Yellichink:

 

 

 

I have no way of knowing that. I never go out and watch to check up on what gays are doing to each other. Do you?

 

 

As a Frenchman once said: orgies are fun once, but only a cad would make a habit of them.  (Or was that Flashman?)

 

Anyhow, one correction there, Nan:  the Greeks and Romans did have formalized traditional marriages, and laws to this regard tended to be pretty strict--at least in the letter of the law. 

 

Spartan bonds of marriage were considered very strong, though the male often took homosexual lovers (since the only way he could see his wife was to sneak out of the barracks, whereupon his buddies would see that as a training exercise and try and ambush him) and the female was allowed to take outside lovers with her husband's permission or if she wasn't getting pregnant, since the primary purpose of Spartan ladies was to have kids and maintain the household.  Once the husband was released from service at age 30--he was considered a reservist after that--they weren't supposed to take other lovers, unless again the woman wasn't getting pregnant.

 

Among the Athenians, it was okay for men to take lovers, but not women.  They were supposed to stay in the house, barefoot, pregnant, and most of all, quiet.  If they did go outside, they had to cover up.  Makes you wonder if that's where the burqa got started.

 

The Romans were a bit more formal.  The husband could legally kill or sell into slavery his children, but not his wife.  If he wanted a divorce, it went before a jury--a jury made up of the wife's relatives.  You can guess how that went.  Adultery was about the only way a Roman man could get out of marriage, and then he'd better have some damn good evidence that his wife was running around on him.  Roman noblewomen wielded a considerable amount of power, and of course Roman history abounds with women who figured out how to use that power.

 

Granted, this didn't stop people from running around on each other; certainly Julius Caesar rarely kept it in his pants.  For appearances' sake though, he had to make sure his affairs were discreet (or far away, like with Cleopatra), because he stood to lose a lot if Calpurnia divorced him.  Octavian used the excuse of Mark Antony marrying Cleopatra when he was already married to convince the Senate that Antony was an outlaw to be hunted down.  In any case, Roman law was specific, although people didn't often adhere to that law.  The same thing could be said today, of course.

 

I don't know how the Chinese worked, but in feudal Japan, it was legal for samurai to take as many mistresses as they liked, but only one wife.  Divorce was difficult, though the daimyo or shogun could order a marriage dissolved--even then, he'd better have a good reason, or at least a good excuse.

 

 

I don't need to hammer my penis to know that I don't like it.

 

dailynews.sina.com/bg/tw/twlocal/bcc/20090803/0741534708.html

www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,237899,00.html

 

www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=86412

 

www.cwfa.org/articles/16257/CFI/family/index.htm

 

www.gay-art-history.org/gay-history/gay-art/greek-love-homosexual-art/bisexual-greek-pottery-orgy.html

 

www.theage.com.au/articles/2007/06/01/1180205513859.html

 

 

You also forgot the part that samurai class can't marry on their own will. Their marriages are political, and often ends quite ugly. At least that didn't go well with Takeda Shingen.

 

Chinese do not have feudal society for very long period of time. However, the marriage law hasn't changed much during the ages to conform to Confucius values. Regardless of the demise of nobility and feudal lords, men and women from different social class don't intermarry. A lot women married to their first cousin for that matter. This was especially the case in farm village where most people used to leave. Taking concubines is another matter. Rich men get concubines, while poor men can hardly get a wife. As a result, tribalism arises from concentration of young women and off springs. That's how most rural Chinese villages are dominated by one or two families. It's not even hard to find a village where everyone is Wang.

 

In the cities, you have surplus underclass single men and thriving prostitution sector, which, believe it or not, drives down labor salary dramatically.

You also forgot the part that samurai class can't marry on their own will. Their marriages are political, and often ends quite ugly. At least that didn't go well with Takeda Shingen.

Speaking of Rafale, I think some of you Americans have overreacted. French people have thrown out leftist anti-American government and voted the most pro-American president since the begin of Fifth Republic. They also have deployed troops in Afghanistan, provide naval assets around East Africa and cooperate with the US by leasing bases near Red Sea area. Heck they even rejoined NATO and re-coordinate nuke strategy with the US and UK.

 

Please cut some slack and tolerate their occasional tendency to fly tri-color all over our faces.

this advise from someone who is showing such intolerance against Homosexuals...

Homosexual marriage is not about bringing down Western society, it is about legally empowering the "spouse" in a Homosexual Marriage the rights of a spouse in a traditional (one man/one woman) marriage. This includes the right to receive death benefits in the event that their "partner" is killed in war - if there were any Homosexuals serving in the military....

this advise from someone who is showing such intolerance against Homosexuals...

Oh, look who's here? The guy who speak for Iranian regime and condemn the US for violating Iran's right for nukes. Since Kanzlerin Merkel just covered that today, I don't need to repeat.

 

This kind of makes me wonder, since Iran has a record of  executing gays, why does this dude wants Iran to have right to nukes.

 

Just for the record, the whole homosexual marriage activism is a hoax. When did gays start to practice monogamy? All historic record shows that homosexuality is as promiscuity as you can imagine. Also on historic record is that homosexuality is practiced in parallel with heterosexual marriage. Also on historic record is that certain people practice homosexual behavior, such as sailors, not because they like it, but because there is no women around. You probably also don't understand that homosexual behavior is used, in some occasion, as a mean of control and submission, such as the case in prison. Homosexual spouse for military benefit? Are you freaking kidding me? Plural form is the proper description here.

 

You might be surprised how many on the forum actually have the same point view as I do. It's just my heritage and my background allow me to be immune from vitriolic accusation of hate speech by political correct leftists, like you.

 

Why homosexual marriage is not justifiable? Because it isn't. Most homosexual people are bisexual, and do have family even kids. People who are most proponent of gay marriage are not from gays, but rather from lesbian, the radical feminist type who just plain hate men for no particular reason. These deviant academic type invented the whole nonsensical movement from their tenure positions and keep puking out BS after BS. Since these are all equality-über-alle type, it is no wonder they accepted Marxist ideology and made themselves the most dangerous useful idiots. These radical feminists are so narrow-minded and so self-absorbed, that they start to believe their own words and start their conspire to de-construct the so-called patriarchal society so evil that women must strive and overcome. Yeah, right. When is the last time you hear from those people critical to Islamic way of treating women? I tell you, these women will be the first to wear a burqa and find men to marry to, as being the oldest wife in rich family is the only way to achieve power in Islamic society for women.

 

Where was I, right, that's why the radical feminists/lesbians want to ban "Mom" and "Dad" in school. Already happened in California. And now it's gay marriage. It's just the slippery slope to destroy traditional family and turn all of us into sexual deviants like they are, and they are just one step away from success. I guess you also never read Brave New World. Even if you did, you probably can't conjecture how close we are from that distopian society. Only the lack of ability to create human life from tubes independent from wombs, prevent us from total government control and exile to Falklands. And you think you know why some people are so interested in fetus stem cell research, even though the medical industry know that adult stem cell provides better prospects. And, how ironic, people who stand up for traditional family, like how the "native Christian barbarian" in Brave New World was treated like a side show freak, are now crucified by mindless soldiers of political correctness for being "anti-progress," "intolerant," "regressive" and possibly "anti-revolutionary" in near future. 

 

Oh, and remember the "native Christian barbarian's" mom? Her name is Britney Spears. And you tell me that it is not yet another weapon to bring down Western Civilization? You really need to read Oswald Spengler's Der Untergang des Abendlandes.