it don't make him gay, but try tellin his wife that. And sex not makin you any more or less straight is silly cuz it does. Not gettin any is different than not havin any. Sex is an expression of our identity and you are "less homo or hetero" if there's no sex on the end of that. Is gay different from homosexual? Is straight different than heterosexual? No. Sexual orientation does determine it and anyone whose "gay" but never has gay sex...that's just feeding the dissociation straight people have concerning gay people, as well as their own DL activities. Any straight guy who don't have sex...is probably gay. And the same the other way.

IMHO

RobertW
December 19th, 2008, 11:28
To your first reply to me about HIV, you have helped me make my point as I'd stated in my Bullet #3. Thank you for that.

[added 1 hour later] On second thought, never mind bullet 3, you've helped me illustrate my entire point.

To your second reply to me about sex, I'm glad you put IMHO at the bottom, because it is indeed just that. I do, in fact, know gay people who don't have sex, for religious reasons. They are still gay. They, and the Church, recognize that.

1Taoist
December 19th, 2008, 17:37
New dimension to things, very thoughtful. I hope I did help, and you're not being sarcastic.

Perhaps what you're saying also calls into question if straight or gay, as orientations, even include sex. Which may be the thing to establish. If gay as an orientation doesn't include sex, and neither does straight, then legally there's no difference between a straight guy gettin married or a gay guy gettin married. Interesting, they say a marriage isn't "consumated" until they have sex. It's one of the only true tests of ones orientation.

Funny, marriage is a religious institution, and you stated some gays don't have sex for religious reasons. Maybe this refers to the sanctity thing. Would they married?? Personally, I don't buy it. I think it's wholely unnatural to do that, and the only people I know who do it are priests and...well...we all know what that's about...


***************

{From the moderator:

This thread continues for the convenience of our guests who enjoy thought-provoking hypotheticals.

It is the opinion of this forum that every individual has the right to pursue happiness and receive equal treatment under the law, and to be judged on their individual merits and not on the basis of statistics associated with some group with which they happen to share some traits.

It is the opinion of this forum that sexual orientation, gender identity, chromosomal gender, and genital appearance are four independent dimensions of a person and that every state we observe is a normal and predictable point on the spectrum of possibilities when DNA from two parents combine and the environment acts on the mother during gestation.}

1Taoist
December 19th, 2008, 23:08
Another simple reason marriage is constrained to man/woman is because of THE POTENTIAL of procreation. Now, that doesn't mean what we think, cuz many straight couples, obviously, can't (or don't) do that. What it means, I think, is it represents the responsibilty and stability of two people mating. It reflects the fact that off-spring are the ONLY PHYSICAL creation that two mating individuals can beget. Metaphysical creations, such as love, do not need financial responsibilty and in fact transcend it. Since gay people can't procreate without going to a member of the opposite sex, it's an insolvable paradox. If gay people can demonstrate a union that is blood-tied to a child, then they could solve it. But that's not possible (from their union). It isn't just our definition of marriage that has to change, it's the foundation of children in the matter of marriage that will have to...change. But even I waver on that idea.

Gay people wanting the same "marriage status" as straight people is a physiological impossibilty. Because their is no children without "going outside the marriage". And reducing procreation to a medical procedure is both inconsequential to nature while at the same time a bastardization of it. No matter what, children come from one half man, one half woman. Always and forever.

If it's possible to take a "fem" gay man and somehow impregnate him with a "male" man, well...you might have a chance. But you then couldn't call that a gay "marriage", cuz procreating as a woman makes it straight.

This is why I drive the sanctity issue, cuz it's the "other dimension" of marriage.

If a gay couple has kids (maybe from a previous "straight" marriage), then they should be able to legally claim marriage need, but then that would nullify a straight couple without kids, cuz anything that qualifies one must disqualify the other, legally.

Perhaps gay people should really examine it in terms not of equality buy in terms of invention; they gotta invent a definition that has the gravitas of procreation.

1Taoist
December 19th, 2008, 23:21
I, personally, don't give a shit about somebody's personal commitment with another person and their union. That's between them. What I DO give a shit about is their commitment to children that they've begotten, because that effects the whole of us, our society.

Perhaps, though, the relationships of people should qualify as of equal importance, and seeing as most are a mess- and I say that respectfully -marriage status may serve to more better benefit society IRRESPECTIVE of procreation, or may even further define it as such...

Procreation of better stability as people.

finman
December 20th, 2008, 03:14
No more statistics here. They tell you NOTHING about an individual, and so should NEVER be interpreted in that way.

