Interesting Take on Gay Marriage.

[Blaidd Drwg]

http://reason.com/archives/2012/05/16/g ... -not-worth

Back in the days when there was an identifiable counter-cultural movement in the United States, feminists, gay activists, and much of the left identified the institution of marriage as the foundation of conservative American culture and therefore something to oppose, not seek. But now, with more and more gays gaining official permission to marry, the left is celebrating a right that it used to compare with the right to be imprisoned.

Those who consider themselves to be the descendants of the counter-cultural left are hailing President Barack Obama’s sudden embrace of gay marriage as a great victory not just for equality and civil rights but also for freedom. Yet historically, those who invented and promoted legal marriage did so with the explicit purpose of restraining the liberty of all of us. Were Emma Goldman, Allen Ginsberg, and the drag queens who threw bricks at the cops at the Stonewall Inn alive today, they might well say that Americans have all become “the Man.”

Free people getting married. The idea that the state should promote, sanction, and regulate monogamous relationships gained currency in the 16th century as a reaction to Europe’s first sexual revolution. Public, group, and what we now call homosexual sex were commonplace, prostitution was rampant and generally unpunished, pornographic books and pamphlets were widely popular, and laws against adultery and divorce went unenforced. Martin Luther and other leaders of the Protestant Reformation seized upon marriage as a means though which to curb unchristian freedoms and bring about social order.

Luther recognized that “he who refuses to marry must fall into immorality,” identified marriage as “the remedy against sin,” and demanded that all of humanity seek the cure “in order that fornication and adultery may be avoided as well as pollutions and promiscuous lusts.”

Until then, the Church alone had recognized and overseen marriages, but Luther and the reformers wanted a more powerful and “worldly” enforcer of God’s laws. Marriage, they said, belonged under the purview of “temporal government,” which “restrains the un-Christian and wicked so that—no thanks to them—they are obliged to keep still and to maintain an outward peace.” Moved by these injunctions, governments across Protestant Europe seized control over marriage and instituted rules to enforce it.

On this side of the Atlantic, shortly after the ratification of the Constitution, the newly-formed states, acting in their own professed self-interest, enacted laws that made it more difficult to end marriages. Typical was the view of Georgia state legislators, who in 1802 responded to their inability to stop the “dissolution of contracts founded on the most binding and sacred obligations” by drafting a law regulating divorce. According to the lawmakers, the “dissolution [of a marriage] ought not to be dependent on private will, but should require legislative interference; inasmuch as the republic is deeply interested in the private business of its citizens.”

Other state governments followed that lead. By the end of the 19th century it was nearly impossible in all the states to dissolve a marriage unless one upheld what one historian has called “ideal spousal behavior” and one’s spouse was adulterous, sexually dysfunctional, or chronically absent. No longer could an unhappy wife or husband simply walk away from a marriage.

American lawmakers in the 19th century widely concurred with the legal scholar Joel Prentiss Bishop, considered to be the “foremost law writer of the age” and the author of the then preeminent legal treatise on marriage, who considered “too absurd to require a word of refutation . . . the idea that any government could, consistently with the general well-being, permit this institution to become merely a thing of bargain between men and women, and not regulate it.” This question gained new urgency during the Civil War, when slaves, who had no legal right to marriage, were suddenly prospective citizens. A Union officer charged with educating the freedmen testified to Congress that

one great defect in the management of the negroes down there was, as I judged, the ignoring of the family relationship . . . My judgement is that one of the first things to be done with these people, to qualify them for citizenship, for self-protection and self-support, is to impress upon them the family obligations.

The Union government required that all newly freed slaves under its care in refugee camps “who have been living or desire to live together . . . be married in the proper manner.”

After the war, administrators of the Freedmen’s Bureau, who were charged with making the ex-slaves conform to American norms, were ordered to coerce their charges into marriage so as to bring them into civilization:

The past marriages of freedmen, although often formally solemnized, have not been so authenticated that misconduct can be legally punished, or inheritance rightly determined. It is most urgently and plainly needful that this out growth of a by gone system should now cease. A general re-marriage (for the sake of the record) of all persons married without license, or living together without marriage should be insisted upon by employers and urged by all who have any connection with, or knowledge of such persons. They should know that, if after ample facilities have been for some time afforded, they have not conformed to this necessity of social life, they will be prosecuted and punished.

