Why Are The Atheists Here Fixated With Homosexuality?
little_plantinga
curious popularity among atheists with threads concerning
homosexuality. It seems like it just wouldn't be a day at alt.atheism
unless some thread pops up denouncing Christians and their evil plot
to pull Marvin's dick out of Steven's backside in the privacy of their
own home (leather dungeon).
Fess up: what's the obsession with homosexuality? Is this why you've
become atheists? So you can bend Marvin over in a bathhouse and not be
held accountable? So you can muffdive with Betty in the living room
with the curtains open so the kids across the street can see the
beauty of your "alternative lifestyle"?
If you, like me, believe in the theory of evolution, then it should be
obvious to you that the penis was selected in to (a) release waste and
(b) to inseminate the vagina -- NOT uniform anal intercourse, which
only produces bacteria.
I also hear homo atheists whining about their desire to live in a
"bigotry free" society, usually in a post that is itself bigoted
towards anyone who doesn't accept their anal ways.
socode
"little_plantinga" <max_p...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In the short time I've been posting at alt.atheism I've witnessed
> the curious popularity among atheists with threads concerning
> homosexuality.
Then your skills of language comprehension skills are sorely
lacking.
> It seems like it just wouldn't be a day at alt.atheism unless some
> thread pops up denouncing Christians and their evil plot to pull
> Marvin's dick out of Steven's backside in the privacy of their own
> home (leather dungeon).
I don't give a flying fuck what adults do with each-others' dicks. Why
do you?
> Fess up: what's the obsession with homosexuality? Is this why you've
> become atheists? So you can bend Marvin over in a bathhouse and not be
> held accountable? So you can muffdive with Betty in the living room
> with the curtains open so the kids across the street can see the
> beauty of your "alternative lifestyle"?
Perhaps it's because, like atheists, theists won't leave homosexuals alone.
> If you, like me, believe in the theory of evolution, then it should be
> obvious to you that the penis was selected in to (a) release waste and
> (b) to inseminate the vagina -- NOT uniform anal intercourse, which
> only produces bacteria.
If you understand society, you'll understand that the tasks for which we
are evolved do not hold sway as the arbiter of what we do. Drive a
car, do you, fuckwit?
> I also hear homo atheists whining about their desire to live in a
> "bigotry free" society, usually in a post that is itself bigoted
> towards anyone who doesn't accept their anal ways.
You don't have to accept anything, anally. The point and your head
are separated by more than a few miles.
socode
cw20...@172.16.1.2
a lot more than what you are proposing with anal etc. etc.. etc.. Why are
you so fixated on the anus?
I know hetero couples that like to do it up the anus, and I know animals
not personally ) that do it up the anus. But you somehow think being
homosexual is all about putting a penis up some other guy's butthole. I'm
sorry, but WHO is the bigot here?
I am really dissapointed that such a statement would be made here. I
typically think atheists are fairly smart. I've found that to be completely
wrong sometimes. This remark you have made is offensive, rude, and not at
all acurate. Go back to the drawing board and either come up with an
apology or some better reasoning and arguments.
Remember, homosexuality is the attraction to a man if you are a man, and
woman if you are a woman. Why do you have to pervert the thing into lust.
Are gay people the only one's lusting these days? Get real. I know its
hard cuz you're not gay, but try to get in touch with that social empathy we
have evolved with.
I could write volumes on this. I'm just really disgusted at this post.
PLEASE reconsider your thoughts.
"little_plantinga" <max_p...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:735d1e05.02111...@posting.google.com...
Alex
(little_plantinga) wrote:
>In the short time I've been posting at alt.atheism I've witnessed the
>curious popularity among atheists with threads concerning
>homosexuality. It seems like it just wouldn't be a day at alt.atheism
We don't like any kind of bigotry. Homosexuality is just one of those
things that even some moderate theists are bigoted towards and we take
advantage of that obvious hatred by discussing it.
"Take advantage"? Well, what I mean is that the kind of people that
might be turned off by religion are usually won over by exposing
theists' prejudices. No one in their right mind wants to be labelled a
bigot. And since right-minded people are perfect candidates for
atheists it all plays into our hand.
Alex
atheist #2007
Marvin
"socode" <scott@socoder_remove_the_r.com> wrote in message
news:ar2k2l$gii$1...@nntp-m01.news.aol.com...
>
> "little_plantinga" <max_p...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > In the short time I've been posting at alt.atheism I've witnessed
> > the curious popularity among atheists with threads concerning
> > homosexuality.
> Then your skills of language comprehension skills are sorely
> lacking.
>
> > It seems like it just wouldn't be a day at alt.atheism unless some
> > thread pops up denouncing Christians and their evil plot to pull
> > Marvin's dick out of Steven's backside in the privacy of their own
> > home (leather dungeon).
Hey! I don't even know Steven!
Seriously, though, if you're honest about it and look carefully you'll
find that most (yes, most, not all) of those threads are begun by
theists or the rare backward atheist who claims homosexuals are in
violation of some imaginary higher law and as a result are not worthy of
inclusion in the human species. While the ignorance of such individuals
is amusing on the surface because it reveals that person's intense
insecurity, too many of them are capable of lashing out in violence to
"prove" they're not what they fear they are. Consequently, I believe
it's worth the risk to challenge you to consider carefully why you find
these threads irritating.
Marvin
Automort
>Fess up: what's the obsession with homosexuality?
Most of them are liberals and this is a liberal obsession. Most of them here
are not gay and don't know anyone well who is. It's just a formulaic discussion
among liberals, intended to indirectly smear their opponents and anyone they
dislike by showing themselves (liberals) tolerant and thus their opponents
intolerant.
I doubt they realize the issue means nothing to most people, who don't want to
even bother with "persecuting" anyone who doesn't bother them.
Sorry ---- liberals are shallow and many atheists are liberals.
Craig Pennington
> In the short time I've been posting at alt.atheism I've witnessed the
> curious popularity among atheists with threads concerning
> homosexuality.
Anti-homosexual bigotry is irrational. There is really no non-religious
reason for disliking homosexuals as a group.
> It seems like it just wouldn't be a day at alt.atheism
> unless some thread pops up denouncing Christians and their evil plot
> to pull Marvin's dick out of Steven's backside in the privacy of their
> own home (leather dungeon).
The most frequent references to anal sex in these discussions come from
the posts of anti-homosexual bigots. They seem absolutely fixated on the
subject.
> Fess up: what's the obsession with homosexuality?
Back at you. I've never started a thread on the topic.
> Is this why you've
> become atheists? So you can bend Marvin over in a bathhouse and not be
> held accountable? So you can muffdive with Betty in the living room
> with the curtains open so the kids across the street can see the
> beauty of your "alternative lifestyle"?
My sex life is rather devoid of unusual practices. I'm married and
monogamous. The rest is really none of your business, but none too
exotic. We keep the curtains closed.
> If you, like me, believe in the theory of evolution, then it should be
> obvious to you that the penis was selected in to (a) release waste and
> (b) to inseminate the vagina
Yep. Oral sex is an abomination in the eyes of evolution. As is any sex
that is not for the purpose of procreation (heck, as is any act which
does promote your procreation.) Luckily for those who enjoy sex
(regardless of orientation,) yet don't want children as the result of
every sex act, there is no reason to assume that evolutionary purpose is
normative.
> -- NOT uniform anal intercourse, which
> only produces bacteria.
It does no such thing.
You know, I have gay neighbors and I have straight neighbors; and I don't
really give much thought to what any of them do in their bedrooms. Why do
you give it so much thought? Maybe your straight neighbors are having anal
sex regularly. Maybe even right now! Does that scare you?
> I also hear homo atheists whining about their desire to live in a
> "bigotry free" society, usually in a post that is itself bigoted
> towards anyone who doesn't accept their anal ways.
I'm not gay, yet I'd still prefer to raise my children in a society free
of irrational bigotry. Intolerance of irrational bigotry is no vice.
Cheers,
Craig
--
Corollary to Clarke's Third Law:
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently
advanced.
Orhan Orgun
(little_plantinga) wrote:
>In the short time I've been posting at alt.atheism I've witnessed the
>curious popularity among atheists with threads concerning
>homosexuality. It seems like it just wouldn't be a day at alt.atheism
>unless some thread pops up denouncing Christians and their evil plot
>to pull Marvin's dick out of Steven's backside in the privacy of their
>own home (leather dungeon).
>
>Fess up: what's the obsession with homosexuality?
It's xers who are obsessed with homosexuality. Isn't that obvious?
Fucking obvious.
Face it. While a fair number of theists are anti-human monsters, the
vast majority of atheists (excepting those who follow some other,
non-theistic dogma such as Maoism) are very ethical, and put much
importance on fairness and justice. This is precisely the reason we
tend to take a strong position on homosexuality--just because the
anti-human monsters that you call "xian" have arbitrarily chosen them
as a group to vilify, torment, demonize, discriminate against, and
even torture and kill. No other reason.
> Is this why you've
>become atheists? So you can bend Marvin over in a bathhouse and not be
>held accountable? So you can muffdive with Betty in the living room
>with the curtains open so the kids across the street can see the
>beauty of your "alternative lifestyle"?
>
>If you, like me, believe in the theory of evolution, then it should be
>obvious to you that the penis was selected in to (a) release waste and
>(b) to inseminate the vagina -- NOT uniform anal intercourse, which
>only produces bacteria.
Yeah right. Our hands did not evolve to hold a steering wheel or a
paintbrush or type either. Is it therefore obvious that we should be
against all those things too?
>
>I also hear homo atheists whining about their desire to live in a
>"bigotry free" society, usually in a post that is itself bigoted
>towards anyone who doesn't accept their anal ways.
Fuck off.
Have you ever heard an atheist say xians should not be allowed to
marry? That xians should be denied hospital visitation and end-of-life
decisions for their loved ones? That they should not be allowed to
adopt children or even have custody of their biological children? That
they should not be able to leave inheritance to their loved ones? Have
you *ever* heard any atheist (or any homosexual, for that matter)
argue for anything like this?
Oh, I forgot. The bigot's view of bigotry is peculiarly distorted. Any
challenge to your ability to oppress others counts as opressing you.