Sky-diving may be inherently more dangerous than line dancing, but a sky-diver living his whole life without a single accident from his sport does not disprove the overall statistics. Guys I work with in the military who use parachutes appreciate this fact, do not deny it, disclaim it or hide it, but just do all they can to not become one of those 'statistics'.

1Taoist
December 20th, 2008, 10:42
HIV is the worst thing that could have ever happened to the gay community. It has set them back decades (decades? How bout the last 2000 years of closeting?), thanks to the conspicuous fact that the only two ways (now) you can get HIV are gay sex and...IV drug use. If you're gay, the ONLY other way you can get it is by shooting up with strangers, which, if you're doin that, probably makes you of questionable character. Somewhat troubled. In fact, criminal. This is like having a pussy so close to an asshole...you're gonna play with both, eventually.

On the same token, the best thing that could ever have happened for straight people is NOBODY GOT IT. It didn't become a hetero problem. All this did is knock the gay community to it's knees, and give the conservative in all of us pause to consider the unequal susceptibilty.

And, yes, straights do IV drug use. So the worst of them are linked to the best of gays.

RobertW
December 21st, 2008, 19:20
...calls into question if straight or gay, as orientations, even include sex. Which may be the thing to establish.

"Include" is a word that doesn't really fit here. Sexual orientation is bigger than than the actual sex act. Orientation is the Forest, and the sex act is one of the Trees. Orientation may or may not include sex. Young people who have never had sex usually realize their own orientation whatever it may be. And even without sex, their orientation makes them what they are, hetero or homo or something in between those two opposite ends of the spectrum. I think that has been established already.

...marriage is a religious institution,...

I don't agree with that statement because it is incorrect. Americans have a choice of being married by a justice of the peace or by a religious figure.

A justice of the peace works on behalf of the state, outside of religion. He is authorized by the state to execute marriage and create marriage licenses, a government function. That is all that's necessary to become married. Religion can be left out of the equation and yet the marriage is real and legal. Hundreds of spousal rights result from this act.

Certain religious figures are certified to perform two functions. The first function being the civil function offered by a justice of the peace and resulting in a state marriage license. The second function being a religious ceremony resulting in two people being married also in the eyes of that church. The second function has no legal bearing on the couple's disposition, but people want their relationship to be recognized and respected as legitimate within their societal circles.

Gays are not demanding the religious ceremony. It does not confer the spousal rights that we want. Churches would still be free to host or to not host gay weddings. Anyway we already have churches that marry gays. The MCC Church is one that has married gays for more years than I can count, at least back to the 1970's. But even that Church marriage ceremony falls short of being legally useful because it does not include the civil portion of marriage and it does not result in a marriage license. It only marries you in the eyes of that Church.

'nuff said about that?

***************

{From the moderator:

This thread continues for the convenience of our guests who enjoy thought-provoking hypotheticals.

It is the opinion of this forum that every individual has the right to pursue happiness and receive equal treatment under the law, and to be judged on their individual merits and not on the basis of statistics associated with some group with which they happen to share some traits.

It is the opinion of this forum that sexual orientation, gender identity, chromosomal gender, and genital appearance are four independent dimensions of a person and that every state we observe is a normal and predictable point on the spectrum of possibilities when DNA from two parents combine and the environment acts on the mother during gestation.}

Quark
December 22nd, 2008, 00:05
Quoted from: Google - Define: marriage (http://www.google.com/search?client=opera&rls=en&q=define:+marriage&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8)


the state of being a married couple voluntarily joined for life (or until divorce); "a long and happy marriage"; "God bless this union"
Marriage is a personal union of individuals. This union may also be called matrimony, while the ceremony that marks its beginning is usually called a wedding and the married status created is sometimes called wedlock.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage



Another simple reason marriage is constrained to man/woman is because of THE POTENTIAL of procreation. Now, that doesn't mean what we think, cuz many straight couples, obviously, can't (or don't) do that. What it means, I think, is it represents the responsibilty and stability of two people mating.

...

If it's possible to take a "fem" gay man and somehow impregnate him with a "male" man, well...you might have a chance. But you then couldn't call that a gay "marriage", cuz procreating as a woman makes it straight.

Since when does marriage have to include procreation? It's a union. Procreation can exist whether a man and woman are married or not. It would seem that google disagrees with you, 1Taoist. Perhaps google can see past the other dictonary definitions of marriage and acknowledge (even without using the word 'gay') that everyone has rights.