The Bureau issued “Marriage Rules” to “aid the freedmen in properly appreciating and religiously observing the sacred obligations of the marriage state.” The rules not only granted the right to marry to ex-slaves but also established high barriers to obtain a legal divorce.

Dissolving a marriage became slightly less onerous in the 20th century, thanks largely to the aforementioned counter-cultural left, but the institution’s state-sanctioned moral apparatus continued to keep most of us from pursuing our individual desires. As of the most recent count [pdf], 48 percent of married couples are willing to pay lawyers bundles of cash to disentangle from relationships they no longer see as serving their interests. Even today, we pay dearly for that option, not just in legal fees but also from the stigma of having “failed” at what all good Americans are expected to do.

So let us say to our gay brothers and sisters fighting for the “freedom to marry,” who once led the fight for freedom from marriage: be careful what you wish for—you’ll probably get it.

[Mickey O'neil]

Interesting.jpg (59.46 KiB) Viewed 4087 times

[TerryB]

http://reason.com/archives/2012/05/16/g ... -not-worth

Back in the days when there was an identifiable counter-cultural movement in the United States, feminists, gay activists, and much of the left identified the institution of marriage as the foundation of conservative American culture and therefore something to oppose, not seek. But now, with more and more gays gaining official permission to marry, the left is celebrating a right that it used to compare with the right to be imprisoned.

Those who consider themselves to be the descendants of the counter-cultural left are hailing President Barack Obama’s sudden embrace of gay marriage as a great victory not just for equality and civil rights but also for freedom. Yet historically, those who invented and promoted legal marriage did so with the explicit purpose of restraining the liberty of all of us. Were Emma Goldman, Allen Ginsberg, and the drag queens who threw bricks at the cops at the Stonewall Inn alive today, they might well say that Americans have all become “the Man.”

Free people getting married. The idea that the state should promote, sanction, and regulate monogamous relationships gained currency in the 16th century as a reaction to Europe’s first sexual revolution. Public, group, and what we now call homosexual sex were commonplace, prostitution was rampant and generally unpunished, pornographic books and pamphlets were widely popular, and laws against adultery and divorce went unenforced. Martin Luther and other leaders of the Protestant Reformation seized upon marriage as a means though which to curb unchristian freedoms and bring about social order.

Luther recognized that “he who refuses to marry must fall into immorality,” identified marriage as “the remedy against sin,” and demanded that all of humanity seek the cure “in order that fornication and adultery may be avoided as well as pollutions and promiscuous lusts.”

Until then, the Church alone had recognized and overseen marriages, but Luther and the reformers wanted a more powerful and “worldly” enforcer of God’s laws. Marriage, they said, belonged under the purview of “temporal government,” which “restrains the un-Christian and wicked so that—no thanks to them—they are obliged to keep still and to maintain an outward peace.” Moved by these injunctions, governments across Protestant Europe seized control over marriage and instituted rules to enforce it.

On this side of the Atlantic, shortly after the ratification of the Constitution, the newly-formed states, acting in their own professed self-interest, enacted laws that made it more difficult to end marriages. Typical was the view of Georgia state legislators, who in 1802 responded to their inability to stop the “dissolution of contracts founded on the most binding and sacred obligations” by drafting a law regulating divorce. According to the lawmakers, the “dissolution [of a marriage] ought not to be dependent on private will, but should require legislative interference; inasmuch as the republic is deeply interested in the private business of its citizens.”

Other state governments followed that lead. By the end of the 19th century it was nearly impossible in all the states to dissolve a marriage unless one upheld what one historian has called “ideal spousal behavior” and one’s spouse was adulterous, sexually dysfunctional, or chronically absent. No longer could an unhappy wife or husband simply walk away from a marriage.

American lawmakers in the 19th century widely concurred with the legal scholar Joel Prentiss Bishop, considered to be the “foremost law writer of the age” and the author of the then preeminent legal treatise on marriage, who considered “too absurd to require a word of refutation . . . the idea that any government could, consistently with the general well-being, permit this institution to become merely a thing of bargain between men and women, and not regulate it.” This question gained new urgency during the Civil War, when slaves, who had no legal right to marriage, were suddenly prospective citizens. A Union officer charged with educating the freedmen testified to Congress that

one great defect in the management of the negroes down there was, as I judged, the ignoring of the family relationship . . . My judgement is that one of the first things to be done with these people, to qualify them for citizenship, for self-protection and self-support, is to impress upon them the family obligations.