Whereas to us thinking humans, oppression means messing others up with
our own lives, *not* others preventing us from messing up *their*
lives.
Asshole.
Orhan Orgun
>>From: max_p...@yahoo.com (little_plantinga)
>
>>Fess up: what's the obsession with homosexuality?
>
>Most of them are liberals and this is a liberal obsession.
No, it's a xian fundy obsession.
>Most of them here
>are not gay and don't know anyone well who is.
I'd bet most of us do, in fact.
> It's just a formulaic discussion
>among liberals, intended to indirectly smear their opponents and anyone they
>dislike by showing themselves (liberals) tolerant and thus their opponents
>intolerant.
>I doubt they realize the issue means nothing to most people, who don't want to
>even bother with "persecuting" anyone who doesn't bother them.
Is that why anti-gay propositions are being pushed and passed all over
the country? Is that why still in many states gay people can't adopt
children, can't count on hospital visitation or inheritance? Is that
why a disproportionate number of SF homeless are gay people who have
been kicked out of their home by their "loving" xian parents? Is that
why admitting you are gay gets you kicked out of the military? Is that
why being gay prevents you from joining the most popular boys' club in
the country? Is that why the majority of the public say they would
*never* vote for a homosexual candidate in a presidential election,
regardless of the candidate's qualifications?
>
>Sorry ---- liberals are shallow and many atheists are liberals.
In this case, it is extremely obvious that you have been phenomenally
shallow in your post.
Gregory Gadow
> In the short time I've been posting at alt.atheism I've witnessed the
> curious popularity among atheists with threads concerning
> homosexuality. It seems like it just wouldn't be a day at alt.atheism
> unless some thread pops up denouncing Christians and their evil plot
> to pull Marvin's dick out of Steven's backside in the privacy of their
> own home (leather dungeon).
First off, nearly every single one of those threads is started by
"christian" (lowercase deliberate) trolls trying to stir up trouble. Many
of the regulars here, regardless of their sexual orientation or political
leanings, take exception to the bigotry and venom that these trolls spew.
While it is usually a big waste of time responding to trolls, it can be
very difficult to remain silent in the face of such hatred, especially for
us regulars who are gay.
Second, your ignorance of homosexuality is quite apparent. (I am giving
you the benefit of the doubt and using 'ignorance', which is accidental
and can be corrected, rather than 'bigotry', which is deliberate and
usually can not be corrected.) Being gay is a lot more than just sex, in
the same way being straight is a lot more than just sex.
> Fess up: what's the obsession with homosexuality?
Try asking the so-called christians who keep bringing up the topic.
> Is this why you've become atheists?
Some of us, yes. Others, like myself, became an atheist despite being
welcomed in gay-friendly congregations and covens. (I have been with MCC,
liberal Episcopal churches and several Wiccan traditions.)
> So you can bend Marvin over in a bathhouse and not be
> held accountable?
I know quite a few gay men. Most are in monogamous relationships. Few go
to bathhouses and even fewer go to such places with any regularity. From
my friends who do go, I have been told that most of the men there are
closeted men with wives and families.
> So you can muffdive with Betty in the living room
> with the curtains open so the kids across the street can see the
> beauty of your "alternative lifestyle"?
I have 8 gay women among my close friends. Two are Jewish. Three are
devout Episcopalians. One belongs to a United Methodist church. One is a
Witch. And only one is an atheist.
> If you, like me, believe in the theory of evolution, then it should be
> obvious to you that the penis was selected in to (a) release waste and
> (b) to inseminate the vagina -- NOT uniform anal intercourse, which
> only produces bacteria.
Your lack of imagination is astounding.
Feet were never "selected" to wear shoes, nor was the face "selected" to
accomodate eyeglasses. Therefore, we must go barefoot and squinting?
Bacteria produce bacteria; they do not spontaneously generate as a result
of certain actions. If you had the least understanding of how the natural
world worked, you would know this.
And homosexuality is quite natural. Over 600 species of mammals and birds
have been documented over the last 100 and more as exhibiting homosexual
activity. In many well documented cases, it actually has an evolutionary
*advantage*: same sex pairs of ducks, geese and swans will adopt eggs from
abandoned nests (usually caused when predators have killed one or both
parents) and raise the young as their own.
> I also hear homo atheists whining about their desire to live in a
> "bigotry free" society, usually in a post that is itself bigoted
> towards anyone who doesn't accept their anal ways.
Am I a bigot because I refuse to remain silent in the face of the bigotry
of others?
--
Gregory Gadow
tech...@serv.net
http://www.serv.net/~techbear
"The character of a nation and its dedication to its
core beliefs are not shown in times of peace, but in
times of conflict. As the United States now suppresses
the fundamental right to dissent and dismantles the
protections of due process, we show ourselves to be as
bad as, if not worse than, our enemies, for we show
ourselves to be hypocrites."
Billy Goat
> In the short time I've been posting at alt.atheism I've witnessed the
> curious popularity among atheists with threads concerning
> homosexuality. It seems like it just wouldn't be a day at alt.atheism
> unless some thread pops up denouncing Christians and their evil plot
> to pull Marvin's dick out of Steven's backside in the privacy of their
> own home (leather dungeon).
Look again. The threads are started by Christians, not atheists.
Typical Christian trick: you keep bugging the atheists about the same
topic over and over again, and when you finally get them to respond,
accuse *them* of being obsessed.
Christian:"Accept Jesus."
Atheist:"No."
Christian:"Accept Jesus!"
Atheist:"No. Go away."
Christian:"Accept Jesus or you'll die!"
Atheist:"Why would I die? Go away."
Christian:"Accept Jesus or I'll kill you!"
Atheist:"What? Why do you want to kill me? Go away!"
Christian:"I have to kill you now because you're evil!"
Atheist:"How am I evil? You're the one who wants to kill. Go away."
Christian:"You're evil because only Jesus can make you good!"
Atheist:"But Jesus is making you a killer. Go away."
Christian:"I won't go away until you accept Jesus or die!"
Atheist:"I don't care about Jesus. Go away."
Christian:"For someone who doesn't care about Jesus, you sure talk
about Him a lot!"
--Billy
Gregory Gadow
> >From: max_p...@yahoo.com (little_plantinga)
>
> >Fess up: what's the obsession with homosexuality?
>
> Most of them are liberals and this is a liberal obsession.
Hardly. It seems to always be the conservatives -- specifically, the conservative
christians (lowercase deliberate) -- who whine about gay people. Usually, they
whine about how much they want to see us unemployed, homeless and bleeding to death
in a gutter because some conservative christian attacked us with baseball bats.
Jeremy Martin
I'm not gay, but sometimes I think I should try it out just to see if
I could get a better relationship with a guy.
--
Jeremy
"MENTAL GIANT kollegge graduate with a PHD in STUPID!"
"A large train can keep going for miles after the brakes are applied. This is why at railroad crossings, the train has the right-of-way instead of your car."
- Mamoud, SA Forums
Kermit
Most of us are humanists, meaning - among other things - that we
believe in tolerance when law and ethics allow it. We post a lot about
gays because bigots keep starting threads on the subject, making
outrageous accusations. As you have just done.
Why are some of you Christians so obssessed with gay sex, when you
claim that you are not gay? About the only time I think about it is
when I see some stupid law passed or someone like you posts on this
website.
What does evolution have to do with it?
Either homosexuality has a reproductive advantage (genes can get
passed on thru relatives) or it's something that "goes wrong" easily.
Obesity, for example, is a medical problem which some genes express in
the modern world but which had an advantage in the old days (they
withstand famine better). Whichever turns out to be the explanation
for gays, please be advised that morality is not what kind of sex you
have, but how you treat people. Weren't you ever told that you should
treat others as you would have them treat you? You are hostile, whiny,
and obssessed with the sexual behavior of people you claim to dislike.
This is not healthy.
Termite of Temptation
> curious popularity among atheists with threads concerning
> homosexuality. It seems like it just wouldn't be a day at alt.atheism
> unless some thread pops up denouncing Christians and their evil plot
> to pull Marvin's dick out of Steven's backside in the privacy of their
> own home (leather dungeon).
Dear poster who may or may not be a troll:
The issue of homosexuality (or sexuality in general) is a hot topic in
alt.atheism because the "sexual morality" or "family values" that
pervade this society are mostly inherited from the Judeo-Christian
paradigm. What is thought "acceptable" or "unacceptable" is currently
determined not by examining what is best for society, or for the
individual, but by reference to an ancient book of myths, confused
history, and outright nonsense.
> Fess up: what's the obsession with homosexuality? Is this why you've
> become atheists?
Nope, I'm straight. I'm an atheist because I see no reason to be a
theist, at least none that doesn't sound like "I'm really afraid of
dying" or "nobody loves me".
> So you can bend Marvin over in a bathhouse and not be
> held accountable? So you can muffdive with Betty in the living room
> with the curtains open so the kids across the street can see the
> beauty of your "alternative lifestyle"?
The issue of sexual morality is not about forcing your "alternative
lifestyle" on others, it is about being allowed to pursue it in
private. There is no reason to believe the homosexuals are any more
exhibitionist than others.
I should also mention that such crude characterisations and
provocative examples of sexual intercourse are antagonistic and are
likely to be viewed as bigoted and vicious attacks.
> If you, like me, believe in the theory of evolution, then it should be
> obvious to you that the penis was selected in to (a) release waste and
> (b) to inseminate the vagina -- NOT uniform anal intercourse, which
> only produces bacteria.
Interesting. So is your thesis that any use of an evolved organ for
some other purpose is somehow unacceptable?
Let's leave aside that many academics have suggested other adaptive
uses for the penis, such as a way for females to judge the health of
males. A more appropriate discussion group for such speculation is
talk.origins.
Also relevant to mention would be that many non-human animals are
found to perform homosexual acts, and that biologists have determined
that such acts may have a social rather than sexual function.
If your claim is really as it seems to be, I would then charge you to
immediately cease using your computer - clearly the fingers could not
have evolved to type messages on a keyboard, as computer keyboards
were not prevalent items of technology 2000 years ago. I need hardly
remind you that oral and anal sex are both strictly forbidden for you,
as well as masturbation. Riding a bicycle or driving a car are
unintended uses for your feet, and take that wrist watch off!