Are the rights of gay people any different from the rights of which infant males should have? It seems there is a double standard with straight people just as there is with girls being protected by the law with genital mutilation but not boys (in most countries).

Maybe it really comes down to the fact that people are prejudice towards homosexual activity (maybe even frightened of it) just as some are prejudice towards foreskins and thus go out of their way to find an excuse as to why they are against it.

Yet in another thread (http://www.foreskin-restoration.net/forum/showpost.php?p=9400&postcount=46) you posted:
...Mother nature wants the goo, and she'll take it fast, please.

Now your statement above may support what you've said in this thread - that is the obligation of a man to spread his 'seed' as widely as possible. Well marriage limits a straight man with this too, doesn't it? But gay people are still going to be gay. Denying marriage to gay people isn't going to suddenly make them think "Gee, if I want children, I better not be gay anymore!" would it? No.

Maybe some of the gay guys here can provide more insight on this but, if a gay person has excepted that he or she is gay, then they have probably also excepted that they will not reproduce.

As someone else pointed out, if they want to stop gay sex, they should let them get married, it usually works for many straight marriages. :P And if many gay men are married, then that could actually reduce the spread of HIV because they should be confining their sexual activities to just their partner.

A union between two people is just that, they want to show that they have a commitment to each other, not so it gives them the right to have sex. Sex is a trivial part of the union whether the couple be gay or straight.

My point is, at the end of the day, they are still going to be gay and even if you ban gay sex, they'd still do it behind closed doors anyhow. So why not grant equal rights and let them be happy. It's their choice and I fail to see how it truely taints your experience in this world.

finman
December 22nd, 2008, 04:06
...Mother nature wants the goo, and she'll take it fast, please.

Just a point for Christmas, there is NO Santa Claus and there is NO Mother Nature. I am sorry if this shocks you out of your puerile, childhood beliefs but these are the facts.

In the UK a teacher lost her job for saying there is no Santa Claus (the school would rather the children be told lies), so maybe scientists fear for their jobs if they tell people there is no Mother Nature, or even start to tell the truth.

1Taoist
December 22nd, 2008, 11:43
Before I respond I wanted to clarify that in my mind, if you are choosing abstinence (for religious reasons or whatever) you aren't gay OR straight. You are abstinent.

To take the point further, a gay man (or straight) who chooses not to have sex for religious reasons (what religious reason could there be other than non-marriage? Marriage without sex by choice would be disasterous, as well as pointless, as can be seen in many straight marriages) makes you Godsexual. You are not gay or straight, male or female. You are God.

1Taoist
December 22nd, 2008, 12:11
And Robert W, I don't think you can parse the civil and the religious out of marriage. Yes, technically you're right you can get married without the church, but it's recognized by the state to be administered by churches, which inexorably linked. Like HIV and IV. Which by the way sounds like it stands for Homo Intra-Veinous.

Why then just not do the civil unions? If you can get ALL the rights, why not. Cuz, as I disagree with you, gays DO want equal sanction that SANCTIFIES their union. Sanction and sanctify. Like it or not, marriage is, on this planet, the foremost way to do this. And it does include faith.

Marriage is the most unnatural thing two people could enter into. That's why it has to include faith. If you just make it a state rights/legal arrangement, I'm tellin you- nobody would do it. Would you enter into a business arrangement with someone that has a 50% failure rate and will leave you broke and (many times) tied to your ex-partner for life if it doesn't work out? No way. People talk about it this way ALL the time but they do it ANYWAY. Cuz they love the person. It doesn't make sense, and it isn't supposed to. Kinds like religion.

Marriage, the union of two people, is greater than us. It is a concept that is greater than us on earth. That's why it's so hard. To say people just want equal legal rights isn't hitting the mark. At the heart of things, all people want to be sanctioned and sanctified, and our world will not yet do that for gays. God may, but not the people on earth.

All the legal rights in marriage are linked to divine union. The fact that you can have an atheist wedding is beside the point. If it was just a states rights issue, gays would have successfully sued under the constitution and gained those rights. There would be nothing that could stand in their way. The fact that people like Gavin Newsome put this curious truth into play shows how conspicuous it is, and why the religious nuts are trying to change the constitution.

And no, there isn't a 'nuff said.