The Union government required that all newly freed slaves under its care in refugee camps “who have been living or desire to live together . . . be married in the proper manner.”

After the war, administrators of the Freedmen’s Bureau, who were charged with making the ex-slaves conform to American norms, were ordered to coerce their charges into marriage so as to bring them into civilization:

The past marriages of freedmen, although often formally solemnized, have not been so authenticated that misconduct can be legally punished, or inheritance rightly determined. It is most urgently and plainly needful that this out growth of a by gone system should now cease. A general re-marriage (for the sake of the record) of all persons married without license, or living together without marriage should be insisted upon by employers and urged by all who have any connection with, or knowledge of such persons. They should know that, if after ample facilities have been for some time afforded, they have not conformed to this necessity of social life, they will be prosecuted and punished.

The Bureau issued “Marriage Rules” to “aid the freedmen in properly appreciating and religiously observing the sacred obligations of the marriage state.” The rules not only granted the right to marry to ex-slaves but also established high barriers to obtain a legal divorce.

Dissolving a marriage became slightly less onerous in the 20th century, thanks largely to the aforementioned counter-cultural left, but the institution’s state-sanctioned moral apparatus continued to keep most of us from pursuing our individual desires. As of the most recent count [pdf], 48 percent of married couples are willing to pay lawyers bundles of cash to disentangle from relationships they no longer see as serving their interests. Even today, we pay dearly for that option, not just in legal fees but also from the stigma of having “failed” at what all good Americans are expected to do.

So let us say to our gay brothers and sisters fighting for the “freedom to marry,” who once led the fight for freedom from marriage: be careful what you wish for—you’ll probably get it.

nobody's reading all that

[Blaidd Drwg]

sorry..i don't read posts

[Fat Cat]

i see....many words

[Protobuilder]

http://reason.com/archives/2012/05/16/g ... -not-worth

Back in the days when there was an identifiable counter-cultural movement in the United States, feminists, gay activists, and much of the left identified the institution of marriage as the foundation of conservative American culture and therefore something to oppose, not seek. But now, with more and more gays gaining official permission to marry, the left is celebrating a right that it used to compare with the right to be imprisoned.

Those who consider themselves to be the descendants of the counter-cultural left are hailing President Barack Obama’s sudden embrace of gay marriage as a great victory not just for equality and civil rights but also for freedom. Yet historically, those who invented and promoted legal marriage did so with the explicit purpose of restraining the liberty of all of us. Were Emma Goldman, Allen Ginsberg, and the drag queens who threw bricks at the cops at the Stonewall Inn alive today, they might well say that Americans have all become “the Man.”

Free people getting married. The idea that the state should promote, sanction, and regulate monogamous relationships gained currency in the 16th century as a reaction to Europe’s first sexual revolution. Public, group, and what we now call homosexual sex were commonplace, prostitution was rampant and generally unpunished, pornographic books and pamphlets were widely popular, and laws against adultery and divorce went unenforced. Martin Luther and other leaders of the Protestant Reformation seized upon marriage as a means though which to curb unchristian freedoms and bring about social order.

Luther recognized that “he who refuses to marry must fall into immorality,” identified marriage as “the remedy against sin,” and demanded that all of humanity seek the cure “in order that fornication and adultery may be avoided as well as pollutions and promiscuous lusts.”

Until then, the Church alone had recognized and overseen marriages, but Luther and the reformers wanted a more powerful and “worldly” enforcer of God’s laws. Marriage, they said, belonged under the purview of “temporal government,” which “restrains the un-Christian and wicked so that—no thanks to them—they are obliged to keep still and to maintain an outward peace.” Moved by these injunctions, governments across Protestant Europe seized control over marriage and instituted rules to enforce it.

On this side of the Atlantic, shortly after the ratification of the Constitution, the newly-formed states, acting in their own professed self-interest, enacted laws that made it more difficult to end marriages. Typical was the view of Georgia state legislators, who in 1802 responded to their inability to stop the “dissolution of contracts founded on the most binding and sacred obligations” by drafting a law regulating divorce. According to the lawmakers, the “dissolution [of a marriage] ought not to be dependent on private will, but should require legislative interference; inasmuch as the republic is deeply interested in the private business of its citizens.”