> I also hear homo atheists whining about their desire to live in a
> "bigotry free" society, usually in a post that is itself bigoted
> towards anyone who doesn't accept their anal ways.
This assumes the far from established assertion you make that atheists
are themselves homosexual, but in any case it seems to be stretching
the definition of tolerant to expect one to be tolerant of the
intolerant. A person who "doesn't accept their anal ways" has no
business interfering with another's private sex life, just as I have
no business watching you in your bedroom.
Expecting that homosexuals should welcome with open arms those who
would seek to pass laws against activities which harm no-one is
slightly naive, I feel, and perhaps you would feel intolerant to
someone who threw you out of a cinema for being black, or similar
discrimination.
Duncan
John Popelish
>
> In the short time I've been posting at alt.atheism I've witnessed the
> curious popularity among atheists with threads concerning
> homosexuality.
And all this wasn't enough discussion for you, so you started yet
another thread on the subject. I understand.
(snip)
> Fess up: what's the obsession with homosexuality?
The first person you should ask about this is you. I almost never
post in response to homosexual threads, but yours finally got me
involved. Congratulations.
(snip)
> If you, like me, believe in the theory of evolution, then it should be
> obvious to you that the penis was selected in to (a) release waste and
> (b) to inseminate the vagina -- NOT uniform anal intercourse, which
> only produces bacteria.
One of the most basic ideas to come out of evolutionary theory is that
there are no sacred rules. Nature tries everything, and keeps what is
successful and discards that which is not. The trials continue
without end. It is a wasteful process, but there it is.
(snip)
--
John Popelish
Mark Stahl
"Automort" <auto...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20021115105430...@mb-fs.aol.com...
> >From: max_p...@yahoo.com (little_plantinga)
>
> >Fess up: what's the obsession with homosexuality?
>
want to
> even bother with "persecuting" anyone who doesn't bother them.
>
the issue means nothing to blowhards who don't care about fundamental human
rights, such as yourself. the rest of us understand how important it is for
all of us-every single one of us- to be treated fairly.
Hugh Young
<orhan...@sbcglobal.net> said:
>On 15 Nov 2002 01:42:49 -0800, max_p...@yahoo.com
>(little_plantinga) wrote:
>
>>In the short time I've been posting at alt.atheism I've witnessed the
>>curious popularity among atheists with threads concerning
>>homosexuality. It seems like it just wouldn't be a day at alt.atheism
>>unless some thread pops up denouncing Christians and their evil plot
>>to pull Marvin's dick out of Steven's backside in the privacy of their
>>own home (leather dungeon).
>>
>>Fess up: what's the obsession with homosexuality?
>
>
>It's xers who are obsessed with homosexuality. Isn't that obvious?
>Fucking obvious.
Perfectly obvious from Little Plantinga's post. No room for loving
relationships in his view of homosexuality. I wonder how he views
heterosexuality? "Marvin putting his dick in Betty's pussy"?
Automort
>he rest of us understand how important it is for
>all of us-every single one of us- to be treated fairly.
Obsessiing over a select group du jour isn't the way. In the 70s it was
Indians, then hispanics, in the 60s black Americans, yadda yadda yadda....
raven1
(little_plantinga) wrote:
I'm straight. You're a loser, and an idiot. Fuck off and die.
<plonk>
GlennGlenn
<auto...@aol.com> wrote:
> liberals are shallow
POINK! Another Irony-O-Meter bites the dust, and this time a professed
atheist is responsible!
--
*GlennGlenn -- Lost & seeing double somewhere in Hollywood, CA -- aa#825*
The Earth is degenerating today. Bribery and corruption abound. Children no
longer obey their parents, every man wants to write a book, and it is evident
that the end of the world is fast approaching.
‹ Assyrian tablet, c. 2800 BC
GlennGlenn
<auto...@aol.com> wrote:
Cultural self-defense is second nature. Christians themselves--a
powerful majority in the U.S.--often claim to be a persecuted group,
and their leaders--who have Duhbya's private phone number--make sure
that he hears about (a) what government help they need and (b) what
will happen to his reelection campaign fund if he doesn't follow
through.
Liz
>little_plantinga wrote:
>>
>> In the short time I've been posting at alt.atheism I've witnessed the
>> curious popularity among atheists with threads concerning
>> homosexuality.
>
>And all this wasn't enough discussion for you, so you started yet
>another thread on the subject. I understand.
>
>(snip)
>> Fess up: what's the obsession with homosexuality?
>
>The first person you should ask about this is you. I almost never
>post in response to homosexual threads, but yours finally got me
>involved. Congratulations.
>(snip)
Like John, I've never started a thread on homosexuality. Is there
something about the subject that intrigues you enough to start a whole new
thread? However, I do know gay and lesbian people, and you do, too. You
just don't know that they are homosexual.
Liz #658 BAAWA
From everything I've seen, the gay "agenda" is to be treated
like human beings, and to be given the same rights as everyone
else. You can see how radical a concept this is.
-- The Jester
thamus
> Most of them
> here are not gay and don't know anyone well who is.
You know this how?
> It's just a formulaic
> discussion among liberals, intended to indirectly smear their opponents
> and anyone they dislike by showing themselves (liberals) tolerant and thus
> their opponents intolerant.
So it is not a response to reactionary politician trying
to pass discrimanatory laws? And it doesn't come up here
in response to anti-gay trolls posting biblical nonesense?
> I doubt they realize the issue means nothing to most people, who don't
> want to even bother with "persecuting" anyone who doesn't bother them.
And these same people won't bother to stop persecution as long as
it's not themselves being persecuted.
--
Thamus http://www.thamus.org/eac/
Random headline:
'Bible Code' Makes New Predictions
http://www.thamus.org/News/science/bible_code_predict.html
Mark K. Bilbo
<snip>
Troll.
> If you, like me, believe in the theory of evolution,
"Belief" is irrelevant. If you just "believe" in the ToE, you're a fool.
> then it should be
> obvious to you that the penis was selected in to (a) release waste and
> (b) to inseminate the vagina -- NOT uniform anal intercourse, which only
> produces bacteria.
You ignore that heterosexual sex is dangerous. Particularly
for women. The "safest" sex as regards disease is lesbian sex. So if
you're worried about disease, you should be a lesbian.
Your complaint is against the penis which is an organ prone to
transmitting disease to sex partners. Gay male sex has a higher risk
being that all the sex acts involve penises in some way. Heterosexual
sex is risky but a bit less so involving fewer penises. The sexuality
with the least disease is lesbianism which involves no penis at all.
Of course, as our evolution continues, having shifted to the
cultural/technological realm, the penis could become obsolete. Already,
we can do insemination in safe, sterile conditions and no longer risk
the introduction of a kludged reproductive/waste disposal organ into the
vagina. As we continue to evolve, the need for sperm will disappear as
we'll be able to manipulate the genetic code itself.
So you shouldn't fret too much. I would estimate that within the
century, the penis will be obsolete and you won't have to fret over
getting disease from one anymore.
> I also hear homo atheists whining about their desire to live in a
> "bigotry free" society, usually in a post that is itself bigoted towards
> anyone who doesn't accept their anal ways.
Sure troll. Anybody who doesn't tow the homophobic line is a "bigot."
--
Mark K. Bilbo #1423 EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
________________________________________________________________
"The problem with defending the purity of the English language
is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don't
just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other
languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their
pockets for new vocabulary."
[James D. Nicoll]
Automort
> Another Irony-O-Meter bites the dust, and this time a professed
>atheist is responsible!
>
You're an atheist?
Automort
>You know this how?
From knowing liberals.
>So it is not a response to reactionary politician trying
>to pass discrimanatory laws?
Who is this politician?
There have been some, but most are sick and tired of hearing gay gay gay
everytime they listen to the news. It makes little difference what one's
"orientation" is in most cases, but the liberals constantly talk about it.
> And it doesn't come up here
>in response to anti-gay trolls posting biblical nonesense?
Tell them to shove it.
>these same people won't bother to stop persecution as long as
>it's not themselves being persecuted.
Liberals persecute people simply for being normal, for not holdig politically
correct opinions, for speaking things the liberals dislike, etc.
Meteorite Debris
little_plantinga<max_p...@yahoo.com> sent a radio signal across the
vast expanse of deep space -._.--._.--._.--._.--._.--._.
> In the short time I've been posting at alt.atheism I've witnessed the
> curious popularity among atheists with threads concerning
> homosexuality. It seems like it just wouldn't be a day at alt.atheism
> unless some thread pops up denouncing Christians and their evil plot
> to pull Marvin's dick out of Steven's backside in the privacy of their
> own home (leather dungeon).
>
> Fess up: what's the obsession with homosexuality? Is this why you've
> become atheists? So you can bend Marvin over in a bathhouse and not be
> held accountable? So you can muffdive with Betty in the living room
> with the curtains open so the kids across the street can see the
> beauty of your "alternative lifestyle"?
>
> If you, like me, believe in the theory of evolution, then it should be
> obvious to you that the penis was selected in to (a) release waste and
> (b) to inseminate the vagina -- NOT uniform anal intercourse, which
> only produces bacteria.
>
> I also hear homo atheists whining about their desire to live in a
> "bigotry free" society, usually in a post that is itself bigoted
> towards anyone who doesn't accept their anal ways.
What is your obsession with homosexuality? If, as you say, you believe
in evolution then you will also value scientific method which starts
with observation. One observation is that all manner of sexual
behaviours occur in nature including homosexuality. Get used to it.
Nature is one filthy fucking whore.
--
apatriot #1, atheist #1417, rot-13 on email reply
Chief EAC prophet -
Evil Atheist Conspiracy
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~pk1956/
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever
conceived." - Isaac Asimov
Fingerprint for PGP Keys at key server or go to
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~pk1956/
RSA - 71 BA 7C 45 B5 4A 5F EA 72 DB EC 7F 7F A8 70 99
DSS - 9217 21A9 9C3F EB0B E302 AD0E 69C5 0F06 402E 0943
Meteorite Debris
Stahl<st...@aecom.yu.edu> sent a radio signal across the vast expanse
of deep space -._.--._.--._.--._.--._.--._.