1Taoist
December 22nd, 2008, 12:22
Quark- absolutely not. Gays do NOT accept they will not procreate. And in fact are taking steps to go around this. Just like single straight women, or even lesbian couples. This is what I really meant: Mother Nature wants to give birth, Father Time wants create, and this is the divine union. It is the driving purpose of life. And it all comes down to procreation. What other purpose is there in life? Can you think of one? Honestly.

The union of two IS procreation. You missed that point.

***************

{From the moderator:

This thread continues for the convenience of our guests who enjoy thought-provoking hypotheticals.

It is the opinion of this forum that every individual has the right to pursue happiness and receive equal treatment under the law, and to be judged on their individual merits and not on the basis of statistics associated with some group with which they happen to share some traits.

It is the opinion of this forum that sexual orientation, gender identity, chromosomal gender, and genital appearance are four independent dimensions of a person and that every state we observe is a normal and predictable point on the spectrum of possibilities when DNA from two parents combine and the environment acts on the mother during gestation.}

1Taoist
December 22nd, 2008, 13:08
I was the one who said to stop gay sex let them get married, and you're rightit would slow the spread of HIV, but since that virus isn't a hetero problem, and conservatives like to see gays going to Hell per their bible, slowing gay sex ain't gonna be first order of business.

All marriage does is slow sex down, for straights too. It slows the spread of STD's. Straights want that for them (especially conserves), but for gays...the more the "merrier" so to speak. They secretly hope this thing will wipe them out.

And maybe mother natures way of slowing the sex down is by producing STD problems. Or maybe it's just a natural aspect to sexual propagation. Marriage is an extra-natural means with which to learn how to control fire and not let it burn out of control. You can confine the fire, or you can piss fire. To lesser or greater extents.

Thank you for further making my point. Slowing down of the spread of HIV is part and parcel with sanctioning and sanctifying gay sex.

1Taoist
December 22nd, 2008, 13:19
And sex is NOT a trivial part of a union. This mistaken idea has led to many a misery in many a marriage.

1Taoist
December 22nd, 2008, 13:33
Finman. Why would you make such a statement about mother nature? Anybody who has to claim there is no Santa Claus does not understand the point of such metaphorical concepts. The point isn't whether there IS or IS NOT something, but since you feel like walking into this pothole intellectually handicapped, let me keep you from twisting your ankle...these things are ideas, and all it takes for an idea to exist...is for someone to have it.

Mother nature is an idealic expression of the abstract NATURE of life on this planet and the cycles and forces that shape it.

And telling kids there is no Santa Claus makes you a Mean One, Mr Grinch.

Quark
December 22nd, 2008, 15:35
And telling kids there is no Santa Claus makes you a Mean One, Mr Grinch.

And telling them lies can make them wonder "What else are they/did they lie about?" No one needs to believe in supernatural beings to have fun at christmas. That doesn't mean that santa claus can't be part of christmas. I just don't think there is a need to lie about it. There's already enough dishonesty in this world, do we need to add to it by lying to our young children?

Some pro-circ people say "Circumcision is good for a boy, it helps him to be stronger to withstand the world."

We know this to be false, but believing in Santa Claus doesn't do that either. What's better to teach kids to except the world then to show it as it really is. Reality...

However taking this thread down this road of debate is well outside the scope of this thread and this forum, but it is something to think about.

finman
December 22nd, 2008, 18:12
Mother Nature is an idealistic expression of the abstract...
So how can it then have wants and ways of doing things?

Yes I agree anyone can dream up ideas but if not based on fact and reality they lack value and are no more than hot air.


***************

{From the moderator:

This thread continues for the convenience of our guests who enjoy thought-provoking hypotheticals.

It is the opinion of this forum that every individual has the right to pursue happiness and receive equal treatment under the law, and to be judged on their individual merits and not on the basis of statistics associated with some group with which they happen to share some traits.

It is the opinion of this forum that sexual orientation, gender identity, chromosomal gender, and genital appearance are four independent dimensions of a person and that every state we observe is a normal and predictable point on the spectrum of possibilities when DNA from two parents combine and the environment acts on the mother during gestation.}

1Taoist
December 22nd, 2008, 21:20
Depeche mode said it best: You'll see your problems multiply...if you continually decide...in the the policy of truth...

Listen, little boys, it's time you, yourselves, were told the truth. This world runs on LIES. The whole thing would collapse without em. Real men don't tell the truth. If you "slip up" and stray, real men don't tell the truth about it. They bury it. In lies. And the world is better off for it. The world can't handle the truth. That is the truth.

We're all better off with a few lies. Like "Its all gonna be alright", when it's not.