Other state governments followed that lead. By the end of the 19th century it was nearly impossible in all the states to dissolve a marriage unless one upheld what one historian has called “ideal spousal behavior” and one’s spouse was adulterous, sexually dysfunctional, or chronically absent. No longer could an unhappy wife or husband simply walk away from a marriage.

American lawmakers in the 19th century widely concurred with the legal scholar Joel Prentiss Bishop, considered to be the “foremost law writer of the age” and the author of the then preeminent legal treatise on marriage, who considered “too absurd to require a word of refutation . . . the idea that any government could, consistently with the general well-being, permit this institution to become merely a thing of bargain between men and women, and not regulate it.” This question gained new urgency during the Civil War, when slaves, who had no legal right to marriage, were suddenly prospective citizens. A Union officer charged with educating the freedmen testified to Congress that

one great defect in the management of the negroes down there was, as I judged, the ignoring of the family relationship . . . My judgement is that one of the first things to be done with these people, to qualify them for citizenship, for self-protection and self-support, is to impress upon them the family obligations.

The Union government required that all newly freed slaves under its care in refugee camps “who have been living or desire to live together . . . be married in the proper manner.”

After the war, administrators of the Freedmen’s Bureau, who were charged with making the ex-slaves conform to American norms, were ordered to coerce their charges into marriage so as to bring them into civilization:

The past marriages of freedmen, although often formally solemnized, have not been so authenticated that misconduct can be legally punished, or inheritance rightly determined. It is most urgently and plainly needful that this out growth of a by gone system should now cease. A general re-marriage (for the sake of the record) of all persons married without license, or living together without marriage should be insisted upon by employers and urged by all who have any connection with, or knowledge of such persons. They should know that, if after ample facilities have been for some time afforded, they have not conformed to this necessity of social life, they will be prosecuted and punished.

The Bureau issued “Marriage Rules” to “aid the freedmen in properly appreciating and religiously observing the sacred obligations of the marriage state.” The rules not only granted the right to marry to ex-slaves but also established high barriers to obtain a legal divorce.

Dissolving a marriage became slightly less onerous in the 20th century, thanks largely to the aforementioned counter-cultural left, but the institution’s state-sanctioned moral apparatus continued to keep most of us from pursuing our individual desires. As of the most recent count [pdf], 48 percent of married couples are willing to pay lawyers bundles of cash to disentangle from relationships they no longer see as serving their interests. Even today, we pay dearly for that option, not just in legal fees but also from the stigma of having “failed” at what all good Americans are expected to do.

So let us say to our gay brothers and sisters fighting for the “freedom to marry,” who once led the fight for freedom from marriage: be careful what you wish for—you’ll probably get it.

nobody's reading all that

beer please, motherfucker

[DARTH]

I am telling you guys, Faggot Divorce Court will be the funnyiest show on TV!

[Holland Oates]

I am telling you guys, Faggot Divorce Court will be the funnyiest show on TV!

LOL

Darth is a gawddamn television genius!

[Pinky]

This is historical background behind something I've been saying for a while: The answer to gay marriage controversies is not for governments to recognize more marriages, but for them to stop recognizing any.

One of the roles of the state is to recognize and help enforce contracts. The state shouldn't try to attach religious and cultural significance to certain contracts. As far as any government is concerned, no one should have anything more than a domestic partnership. If different groups then want to pretend that some contracts are more special than others, they're free to do so.

Also, what Darth said.

[Fat Cat]

There are few things I care less about than gay marriage.

[DARTH]

This is historical background behind something I've been saying for a while: The answer to gay marriage controversies is not for governments to recognize more marriages, but for them to stop recognizing any.

One of the roles of the state is to recognize and help enforce contracts. The state shouldn't try to attach religious and cultural significance to certain contracts. As far as any government is concerned, no one should have anything more than a domestic partnership. If different groups then want to pretend that some contracts are more special than others, they're free to do so.

Also, what Darth said.

Yep, Govt. out of marrage.

This way you can set up who takes what if the contract is broken or both parties want out.(or more, if the Queers can get together so can polygamist and whatever.)

[Blaidd Drwg]

Yep, Govt. out of marrage.
This way you can set up who takes what if the contract is broken or both parties want out.(or more, if the Queers can get together so can polygamist and whatever.)

If you can legally consent to the contract then fuck yes. Polygamy being outlawed is just fucking ridiculous.

[DARTH]

Yep, Govt. out of marrage.
This way you can set up who takes what if the contract is broken or both parties want out.(or more, if the Queers can get together so can polygamist and whatever.)