> the issue means nothing to blowhards who don't care about fundamental human
> rights, such as yourself. the rest of us understand how important it is for
> all of us-every single one of us- to be treated fairly.
I think Automouth has his own secret gay fantasy of being fucked by
liberuuules.
J. Flachs
(little_plantinga) wrote:
>In the short time I've been posting at alt.atheism I've witnessed the
>curious popularity among atheists with threads concerning
>homosexuality. It seems like it just wouldn't be a day at alt.atheism
>unless some thread pops up denouncing Christians and their evil plot
>to pull Marvin's dick out of Steven's backside in the privacy of their
>own home (leather dungeon).
Funny enough you are one of those people so very much interested, or
should I say obsessed, by what I might possibly do sexually. Why is
that? You get a kick of peeping in other people's private matters?
Does that come standard with you fun[d/n]ies? Nobody post anything
promoting homosexuality here but merely *reply* to sexually obsessed
peeping toms like you....
--
Jos Flachs
Bangkok, Thailand.
And the LORD was with Judah; and he drove out the inhabitants of the mountain;
but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had......
chariots of iron...!!! (Judges 1:19)
Zeplerfer
>>all of us-every single one of us- to be treated fairly.
>
>Obsessiing over a select group du jour isn't the way. In the 70s it was
>Indians, then hispanics, in the 60s black Americans, yadda yadda yadda....
Actually, promoting equal rights for a certain group does seem to work. I'm not
saying it wouldn't work better to promote equal rights for everyone all at
once, but things have gotten better for black Americans since the sixties, and
native Americans since the seventies, etc.
I suppose it's kinda a "get part of the loaf and come back for rest later"
system. Homosexuals may be the "group du jour" and they seem to be getting
nearer towards equal rights (ex: anti-discrimination legislation). 'Course it
seems that everytime a group gains equal rights a new group is discriminated
against. Hopefully we'll learn from history one of these days...
~Zeplerfer #423
I am *not* the leader of the EAC Denial Dept.
In fact, there is *no* EAC.
Zeplerfer
>> And it doesn't come up here
>>in response to anti-gay trolls posting biblical nonesense?
>
>Tell them to shove it.
That might be a nice emotional release, but it's hardly a good argument.
>>these same people won't bother to stop persecution as long as
>>it's not themselves being persecuted.
>
>Liberals persecute people simply for being normal, for not holdig politically
>correct opinions, for speaking things the liberals dislike, etc.
dictionary.com says
persecute:
1. To oppress or harass with ill-treatment, especially because of race,
religion, gender, sexual orientation, or beliefs.
2. To annoy persistently; bother.
3. To cause to suffer
Which definition are you using when you say persecute? If it is #1 or #3 could
you give an example?
I'm proud to call myself a liberal, to me a liberal is someone not limited to
or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or
dogmas. Someone who favors proposals for reform, is open to new ideas for
progress, and is tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others. That is what I
consdier a liberal, how about you?
Zeplerfer
>> then it should be
>> obvious to you that the penis was selected in to (a) release waste and
>> (b) to inseminate the vagina -- NOT uniform anal intercourse, which only
>> produces bacteria.
>
>You ignore that heterosexual sex is dangerous. Particularly
>for women. The "safest" sex as regards disease is lesbian sex. So if
>you're worried about disease, you should be a lesbian.
Ah, but the poor fella isn't a female. ;)
[...]
>> I also hear homo atheists whining about their desire to live in a
>> "bigotry free" society, usually in a post that is itself bigoted towards
>> anyone who doesn't accept their anal ways.
>
>Sure troll. Anybody who doesn't tow the homophobic line is a "bigot."
>--
>Mark K. Bilbo
Pray tell, why do we bother putting the irony meters up anyways? They just get
blown up so fast...
little_plantinga
> On 15 Nov 2002 01:42:49 -0800, max_p...@yahoo.com
> (little_plantinga) wrote:
>
> >In the short time I've been posting at alt.atheism I've witnessed the
> >curious popularity among atheists with threads concerning
> >homosexuality. It seems like it just wouldn't be a day at alt.atheism
> >unless some thread pops up denouncing Christians and their evil plot
> >to pull Marvin's dick out of Steven's backside in the privacy of their
> >own home (leather dungeon).
> >
>
>
> Fucking obvious.
I've seen about nine threads regarding homosexuality here, all of
which contained posts authored by atheists, or people irrationally
hostile to Christianity. The only thing more obvious than that is your
blindfold.
>
> Face it. While a fair number of theists are anti-human monsters, the
> vast majority of atheists (excepting those who follow some other,
> non-theistic dogma such as Maoism) are very ethical, and put much
> importance on fairness and justice.
Why, because you say so? Atheistic ethics is without foundation. Since
(according to atheism) your actions are ultimately unrelated to your
final destination -- the grave -- good will ultimately go unrewarded
and evil with ultimately go unpunished. Atheistic ethical systems are
either based on consensus, or utility, i.e., subjective human
conventions.
This is precisely the reason we
> tend to take a strong position on homosexuality--just because the
> anti-human monsters that you call "xian" have arbitrarily chosen them
> as a group to vilify, torment, demonize, discriminate against, and
> even torture and kill. No other reason.
>
I don't condone any group, Christian or otherwise, that murders or
tortures your favorite victims. I see nothing wrong, however, with
Christians wanting to vilify homos, since that's their first amendment
right to freedom of speech.
>
> > Is this why you've
> >become atheists? So you can bend Marvin over in a bathhouse and not be
> >held accountable? So you can muffdive with Betty in the living room
> >with the curtains open so the kids across the street can see the
> >beauty of your "alternative lifestyle"?
> >
> >If you, like me, believe in the theory of evolution, then it should be
> >obvious to you that the penis was selected in to (a) release waste and
> >(b) to inseminate the vagina -- NOT uniform anal intercourse, which
> >only produces bacteria.
>
>
> Yeah right. Our hands did not evolve to hold a steering wheel or a
> paintbrush or type either. Is it therefore obvious that we should be
> against all those things too?
Features of organisms can behave nonfunctionally without
malfunctioning, as when a nose supports eyeglasses or when fingers are
used to punch keys on a typewriter. For example, a man who plays
melodies on a xylophone with his teeth is not misusing them so long as
he chews his food at mealtime. But if he also paints minature
landscapes on his teeth, avoids eating to keep these paintings
spotless, and recoils -- or shows no interest in -- the thought of
chewing -- THEN he is misusing his teeth.
>
> >
> >I also hear homo atheists whining about their desire to live in a
> >"bigotry free" society, usually in a post that is itself bigoted
> >towards anyone who doesn't accept their anal ways.
>
>
> Fuck off.
Why, so you can chase a 12-year-old around a campfire? Not likely.
> Have you ever heard an atheist say xians should not be allowed to
> marry?
Marriage is a private contract and a religious ceremony. Unless the
parties involved ask a government court for arbitration, there is
absolutely no reason why the state should involve itself in the rite
of marriage. This includes issuance of licenses and condemnation of
homo marriages.
.
That xians should be denied hospital visitation and end-of-life
> decisions for their loved ones? That they should not be allowed to
> adopt children or even have custody of their biological children?
You can adopt children when you can create them.
> That
> they should not be able to leave inheritance to their loved ones? Have
> you *ever* heard any atheist (or any homosexual, for that matter)
> argue for anything like this?
>
> Oh, I forgot. The bigot's view of bigotry is peculiarly distorted. Any
> challenge to your ability to oppress others counts as opressing you.
> Whereas to us thinking humans, oppression means messing others up with
> our own lives, *not* others preventing us from messing up *their*
> lives.
>
> Asshole.
I can only interpret this as a compliment, since your favorite victims
live in them.
Olrik
> In the short time I've been posting at alt.atheism I've witnessed the
> curious popularity among atheists with threads concerning
> homosexuality. It seems like it just wouldn't be a day at alt.atheism
> unless some thread pops up denouncing Christians and their evil plot
> to pull Marvin's dick out of Steven's backside in the privacy of their
> own home (leather dungeon).
>
> become atheists? So you can bend Marvin over in a bathhouse and not be
> held accountable? So you can muffdive with Betty in the living room
> with the curtains open so the kids across the street can see the
> beauty of your "alternative lifestyle"?
>
> If you, like me, believe in the theory of evolution, then it should be
> obvious to you that the penis was selected in to (a) release waste and
> (b) to inseminate the vagina -- NOT uniform anal intercourse, which
> only produces bacteria.
>
> "bigotry free" society, usually in a post that is itself bigoted
> towards anyone who doesn't accept their anal ways.
Lani_girl? Is that you?
Or is it "bob"?
--
Olrik
aa #1981
Qualified SMASH member
EAC Chief Food Inspector, Bacon Division
thamus
>>From: "thamus" tha...@spamit.com
>
>>You know this how?
>
> From knowing liberals.
So: you know "liberals", therefore you can tell that the people
who post in "homosexual threads" here are "liberals" and are also
therefore not gay and don't really know gay people very well
either?
>>So it is not a response to reactionary politician trying to pass
>>discrimanatory laws?
>
> Who is this politician?
A few google searches will give you a nice variety of various
state legislatures trying to pass all manner of anti-gay laws.
> There have been some, but most are sick and tired of hearing gay gay gay
> everytime they listen to the news. It makes little difference what one's
> "orientation" is in most cases, but the liberals constantly talk about it.
>
>> And it doesn't come up here
>>in response to anti-gay trolls posting biblical nonesense?
>
> Tell them to shove it.
Which is what most people here seem to do.
>>these same people won't bother to stop persecution as long as it's not
>>themselves being persecuted.
>
> Liberals persecute people simply for being normal, for not holdig
> politically correct opinions, for speaking things the liberals dislike,
> etc.
You must have a very strange definition of "persecute".
--
Thamus http://www.thamus.org/eac/
Random headline:
God Thanked For Miracle
http://www.thamus.org/News/lifestyles/miner_miracle.html
little_plantinga
And your handle is "the raven"? Sure.....
satyr
>In the short time I've been posting at alt.atheism I've witnessed the
>curious popularity among atheists with threads concerning
>homosexuality.