Or is it?

1Taoist
December 22nd, 2008, 21:35
Circ isn't a lie, it's an ignorance.

And what we need to teach kids is proper use of language, like the difference between ACCEPT and except.

1Taoist
December 22nd, 2008, 21:45
And finman, my boy, reality isn't something you can know. So stop pretending you approach it, on any level. That's the biggest folly for men steeped in the logic of reality- you THINK you know what's real. And that line of thinking only takes you further from the truth. "Reality" to you is realty, the ground beneath your feet. And we all know what that business is like. Reality beats the Hell out of you while most of us drink.

finman
December 23rd, 2008, 03:54
The world can't handle the truth. That is the truth.
Now that one beats me, 1Taoist! Which part is the truth, which I am unable to handle? Or is none of it truth, as you say I am unable to handle truth?:confused:

It is beginning to sound like Secretary of State, Donanld Rumsfeld:

The Unknown
As we know,
There are known knowns.
There are things we know we know.
We also know
There are known unknowns.
That is to say
We know there are some things
We do not know.
But there are also unknown unknowns,
The ones we don't know
We don't know.

—Feb. 12, 2002, Department of Defence news briefing

One guy I know studied philosophy at university and they used to debate things like (1) This sentence is false.

If (1) is true, then (1) is false. But we can also establish the converse, as follows. Assume (1) is false. Because the Liar Sentence is saying precisely that (namely that it is false), the Liar Sentence is true, so (1) is true. ".

Personally I think life it too short for that!

greg_b
December 23rd, 2008, 05:37
I believe a philosopher from long ago argued that a person cannot go from point "A" to point "B" because in order to do so one must pass the center point in that path...and it can be proved that mathematically there are infinite mid points between any two points...



***************

{From the moderator:

This thread continues for the convenience of our guests who enjoy thought-provoking hypotheticals.

It is the opinion of this forum that every individual has the right to pursue happiness and receive equal treatment under the law, and to be judged on their individual merits and not on the basis of statistics associated with some group with which they happen to share some traits.

It is the opinion of this forum that sexual orientation, gender identity, chromosomal gender, and genital appearance are four independent dimensions of a person and that every state we observe is a normal and predictable point on the spectrum of possibilities when DNA from two parents combine and the environment acts on the mother during gestation.}

finman
December 23rd, 2008, 09:05
On that basis, making love (moving your penis inside a vagina) is impossible, for at any one instant of time, for the penis to be moving it must either move to where it is, or it must move to where it is not. It cannot move to where it is not, because this is a single instant, and it cannot move to where it is because it is already there. In other words, in any instant of time there is no motion occurring, because an instant is a snapshot. Therefore, if it cannot move in a single instant it cannot move in any instant, making any motion impossible:p

This just proves philosophy is nonsense!

1Taoist
December 23rd, 2008, 12:11
Check out the big brains at the table.

Finman, now you're gettin into the Santa Clause. Shrodinger's Santa (is Santa dead or alive if we don't see him? Guess what...he's BOTH!).

And thanks for quoting D Rumsfeld, he's not a big proponent of the truth. In fact, he's a pro liar on the scale of Hitler- the bigger lie you tell, the better. Ordinary people won't tell BIG lies, so the big BIG lies will be believed reflexively, because people won't think anyone would tell a lie that big (911? Pentagon crash? Building 7?) Sign of a good Nazi, if I ever saw one. He just left out "the known knowns to us that remain unknown to the known masses". Which, of course, are asses.

The "this statement is false" just shows the inherent limitation of mathematics to explain reality. This mathematical problem has always knocked realists out, cold.

And that was what I meant with "The world can't handle the truth. That is the truth".

We can only approach it creatively, not logically. Much to the dismay of our legal systems.

greg_b
December 23rd, 2008, 14:36
Another good quote:

"In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
But, in practice, there is."
- Jan L.A. van de Snepscheut

RobertW
December 23rd, 2008, 16:34
Before I respond I wanted to clarify that in my mind, if you are choosing abstinence (for religious reasons or whatever) you aren't gay OR straight. You are abstinent.

That _is_ in your mind. In reality a person would be gay but abstinent or straight but abstinent. The Orientation Forest exists, whether the Tree of active-sex does or not.

And Robert W, I don't think you can parse the civil and the religious out of marriage. Yes, technically you're right you can get married without the church, but it's recognized by the state to be administered by churches, which inexorably linked.