If you can legally consent to the contract then fuck yes. Polygamy being outlawed is just fucking ridiculous.

If it's OK for a "man" to shove his cock up another man's asshole than it damn well should be OK for a man to shove it up his 3 wives.

[johno]

LOL at lefty Darwin-fans who don't understand the significance of procreation & child-rearing. Marriage encourages & subsidizes the parental bond, which provides the best environment for raising the next generation. In general.

Marriage as a private contract is fine until you introduce children into the equation. And children are the normal & usual result of hetero marriage, hence the "sanctity" of hetero marriage. But if gayfolk want to adopt and raise children, God bless them; they deserve to be married.

Otherwise, Gay Marriage is just seeking societal (Mommy/Daddy) approval via the State. Fuck that. Civil unions are sufficient for that.

Couples that procreate & raise the next generation are more important (in general) than those who don't. Traditional marriage recognizes this fact.

[Kraj 2.0]

"Gay marriage" is as ludicrous a term as "male mother". By definition, marriage is between a man and a woman.

Fuck them and their social cancer. Bunch of degenerates looking to justify their mental illness.

[Blaidd Drwg]

prostate exam got you lads feeling funny? s'alright bros...it's gonna be alright.

[TerryB]

the only thing that pisses the right off more than gay marriage, is abolishing government recognition of ALL marriage

can you imagine the apeshit that would flow if that were seriously being considered??

[dead man walking]

Yep, Govt. out of marrage.
This way you can set up who takes what if the contract is broken or both parties want out.(or more, if the Queers can get together so can polygamist and whatever.)

If you can legally consent to the contract then fuck yes. Polygamy being outlawed is just fucking ridiculous.

i draw the line at polyandry. that's wrong.

[Turdacious]

The state shouldn't try to attach religious and cultural significance to certain contracts.

Certainly not our state.
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charte ... cript.html

[Herv100]

Liking queer sex is just another fetish like foot fetishes, s & m, rape fantasy, scat, or any other weird, gross shit. Fine, do it if you want. But LOL at a man being "in love" with another man, being in a "relationship" with another man, or raise a family with one like he's a woman. That's the dumbest fucking thing I've ever seen or heard of.

That said, govt should be out of the marriage business. Furthermore, this a distraction issue used to divide the people while real problems, like our never ending debt, dying currency, eroding Bill
Of Rights, endless wars, and corruption in general never get solved.

[DARTH]

Yep, Govt. out of marrage.
This way you can set up who takes what if the contract is broken or both parties want out.(or more, if the Queers can get together so can polygamist and whatever.)

If you can legally consent to the contract then fuck yes. Polygamy being outlawed is just fucking ridiculous.

i draw the line at polyandry. that's wrong.

I agree it's right up there with being a flamer fag but freedom is not easy and if you want it others should have it too.

I don;t seek to make everything I don't like, that's what Libs do and a major reason I hate them. Be it Jerry Falwell or George Sorros, if I am not harming anyone who did not sign on for it, don't tell me what to fucking do or have.

For me to have the Freedoms I am entitled to by the Declartation Of Independence, Bill of Rights and Constitution than others should have their rights as well. Nothing in there that says "Except for Queers, Pussies, Blacks and Hispanics just for strait whites." As a mix of Conservative/Libertarian and Utilitarian I try not to be a hypocrite and only want to restrict rights from our enemies or those who seek to bring the system down from within. If your ass fucking your boyfriend while you Momma takes a 3 hole qualification from her Black, Mexican and Asian "husbands" as your Daddy services his 2 wives while screaming quotes from LeVay's Satanic Bible and all of you are on weed and whipits, down at the Swinger's Coral. I don't give a fuck unless you mess with my kids, myself or my nation. Party fucking on.

Does not matter that the Queer part and the Satanic part creeps me out, those folks might not like hard music and my intrest in firearms.

If Adam and Steve or Jill, Jack, Mike and Ray can find a Preist, Ship's Captian or a Witch Doctor who will pronounce them married, I give not a shit. Let the Goverment recognize contracts and stay out of the relgious/moral issue. Many Married people do not have kids, that does not make their marrage worthless. I am not married and have 3 kids, by some of what has been said here, does that make my sinfull relationship worth more because I at least fullfilled the primary goal of all creatures?