I suspect that this is largely a result of the obsession of certain Christian
groups regarding homosexuality.
> It seems like it just wouldn't be a day at alt.atheism
>unless some thread pops up denouncing Christians and their evil plot
It looks like you just started the first one in several days.
>to pull Marvin's dick out of Steven's backside in the privacy of their
>own home (leather dungeon).
>
>Fess up: what's the obsession with homosexuality?
Of approximately 120 active threads, about nine subjects involve homosexuality,
including at least one that you started.
> Is this why you've
>become atheists? So you can bend Marvin over in a bathhouse and not be
>held accountable?
As long as Marvin consents, who would the bender be accountable to?
> So you can muffdive with Betty in the living room
>with the curtains open so the kids across the street can see the
>beauty of your "alternative lifestyle"?
You consider oral sex to be an "alternative lifestyle"? How quaint.
>If you, like me, believe in the theory of evolution, then it should be
>obvious to you that the penis was selected in to (a) release waste and
>(b) to inseminate the vagina -- NOT uniform anal intercourse,
If you believe in the theory of evolution, then the significance of adapting an
organ to a new use should be obvious to you.
>which
>only produces bacteria.
If you believe in the theory of evolution, then the fact that sex doesn't
produce bacteria should be obvious to you.
>I also hear homo atheists whining about their desire to live in a
>"bigotry free" society, usually in a post that is itself bigoted
>towards anyone who doesn't accept their anal ways.
You got to change your anal ways... baby.
satyr #1953
Chairman, EAC Church Taxation Subcommittee
Director, Gideon Bible Alternative Fuel Project
Supervisor, EAC Fossil Casting Lab
satyr
wrote:
>
>>Most of them here
>>are not gay and don't know anyone well who is.
>
>
>I'd bet most of us do, in fact.
Not gay. Know several very well.
Mark Stahl
> >From: "Mark Stahl" st...@aecom.yu.edu
>
> >he rest of us understand how important it is for
> >all of us-every single one of us- to be treated fairly.
>
> Obsessiing over a select group du jour isn't the way.
why not? seems to work ok, although 'obsessing' over everyone at once is
obviously best.
> In the 70s it was
> Indians, then hispanics, in the 60s black Americans, yadda yadda yadda....
and are blacks, hispanics, and native americans not better off today from a
civil rights perspective than they were before?
little_plantinga
> On Fri, 15 Nov 2002 01:42:49 +0000, max_p...@yahoo.com (little_plantinga) in <735d1e05.02111...@posting.google.com> proclaimed to the world...
>
> <snip>
>
> Troll.
Dildo.
> > If you, like me, believe in the theory of evolution,
>
> "Belief" is irrelevant. If you just "believe" in the ToE, you're a fool.
Let's not play silly semantic games, Dildo -- I accept the normative
claims of the theory of evolution. Is that so hard to understand?
> > then it should be
> > obvious to you that the penis was selected in to (a) release waste and
> > (b) to inseminate the vagina -- NOT uniform anal intercourse, which only
> > produces bacteria.
>
> You ignore that heterosexual sex is dangerous.
Of course not Dildo. The reason I place special emphasis on homosexual
intercourse, is that, unlike heterosexual intercourse -- i.e., normal
intercourse, i.e., the type you're not getting -- the penis is exposed
to feces and the sensitive tissue of the rectum. That, combined with
the hyper-promiscuity of homosexuals, outweighs the risk run by
engaging in heterosexual intercourse a thousandfold.
Let us also add that homosexual promiscuity represents the male sex
drive freed from female accomodation. In other words, it doesn't look
normal to me, Dildo.
Particularly
> for women. The "safest" sex as regards disease is lesbian sex. So if
> you're worried about disease, you should be a lesbian.
Lesbians may not be as prone to disease as homosexuals, or even
heterosexuals, but that doesn't qualify their unnatural misuse of
their labia.
> Your complaint is against the penis which is an organ prone to
> transmitting disease to sex partners. Gay male sex has a higher risk
> being that all the sex acts involve penises in some way. Heterosexual
> sex is risky but a bit less so involving fewer penises.
See above. This says nothing about the greater risk of partaking in
homosexual intercourse.
The sexuality
> with the least disease is lesbianism which involves no penis at all.
>
> Of course, as our evolution continues, having shifted to the
> cultural/technological realm, the penis could become obsolete.
It'll become obsolete when human nature does.
Already,
> we can do insemination in safe, sterile conditions and no longer risk
> the introduction of a kludged reproductive/waste disposal organ into the
> vagina. As we continue to evolve, the need for sperm will disappear as
> we'll be able to manipulate the genetic code itself.
That's a pipe dream for two reasons, Dildo. Firstly, the consensus
among evolutionary biologists is that evolution is at a standstill,
partly because of miscegenation brought about by massive turd-world
immigration into the West.
"For those who dream of a better life, science has bad news: this is
the best it is going to get. Our species has reached its biological
pinnacle and is no longer capable of changing."
"In addition, human populations are now being constantly mixed, again
producing a blending that blocks evolutionary change. This increased
mixing can be gauged by calculating the number of miles between a
person's birthplace and his or her partner's, then between their
parents' birthplaces, and finally, between their grandparents'."
http://www.observer.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,644002,00.html
And don't think these Mexicans and Africans we're importing are
somehow going to turn into good, homo-sensitive secular humanists once
they arrive in America. Gay rights doesn't exist anywhere else apart
from the West, i.e., where whites prevail numerically. There are no
"gay pride" marches Central America, and in Zimbabwe, Robert Mugabe,
the black dictator, is famous not only for killing white farmers, but
homosexuals.
Secondly, we've evolved for over two hundred thousand years to be
reared in two-parent environments, with a strong masculine presence
together with a contrasting female one. You cannot suddenly disrupt
the traditional male-female two-parent role in rearing children
without causing major fault lines in nature.
> So you shouldn't fret too much. I would estimate that within the
> century, the penis will be obsolete and you won't have to fret over
> getting disease from one anymore.
>
> > I also hear homo atheists whining about their desire to live in a
> > "bigotry free" society, usually in a post that is itself bigoted towards
> > anyone who doesn't accept their anal ways.
>
> Sure troll. Anybody who doesn't tow the homophobic line is a "bigot."
Which tells me the only line Dildo is towing is the one down his
throat.
Mark Stahl
"little_plantinga" <max_p...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:735d1e05.02111...@posting.google.com...
> Orhan Orgun <orhan...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:<ih7atuk1g1hia6ugo...@4ax.com>...
> > On 15 Nov 2002 01:42:49 -0800, max_p...@yahoo.com
> > (little_plantinga) wrote:
> >
> > >In the short time I've been posting at alt.atheism I've witnessed the
> > >curious popularity among atheists with threads concerning
> > >homosexuality. It seems like it just wouldn't be a day at alt.atheism
> > >unless some thread pops up denouncing Christians and their evil plot
> > >to pull Marvin's dick out of Steven's backside in the privacy of their
> > >own home (leather dungeon).
> > >
> > >Fess up: what's the obsession with homosexuality?
> >
> >
> > It's xers who are obsessed with homosexuality. Isn't that obvious?
> > Fucking obvious.
>
> I've seen about nine threads regarding homosexuality here, all of
> which contained posts authored by atheists, or people irrationally
> hostile to Christianity. The only thing more obvious than that is your
> blindfold.
>
check on who the threads are started by. the atheists are generally only
defending human rights when bigots such as yourself attack them, usually on
the grounds of some kind of superstitious nonsense such as that found in the
bible.
>
> >
> > Face it. While a fair number of theists are anti-human monsters, the
> > vast majority of atheists (excepting those who follow some other,
> > non-theistic dogma such as Maoism) are very ethical, and put much
> > importance on fairness and justice.
>
> Why, because you say so?
no, because it is true and is borne out by statistics. for example, do some
research and see what % of prisoners in a highly religious nation like the
US are atheists. moreover, this is supported on philosophical grounds as it
is self evident that people who adhere to ethical standards because they
know they are the proper way to behave are morally superior to those who
only restrain themselves because they cower in fear of some imaginary
hellfire.
> Atheistic ethics is without foundation.
just because in your profound ignorance you can't understand how people can
be good without fear of punishment doesn't mean they have no ethical
foundation. it simply means you lack the intelligence to comprehend it.
> Since
> (according to atheism) your actions are ultimately unrelated to your
> final destination -- the grave -- good will ultimately go unrewarded
> and evil with ultimately go unpunished.
sorry, your conclusion doesn't support your premise there. good actions are
usually rewarded and evil punished right here, in the real world. it's
rather sad and in a way frightening that you would be so sociopathic as to
ignore this.
> Atheistic ethical systems are
> either based on consensus, or utility, i.e., subjective human
> conventions.
>
clearly, as evidenced both above in your incorrect statements and below in
your unethical ones, you have very little familiarity with any form of
ethics whatsoever.
>
> This is precisely the reason we
> > tend to take a strong position on homosexuality--just because the
> > anti-human monsters that you call "xian" have arbitrarily chosen them
> > as a group to vilify, torment, demonize, discriminate against, and
> > even torture and kill. No other reason.
> >
>
> I don't condone any group, Christian or otherwise, that murders or
> tortures your favorite victims.
how comforting, though somewhat surprising.
> I see nothing wrong, however, with
> Christians wanting to vilify homos, since that's their first amendment
> right to freedom of speech.
>
yet more illogic from you, little one. no one is saying christians doesn't
have the right to say whatever they want (which in fairness also applies to
us critiquing the stupid things the christians say about the gay people.).
the question is why the christians want to villify the "homos" in the first
place, and why you don't see anything wrong with that. you should, as they
are being villified unfairly.
>
>
> >
> > > Is this why you've
> > >become atheists? So you can bend Marvin over in a bathhouse and not be
> > >held accountable? So you can muffdive with Betty in the living room
> > >with the curtains open so the kids across the street can see the
> > >beauty of your "alternative lifestyle"?
> > >
> > >If you, like me, believe in the theory of evolution, then it should be
> > >obvious to you that the penis was selected in to (a) release waste and
> > >(b) to inseminate the vagina -- NOT uniform anal intercourse, which
> > >only produces bacteria.