I didn't parse it out. I just explained reality. And remember, it is the church that asks the state for permission to marry people, not the other way around. Marriage is a government institution. Check your license.

Why then just not do the civil unions? If you can get ALL the rights, why not.

Because civil unions do not give us all the rights marriage does. In the few states that allow civil unions of same-gendered people, those people cannot even file federal taxes jointly, not to mention hundreds of other missing benefits. That's why.

If you just make it a state rights/legal arrangement, I'm tellin you- nobody would do it.

It already is a states right/legal arrangement and thousands of people have done it because it carries 100% of the benefits and entitlements of marriage, because it _is_ marriage.

If it was just a states rights issue, gays would have successfully sued under the constitution and gained those rights. There would be nothing that could stand in their way.

You are ahead of the curve. We are doing that now. And there is nothing that will stand in our way when it is all said and done.

1Taoist
December 24th, 2008, 12:44
Finman, once again your logic has taken a shit on you.

In the analogy you gave, and indeed in all instances similar, there is external movement or non-movement, and INTERNAL movement and non-movement. What you fail to account for is the internal, thinking that if all external movement has stopped, or isn't able, there is no such thing as internal movement. Notice that when you cum, you go still. You stop your external movement so your sperm can move. And move it does, young Skywalker.

Movement externally means non-movemnet internally, and stillness externally opens up movement internally. This world is a combination of internal and external principles, and why such logic cannot approach it. The principles of internal are THE OPPOSITE of external. Doing without doing, resting the mind, softness overcoming hardness, stillness beating movement, awareness superior to technique. Sensitivity conquering strength.


***************

{From the moderator:

This thread continues for the convenience of our guests who enjoy thought-provoking hypotheticals.

It is the opinion of this forum that every individual has the right to pursue happiness and receive equal treatment under the law, and to be judged on their individual merits and not on the basis of statistics associated with some group with which they happen to share some traits.

It is the opinion of this forum that sexual orientation, gender identity, chromosomal gender, and genital appearance are four independent dimensions of a person and that every state we observe is a normal and predictable point on the spectrum of possibilities when DNA from two parents combine and the environment acts on the mother during gestation.}

1Taoist
December 24th, 2008, 13:26
Robert: maybe so, and I believe you're right. You just have to overcome The Right.

Technically, marriage IS a states rights issue but it's also a federal one. And that's the part that's tripping you up. And the religious are more concerned with the federal.

What I meant by "nobody will do it" will be born out with time. Gays wanna get married now cuz they can't (in most places). Young straight people wanna get married cuz they don't know any better. I understand why gay people want it, and I'll give em that, but once the novelty wears off (and I don't mean religiously, I mean legally, seriously) and the confinement and difficulties of long-term marriage set in, so will reality, and gay people won't be so pushing to get married.

Don't get me wrong, marriage is nice, but it is HARD. As most worthwhile things are. Like raising kids. But the gay lifestyle has a lot going against it regarding the aspects of marriage that have yet to be mapped. Sex being one of those aspects.

I understand what you said about civil unions not meeting the standard, but I still say there's a sanctifying aspect to marriage that is provided by the church. People like to feel "blessed". Stupid as it may sound.

And if you're given this thing by the state, you are OWNED by them, and why anyone would want that kind of "union" just to file joint taxes (which by the way isn't always great, mostly only concerning kids) or any other rights that could be legally granted without a "union" given by the state.

I just think this whole marriage idea is too mired in...matrimony. Otherwise, it's a bad legal deal. The only up-side is that because of the extreme legal and financial ties to another person, many are "forced" to work it out. To stick it out. Cuz in most situations, with enough freedom, people will not work out their problems and grow a deeper relationship. They will fuck other people, which fucks them up. Once that happens, they move on. Wish it was different, but people sometimes pull through I guess, but not without some serious damage.

1Taoist
December 24th, 2008, 13:37
And merry Xmas to all here. Good tidings to you and your penis.

finman
December 24th, 2008, 17:26
Finman, once again your logic has taken a shit on you...young Skywalker.
1Taoist, soon you will be putting half table-tennis balls in your eyes and calling me "Grasshopper" as in the 70's TV series "Kung Fu" with David Carradine.:p
http://www.kungfu-guide.com/

"When you cease to strive to understand then you will know without understanding."

"All truth goes through three stages. First it is ridiculed.
Then it is violently opposed.
Finally, it is accepted as self-evident."
Arthur Schoepenhauer

To suppress a truth is to give it force beyond endurance