[DARTH]

Liking queer sex is just another fetish like foot fetishes, s & m, rape fantasy, scat, or any other weird, gross shit. Fine, do it if you want. But LOL at a man being "in love" with another man, being in a "relationship" with another man, or raise a family with one like he's a woman. That's the dumbest fucking thing I've ever seen or heard of.

I do agree that it's a priclivity and personally I think Queers should just shut up abuot being so. Who is really going to stop them from Logjamming in their home?

But I have to be honest, as much as it creeps me out I have seen Queers that seemd to be truly in love. You and I can not define how another human feels about another. Some Queers are more loyal to each other than most normal couples.

I just don't like this shit up in my face and all over TV. I am not cool with the issues of Queers being shoved in front of my kids and having to explain this shit before I even wanted to explain normal sex.

"It's abhorent and wrong and I would shoot you over it. They are idiots who would rather eat at the shithouse than at the snackbar." My oldest finds them "Gross" and flaimers as "Weak and girlish." So I don't have to worry with this one and my 6 year old allready looks at women on TV and smiles the same smile his Maternal Gramps used to when he was about to approach a woman as young as his daughter." 2 down 1 to go.


That said, govt should be out of the marriage business. Furthermore, this a distraction issue used to divide the people while real problems, like our never ending debt, dying currency, eroding Bill
Of Rights, endless wars, and corruption in general never get solved.

That's my problem with the flip flop commie drumming up bullshit issues for the stupid and selfish. If someone votes soley because they want queers to marry then they are shitbags who put their genitles before the good of the nation.

If it al colapses, I will shoot those types on sight, just to see how they fall. (And loot the corpse, of coarse.)

[Kraj 2.0]

For me to have the Freedoms I am entitled to by the Declartation Of Independence, Bill of Rights and Constitution than others should have their rights as well. Nothing in there that says "Except for Queers, Pussies, Blacks and Hispanics just for strait whites."

And nothing in there says "You have the right to be married." Marriage is a social institution between a man and a woman. Has been since the beginning of time. The government used to acknowledge and support marriage because healthy families made up a healthy state. Now that the kikes and degenerate refuse of mankind have taken over like a cancer, marriage has become yet another social institution to be torn down and replaced with their satanic bullshit. It's not enough that they poison your kids with all kinds of filth and depravity, but now they're telling your kids that a healthy, loving, child-bearing relationship between a man and a woman is no better or different than two dudes buttfucking themselves into oblivion.

Freedom can suck it for all I care. There's a point where, freedom be damned, you have to stand up for what's right. The wise know that freedom is an illusion anyway. No such thing is possible. Fight for what is right, not for some bullshit ideal that has never and will never exist.

Be thankful your body doesn't believe in "freedom" or else you would've been dead of the first disease that came your way. Sooner or later you have to realize that "anything goes" is signing your own death warrant.

[DARTH]

For me to have the Freedoms I am entitled to by the Declartation Of Independence, Bill of Rights and Constitution than others should have their rights as well. Nothing in there that says "Except for Queers, Pussies, Blacks and Hispanics just for strait whites."

And nothing in there says "You have the right to be married." Marriage is a social institution between a man and a woman. Has been since the beginning of time. The government used to acknowledge and support marriage because healthy families made up a healthy state. Now that the kikes and degenerate refuse of mankind have taken over like a cancer, marriage has become yet another social institution to be torn down and replaced with their satanic bullshit. It's not enough that they poison your kids with all kinds of filth and depravity, but now they're telling your kids that a healthy, loving, child-bearing relationship between a man and a woman is no better or different than two dudes buttfucking themselves into oblivion.

Freedom can suck it for all I care. There's a point where, freedom be damned, you have to stand up for what's right. The wise know that freedom is an illusion anyway. No such thing is possible. Fight for what is right, not for some bullshit ideal that has never and will never exist.

So whats right is telling others how to live? Kind of have to be the one in power to totally do that and not have it come back on you and your's. Youand I will never be Thugutator of the USA, are system wont allow that. Now your homeland has a history of a Strongman oppressiing people with what he felt was "Right".

Be thankful your body doesn't believe in "freedom" or else you would've been dead of the first disease that came your way. Sooner or later you have to realize that "anything goes" is signing your own death warrant.

[Shafpocalypse Now]

Wrong Kraj. Fossil record indicates that gay Neanderthal males happily lived, hunted, and sucked each other off with the blessing of the great spirits