> >
> >
> > Yeah right. Our hands did not evolve to hold a steering wheel or a
> > paintbrush or type either. Is it therefore obvious that we should be
> > against all those things too?
>
> Features of organisms can behave nonfunctionally without
> malfunctioning, as when a nose supports eyeglasses or when fingers are
> used to punch keys on a typewriter. For example, a man who plays
> melodies on a xylophone with his teeth is not misusing them so long as
> he chews his food at mealtime. But if he also paints minature
> landscapes on his teeth, avoids eating to keep these paintings
> spotless, and recoils -- or shows no interest in -- the thought of
> chewing -- THEN he is misusing his teeth.
>
>
this is laughable on so many levels. first of all, what the hell do you care
how someone else uses *their* body? it's theirs, after all, and you have no
claim on it whatsoever. secondly, your ridiculous xylophone-landscape
painting analogy falls on its face because it may interest you to know that
gay men and women do in fact use their sex organs to have sex. where the
landscape painting or recoiling come into your "thought" process is
something best left to your therapist, i suspect.
> >
> > >
> > >I also hear homo atheists whining about their desire to live in a
> > >"bigotry free" society, usually in a post that is itself bigoted
> > >towards anyone who doesn't accept their anal ways.
> >
> >
> > Fuck off.
>
> Why, so you can chase a 12-year-old around a campfire? Not likely.
>
wow, where did *that* come from? you're not projecting things you'd rather
be doing than posting to usenet here, are you? if not, what are you saying
here? something about how most pedophiles are straight folks, maybe?
>
> > Have you ever heard an atheist say xians should not be allowed to
> > marry?
>
> Marriage is a private contract and a religious ceremony.
bzzzzzt, wrong. there's no reason whatsoever for religious intrusion into
marriage.
> Unless the
> parties involved ask a government court for arbitration, there is
> absolutely no reason why the state should involve itself in the rite
> of marriage. This includes issuance of licenses and condemnation of
> homo marriages.
>
so i suppose you've never heard of things like tax returns, power of
attorney, and child custody, just for starters? are you really this
incredibly moronic or were you just not thinking when you wrote that little
gem?
> .
>
>
>
> That xians should be denied hospital visitation and end-of-life
> > decisions for their loved ones? That they should not be allowed to
> > adopt children or even have custody of their biological children?
>
> You can adopt children when you can create them.
>
oh, ok- you're trying to clear up the stupidity thing for us here, thanks.
you drooling idiot- most people who adopt do so because they *can't* create
children for whatever reason. why would you ever write something so
incredibly, incomprehensibly stupid like suggesting that a criterion for
being able to adopt be fertility?! this is light-bending density on display
here, folks. do you ever forget to breathe?
>
> > That
> > they should not be able to leave inheritance to their loved ones? Have
> > you *ever* heard any atheist (or any homosexual, for that matter)
> > argue for anything like this?
> >
> > Oh, I forgot. The bigot's view of bigotry is peculiarly distorted. Any
> > challenge to your ability to oppress others counts as opressing you.
> > Whereas to us thinking humans, oppression means messing others up with
> > our own lives, *not* others preventing us from messing up *their*
> > lives.
> >
> > Asshole.
>
> I can only interpret this as a compliment, since your favorite victims
> live in them.
no, no.. it seems like calling you an "asshole" is a perfectly objective way
of describing your attitude and what we've seen of both your intellect and
personality so far in this thread.
Mark Stahl
> raven1 <psyched...@flashmail.com> wrote in message
news:<lq2btussirrma1nsk...@4ax.com>...
> > On 15 Nov 2002 01:42:49 -0800, max_p...@yahoo.com
> > (little_plantinga) wrote:
> >
> > I'm straight.
> >
>
> And your handle is "the raven"? Sure.....
>
>
absolutely hilarious coming from the "little plantinga". how little IS your
plantinga, anyway?
Psymaster
posted in message news:735d1e05.02111...@posting.google.com to
group alt.atheism the following:
> In the short time I've been posting at alt.atheism I've witnessed the
> curious popularity among atheists with threads concerning
> homosexuality. It seems like it just wouldn't be a day at alt.atheism
> unless some thread pops up denouncing Christians and their evil plot
> to pull Marvin's dick out of Steven's backside in the privacy of their
> own home (leather dungeon).
>
> Fess up: what's the obsession with homosexuality? Is this why you've
> become atheists? So you can bend Marvin over in a bathhouse and not be
> held accountable? So you can muffdive with Betty in the living room
> with the curtains open so the kids across the street can see the
> beauty of your "alternative lifestyle"?
>
> If you, like me, believe in the theory of evolution, then it should be
> obvious to you that the penis was selected in to (a) release waste and
> (b) to inseminate the vagina -- NOT uniform anal intercourse, which
> only produces bacteria.
>
> I also hear homo atheists whining about their desire to live in a
> "bigotry free" society, usually in a post that is itself bigoted
> towards anyone who doesn't accept their anal ways.
So you say that gay people cannot choose their sexual life as others or
that they can't have any sexual life at all? Great opinion. Then you should
have sex maximum 5-6 times in your life, because I don't think you would
want to raise more children than that (and masturbation and birth control
are NOT allowed). If, for some reason (e.g. money), you don't want any
children you should not have sex at all.
And you can proceed to hunting down and killing all homosexuals, as the
Bible suggests (being the book of "the religion of love"). Look at:
Romans 1:31-32
1 Kings 22:43, 46
Leviticus 20:13
for just some of the commands of the "religion of love" to kill
homosexuals.
Mark K. Bilbo
> [...]
>>> then it should be
>>> obvious to you that the penis was selected in to (a) release waste
>>> and (b) to inseminate the vagina -- NOT uniform anal intercourse,
>>> which only produces bacteria.
>>
>>You ignore that heterosexual sex is dangerous. Particularly for women.
>>The "safest" sex as regards disease is lesbian sex. So if you're
>>worried about disease, you should be a lesbian.
>
> Ah, but the poor fella isn't a female. ;)
Then he is a carrier of DISEASE!
Flee! Run away!!!
> [...]
>
>>> I also hear homo atheists whining about their desire to live in a
>>> "bigotry free" society, usually in a post that is itself bigoted
>>> towards anyone who doesn't accept their anal ways.
>>
>>Sure troll. Anybody who doesn't tow the homophobic line is a "bigot."
>>--
>>Mark K. Bilbo
>
> Pray tell, why do we bother putting the irony meters up anyways? They
> just get blown up so fast...
Safety regulations now prohibit irony meters being anywhere within a
twenty mile radius of the ng...
xyzzy
>I've seen about nine threads regarding homosexuality here
1. Good. Now it's ten, congratulations.
2. Does it bother you? Are you an atheist/Christian,
heterosexual/homosexual?
3. Only 9? Kansan alone posts about four times as many in a week about
his heterosexual fantasies about Heidi Klum.
4. I remeber reading a couple of posts from homosexuals or about
homosexuals myself but yours is by far the one with the most sexually
explicit fantasies - heterosexual or homosexual, that I have read in
this group. Interpret this any way that you want.
5. It's no secret that homosexuals are oppressed by religions, so it
makes perfect sense that they stand up against it. I personally think
they aren't vocal enough. Freedom of speech is not only applicable to
the speech you like.
Mark K. Bilbo
> That's a pipe dream for two reasons, Dildo. Firstly, the consensus among
> evolutionary biologists is that evolution is at a standstill, partly
> because of miscegenation brought about by massive turd-world immigration
> into the West.
Physical evolution is. But you miss my point.
Let's see, homophobia, racism, bigotry with abandon and a Yahoo account.
Definitely spells "troll"...
<plonk>
--
Londonspish
> >From: max_p...@yahoo.com (little_plantinga)
>
> >Fess up: what's the obsession with homosexuality?
>
> are not gay and don't know anyone well who is. It's just a formulaic discussion
> among liberals, intended to indirectly smear their opponents and anyone they
> dislike by showing themselves (liberals) tolerant and thus their opponents
> intolerant.
> even bother with "persecuting" anyone who doesn't bother them.
>
On an international newsgroup you will have to define your meaning of
"liberal" each time, or use the word I use: "inverted fascist",
because as I have already pointed out the word "liberal" in many
places on Earth indicates a philosophy which you would agree with
entirely.
--
Iain
Dread
I just want you to understand why I'm killfiling you. It's not because you
are an intolerant bigot. I feel they should be able to say what they want.
At the very least, it targets them for my killfile. Best case, we can show
them why they are a bigot and hopefully bring them away from their taught
prejudices. No, I'm killfiling you because you have no sense of reason.
You make absurd claims, which I won't go over again. I think my fellow
groupers here made the point clearly enough. Frankly, you are an idiot.
PLONK
--
Vsevo khoroshogo,
Dread Atheist #1299
Head of the Division for Theist Subversion of BAAWA
"He who will not reason is a bigot, he who cannot is a fool, he who dares
not is a slave." -William Drummond
I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with
sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use. --Galileo
Galilei
Dread
news:5v9btu08nt38iucs9...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 15 Nov 2002 17:33:12 GMT, John Popelish <jpop...@rica.net>,
> <3DD52FDD...@rica.net>, wrote:
>
> >little_plantinga wrote:
> >>
> >> In the short time I've been posting at alt.atheism I've witnessed the
> >> curious popularity among atheists with threads concerning
> >> homosexuality.
> >
> >another thread on the subject. I understand.
> >
> >(snip)
> >> Fess up: what's the obsession with homosexuality?
> >
> >post in response to homosexual threads, but yours finally got me
> >involved. Congratulations.
> >(snip)
>
> Like John, I've never started a thread on homosexuality. Is there
> something about the subject that intrigues you enough to start a whole new
> thread? However, I do know gay and lesbian people, and you do, too. You
> just don't know that they are homosexual.
>
And he never will either for their fear of him attacking them.
Billy Goat
<snip>
> Atheistic ethical systems are
> either based on consensus, or utility, i.e., subjective human
> conventions.
<snip>
Thank you for admitting that religious ethical systems are arguable,
useless, and unfit for humans.
--Billy
Will Coon
> "bigotry free" society, usually in a post that is itself bigoted
> towards anyone who doesn't accept their anal ways.
I hear black people whining about their desire to live in a "bigotry
free" society, ususally in a post that is itself bigoted towards
anyone who doesn't accept their dark-skinned ways.
I wish I could say I don't understand you. But it is the mark of the
barbarian to destry that which he does not understand, so he who has
understanding is perfectly validated in bringing destruction.
Apostate
>I've seen about nine threads regarding homosexuality here, all of
>which contained posts authored by atheists,
"Contained posts", Gracie?
Who *founded* those threads, and with what pov?
Is it your assertion that only the obsessed *reply* to postings by
those obsessed with irrational hostility toward homosexuals?
By the same token, if those "irrationally hostile to Christianity"
start an xian-bashing thread, can we assign to the obsessive
category every xian who replies to "correct" the original poster's
opinion? Or is it only pathological when people who disagree with
*you* post, whether in the thread-original article, or in reply?
>or people irrationally
>hostile to Christianity. The only thing more obvious than that is your
>blindfold.
>
>
>>
>> Face it. While a fair number of theists are anti-human monsters, the
>> vast majority of atheists (excepting those who follow some other,
>> non-theistic dogma such as Maoism) are very ethical, and put much
>> importance on fairness and justice.
>
>Why, because you say so? Atheistic ethics is without foundation. Since
>(according to atheism) your actions are ultimately unrelated to your
>final destination -- the grave -- good will ultimately go unrewarded
>and evil with ultimately go unpunished.
Congratulations.
You've just demonstrated (which word can't be spelled without "demon")
to us that you have no morality, since you are capable of doing good and avoiding
evil only under threat of being caught and punished for your evil deeds, and supported
by being given a cookie every time you don't crap your pants.
>Atheistic ethical systems are
>either based on consensus, or utility, i.e., subjective human
>conventions.
>
>
>This is precisely the reason we
>> tend to take a strong position on homosexuality--just because the
>> anti-human monsters that you call "xian" have arbitrarily chosen them
>> as a group to vilify, torment, demonize, discriminate against, and
>> even torture and kill. No other reason.
>>
>
>I don't condone any group, Christian or otherwise, that murders or
>tortures your favorite victims. I see nothing wrong, however, with
>Christians wanting to vilify homos, since that's their first amendment
>right to freedom of speech.
Freedom of speech doesn't entail a freedom from criticism for that speech.
--
/Apostate
atheist #1931 I've found it!
BAAWA Knife AND SMASHer
EAC Supernumerary Deputy Director, Department of Redundancy Department
plonked by vernon; NEW! IMPROVED! plonked by Lani_girl
I doubt, therefore I might be.
Elf M. Sternberg
> Of course not Dildo. The reason I place special emphasis on homosexual
> intercourse, is that, unlike heterosexual intercourse -- i.e., normal
> intercourse, i.e., the type you're not getting -- the penis is exposed
> to feces and the sensitive tissue of the rectum...
As my favorite business news anchor likes to say, "Let's do
the numbers."
There are approximately 220 million people in the United
States. Half of them are women-- 110 million women. As conservatives
are fond of harping, only 2.5% of those people are homosexual, about
5.5 million people. But half of them are women. There are therefore
only about 2.75 million homosexual men in the United States, if we
take a conservative estimate. Now, according to almost every survey,
including the very conservative Redbook surveys, some sixty percent of
those women have tried anal sex, with about twelve percent engaging in
anal sex on a recurring basis. Add to this the surveys from both Bell
& Weinberg and from Advocate magazine, which reveal that some 53% of
gay men report not enjoying anal sex, 40% stating that they do not
engage in receptive anal sex at all.
(This is where the piano starts playing 'Stormy Weather')
110 * .12 = 13.2 million women engage in anal sex "on a somewhat
regular basis"
2.75 * .60 = 1.65 million homosexual men engage in anal sex "on a
somewhat regular basis."
13.2 / 1.65 = 8.0
EIGHT TIMES as many heterosexual women as gay men engage in
receptive anal sex. And since they're heterosexual women, that
follows that they're getting it from heterosexual men.
So, if you think that what "homosexuals" are sick, do you object
to the 13.2 million heterosexual couples who are, more or less, doing
the same thing?
> "For those who dream of a better life, science has bad news: this is
> the best it is going to get. Our species has reached its biological
> pinnacle and is no longer capable of changing."
Whoever wrote that is an idiot. The human species is still
changing; every generation, some genes will fall out of the pool, and
every generation new ones will be generated. The success or failure of
those genes to get propogated into the future depends entirely on their
viability with the environment as it exists.
And in case you've been living in a cave, the human species has
already taken control of its evolutionary destiny. Within ten years I
predict that genetic screening for traits both desireable and
undesirable will become commonplace.
> Secondly, we've evolved for over two hundred thousand years to be
> reared in two-parent environments, with a strong masculine presence
> together with a contrasting female one.
That's utter fantasy. There are thousands of "natural"
counter-examples in anthropology, where children are raised by more than
just a two-parent system: extended families, tribal arrangements, and
the like are just as normative.
Elf
--
Elf M. Sternberg will be unavailable during November.
http://www.drizzle.com/~elf/
Elf M. Sternberg
> Why, because you say so? Atheistic ethics is without foundation. Since
> (according to atheism) your actions are ultimately unrelated to your
> final destination -- the grave -- good will ultimately go unrewarded
> and evil with ultimately go unpunished.
Absolutist systems of morality are dysfunctional in the extreme.
We have seen the outcome of absolutist systems such as the one you're
proposing here recently, and thousands of people have paid the ultimate
price for it. If you believe, absolutely, that your goal is justified
and the rewards eternal, terrorism and murder become justifiable.
The naturalistic foundation of morality is far more basic: human
beings share a common natural substrate, the brain, all which share more
or less the same structure with individualistic variations. In order
for us to survive as a species, that common structure provides common
ground for individuals and groups to negotiate a simple group morality
by which all can proceed with the evolutionary businesses of surviving
and reproducing.
> Marriage is a private contract and a religious ceremony.
Marriage is a public contract. It is not, contrary to popular
opinion, a contract between a man and a woman. It is between a man and
a woman on one side, and the State on the other, and only one of those
two parties, namely the State, has the right to change the terms of the
contract at any time for any reason. State recognition of marriage is
an economic reality: the State provides benefits for those who are
helping to create the next generation of taxpayers.
> You can adopt children when you can create them.
Well, thank you very much. By your reasoning, my mother should
never have adopted me.
Automort
>On an international newsgroup you will have to define your meaning of
>"liberal" each time, or use the word I use: "inverted fascist",
>because as I have already pointed out the word "liberal" in many
>places on Earth indicates a philosophy which you would agree with
>entirely.
That is probably so, but I am using my own context because I can't be familiar
with every inflection of every political system.
Automort
>and are blacks, hispanics, and native americans not better off today from a
>civil rights perspective than they were before?
>
As far as I can tell they are. I don't know much about black people, though I
see Colin Powell & C. Rice in the corridors of power. I am guessing about
Indians, but they seem to have gotten through the "era of liberal obsession"
and are forging their destiny. Hispanics are doing quite well here, as they
began to in the 1950s. I had to laugh when what's his name, McGovern, I think,
spoke to local hispanics and tried to look concerned & compassionate ----
surrounded by the richest people who own the most property here & comprise the
largest ethnic group. he was already way behind the tims.
Automort
> it
>seems that everytime a group gains equal rights a new group is discriminated
>against.
That's because instead of a blanket action to cover certain rights, one group
is focussed on to the exclusion of others. They had to be sure black people
could vote. Then they had to be sure hispanics could vote. Then they had to be
sure Indians could vote....This is in part due to self-serving politicians
where each group is the largest vote bloc & partly to self-appointed "leaders"
who use"their people"...
Automort
> Someone who favors proposals for reform, is open to new ideas for
>progress, and is tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others. That is what I
>consdier a liberal, how about you?
No, a liberal is a narrow minded fanatic, alomst as bad as the Moslem nut
cases, obsessing over issues blown out of proportion and slobbering at the
mouth to force people into a rigid neo-victorian mold.
Mark K. Bilbo
> Sorry ---- liberals are shallow
Then you must be one because all you ever do is bitch about these one
dimensional "liberals"...
stoney
On 15 Nov 2002 01:42:49 -0800, max_p...@yahoo.com
(little_plantinga), Message ID:
<735d1e05.02111...@posting.google.com> wrote in
alt.atheism;
>In the short time I've been posting at alt.atheism I've witnessed the
>curious popularity among atheists with threads concerning
>homosexuality. It seems like it just wouldn't be a day at alt.atheism
>unless some thread pops up denouncing Christians and their evil plot
>to pull Marvin's dick out of Steven's backside in the privacy of their
>own home (leather dungeon).
If you were to look at the initial crossposter you'll see, in most
cases, such was started by a christian. What is being addressed are
fallacies raised by christians, such as you do two paragraphs below.
>Fess up: what's the obsession with homosexuality? Is this why you've
>become atheists? So you can bend Marvin over in a bathhouse and not be
>held accountable? So you can muffdive with Betty in the living room
>with the curtains open so the kids across the street can see the
>beauty of your "alternative lifestyle"?
Fess up: *You're* the one with the imaginary buddy who's concerned
about folks's sex life and sexual orientation when it, according to
your superstition, created and scripted everything in the first
place.
>If you, like me, believe in the theory of evolution, then it should be
>obvious to you that the penis was selected in to (a) release waste and
>(b) to inseminate the vagina -- NOT uniform anal intercourse, which
>only produces bacteria.
Well, if you believe in education then it should be obvious to you
that your education is solely lacking.
>I also hear homo atheists whining about their desire to live in a
>"bigotry free" society, usually in a post that is itself bigoted
>towards anyone who doesn't accept their anal ways.
Disningenious. Homosexuality is not only a fact, but is natural.
That it bothers you is a personal problem. That a person's sexual
orientation seems to override their humanity, if such is your stance
as it appears, such is also a personal problem.
A persons sexual orientation is their business and should be no
different like preferring Pepsi over Coke (or vice versa).
--
Stoney
"Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
and
SCAMPERMEISTER!"
When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough!
-----= Posted via Newsfeed.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeed.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== 100,000 Groups! - 19 Servers! - Unlimited Download! =-----
stoney
On Fri, 15 Nov 2002 11:45:46 GMT, cw20...@172.16.1.2, Message ID:
<K75B9.52$0K.1...@amsnews02.chello.com> wrote in alt.atheism;
>
>"little_plantinga" <max_p...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:735d1e05.02111...@posting.google.com...
>> In the short time I've been posting at alt.atheism I've witnessed the
>> curious popularity among atheists with threads concerning
>> homosexuality. It seems like it just wouldn't be a day at alt.atheism
>> unless some thread pops up denouncing Christians and their evil plot
>> to pull Marvin's dick out of Steven's backside in the privacy of their
>> own home (leather dungeon).
>>
>> Fess up: what's the obsession with homosexuality? Is this why you've
>> become atheists? So you can bend Marvin over in a bathhouse and not be
>> held accountable? So you can muffdive with Betty in the living room
>> with the curtains open so the kids across the street can see the
>> beauty of your "alternative lifestyle"?
>>
>> If you, like me, believe in the theory of evolution, then it should be
>> obvious to you that the penis was selected in to (a) release waste and
>> (b) to inseminate the vagina -- NOT uniform anal intercourse, which
>> only produces bacteria.
>>
>> I also hear homo atheists whining about their desire to live in a
>> "bigotry free" society, usually in a post that is itself bigoted
>> towards anyone who doesn't accept their anal ways.
>
>I am a little concerned with this message. For one, I am gay. Being gay is
>a lot more than what you are proposing with anal etc. etc.. etc.. Why are
>you so fixated on the anus?
>I know hetero couples that like to do it up the anus, and I know animals
> not personally ) that do it up the anus. But you somehow think being
>homosexual is all about putting a penis up some other guy's butthole. I'm
>sorry, but WHO is the bigot here?
>I am really dissapointed that such a statement would be made here. I
>typically think atheists are fairly smart.
Max "total" Power "failure" isn't an atheist, iirc, he's indicated
he's agnostic. Several of his posts have indicated "max"
cluelessness.
I've worn tight and short shorts and had males compliment me on my
ass. I thank them very politely and continue on my way.
> I've found that to be completely
>wrong sometimes. This remark you have made is offensive, rude, and not at
>all acurate. Go back to the drawing board and either come up with an
>apology or some better reasoning and arguments.
>Remember, homosexuality is the attraction to a man if you are a man, and
>woman if you are a woman. Why do you have to pervert the thing into lust.
>Are gay people the only one's lusting these days? Get real. I know its
>hard cuz you're not gay, but try to get in touch with that social empathy we
>have evolved with.
>
>I could write volumes on this. I'm just really disgusted at this post.
>PLEASE reconsider your thoughts.
stoney
On 15 Nov 2002 15:54:30 GMT, auto...@aol.com (Automort), Message
ID: <20021115105430...@mb-fs.aol.com> wrote in
alt.atheism;
>>From: max_p...@yahoo.com (little_plantinga)
>
>>Fess up: what's the obsession with homosexuality?
>
>Most of them are liberals and this is a liberal obsession. Most of them here
>are not gay and don't know anyone well who is. It's just a formulaic discussion
>among liberals, intended to indirectly smear their opponents and anyone they
>dislike by showing themselves (liberals) tolerant and thus their opponents
>intolerant.
>I doubt they realize the issue means nothing to most people, who don't want to
>even bother with "persecuting" anyone who doesn't bother them.
>
>Sorry ---- liberals are shallow and many atheists are liberals.
If liberals are 'shallow' then you're on top of Mount Everest on dry
rock.
Mark Stahl
> >From: "Mark Stahl" st...@aecom.yu.edu
>
> >and are blacks, hispanics, and native americans not better off today from
a
> >civil rights perspective than they were before?
> >
>
> As far as I can tell they are.
well, there you go.
Zeplerfer
Sorry, but I'm afraid I'll have to side with the dictionary on this point. Your
connotation is at odds with the denotation.
http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=liberal
~Zeplerfer #423
I am *not* the leader of the EAC Denial Dept.
In fact, there is *no* EAC.
Marvin
Well there you go. You've been looking at fundamentalists thinking they
were liberals. Aren't you glad you got that straightened out?
Marvin
stoney
On Sat, 16 Nov 2002 04:08:14 -0500, "Mark Stahl"
<st...@aecom.yu.edu>, Message ID:
<OhmdnWmJqcJ...@giganews.com> wrote in alt.atheism;
>
>"Automort" <auto...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:20021115171809...@mb-cl.aol.com...
>> >From: "Mark Stahl" st...@aecom.yu.edu
>>
>> >he rest of us understand how important it is for
>> >all of us-every single one of us- to be treated fairly.
>>
>> Obsessiing over a select group du jour isn't the way.
>
>why not? seems to work ok, although 'obsessing' over everyone at once is
>obviously best.
>
>> In the 70s it was
>> Indians, then hispanics, in the 60s black Americans, yadda yadda yadda....
>
>and are blacks, hispanics, and native americans not better off today from a
>civil rights perspective than they were before?
>
Which terrifys automoron terribly.
stoney
On 16 Nov 2002 04:33:26 GMT, zepl...@aol.comedy (Zeplerfer),
Message ID: <20021115233326...@mb-cj.aol.com> wrote in
alt.atheism;
>[...]
>>> And it doesn't come up here
>>>in response to anti-gay trolls posting biblical nonesense?
>>
>>Tell them to shove it.
>
>That might be a nice emotional release, but it's hardly a good argument.
>
>>>these same people won't bother to stop persecution as long as
>>>it's not themselves being persecuted.
>>
>>Liberals persecute people simply for being normal, for not holdig politically
>>correct opinions, for speaking things the liberals dislike, etc.
>
>dictionary.com says
>
>persecute:
>1. To oppress or harass with ill-treatment, especially because of race,
>religion, gender, sexual orientation, or beliefs.
>2. To annoy persistently; bother.
>3. To cause to suffer
>
>Which definition are you using when you say persecute? If it is #1 or #3 could
>you give an example?
>
>I'm proud to call myself a liberal, to me a liberal is someone not limited to
>or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or
>dogmas. Someone who favors proposals for reform, is open to new ideas for
>progress, and is tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others. That is what I
>consdier a liberal, how about you?
Automoron considers anyone who thinks differently from him is a
'liberal.'
stoney
On 15 Nov 2002 21:51:22 -0800, max_p...@yahoo.com
(little_plantinga), Message ID:
<735d1e05.02111...@posting.google.com> wrote in
alt.atheism;
>Orhan Orgun <orhan...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:<ih7atuk1g1hia6ugo...@4ax.com>...
>> On 15 Nov 2002 01:42:49 -0800, max_p...@yahoo.com
>> (little_plantinga) wrote:
>>
>> >In the short time I've been posting at alt.atheism I've witnessed the
>> >curious popularity among atheists with threads concerning
>> >homosexuality. It seems like it just wouldn't be a day at alt.atheism
>> >unless some thread pops up denouncing Christians and their evil plot
>> >to pull Marvin's dick out of Steven's backside in the privacy of their
>> >own home (leather dungeon).
>> >
>> >Fess up: what's the obsession with homosexuality?
>>
>>
>> It's xers who are obsessed with homosexuality. Isn't that obvious?
>> Fucking obvious.
>
>I've seen about nine threads regarding homosexuality here, all of
>which contained posts authored by atheists, or people irrationally
>hostile to Christianity. The only thing more obvious than that is your
>blindfold.
>
>
>>
>> Face it. While a fair number of theists are anti-human monsters, the
>> vast majority of atheists (excepting those who follow some other,
>> non-theistic dogma such as Maoism) are very ethical, and put much
>> importance on fairness and justice.
>
>Why, because you say so? Atheistic ethics is without foundation.
Atheism has nothing to do with ethics, horse racing, oil change
intervals, font type and a bunch of other things. Atheism has to do
with a lack of theism, nothing more. It's such a singular and
simple concept, why do you have so much trouble dealing with it?
> Since
>(according to atheism) your actions are ultimately unrelated to your
>final destination -- the grave -- good will ultimately go unrewarded
>and evil with ultimately go unpunished. Atheistic ethical systems are
>either based on consensus, or utility, i.e., subjective human
>conventions.
Theist and societal ethical systems are based on subjective human
conventions that change over a course of time. Worse, the Christian
(cough) "ethical system" indicates all will be forgiven as long as
you don't say anything bad about the holy spook. Such is a total
lack of ethics and morality.
>This is precisely the reason we
>> tend to take a strong position on homosexuality--just because the
>> anti-human monsters that you call "xian" have arbitrarily chosen them
>> as a group to vilify, torment, demonize, discriminate against, and
>> even torture and kill. No other reason.
>>
>
>I don't condone any group, Christian or otherwise, that murders or
>tortures your favorite victims. I see nothing wrong, however, with
>Christians wanting to vilify homos, since that's their first amendment
>right to freedom of speech.
And, based on the first amendment their 'arguments,' ignorance, and
bigotry is being highlighted which you seem to have a problem with.
>> > Is this why you've
>> >become atheists? So you can bend Marvin over in a bathhouse and not be
>> >held accountable? So you can muffdive with Betty in the living room
>> >with the curtains open so the kids across the street can see the
>> >beauty of your "alternative lifestyle"?
>> >
>> >If you, like me, believe in the theory of evolution, then it should be
>> >obvious to you that the penis was selected in to (a) release waste and
>> >(b) to inseminate the vagina -- NOT uniform anal intercourse, which
>> >only produces bacteria.
>>
>>
>> Yeah right. Our hands did not evolve to hold a steering wheel or a
>> paintbrush or type either. Is it therefore obvious that we should be
>> against all those things too?
>
>Features of organisms can behave nonfunctionally without
>malfunctioning,
as in oral and anal sex.
>as when a nose supports eyeglasses or when fingers are
>used to punch keys on a typewriter. For example, a man who plays
>melodies on a xylophone with his teeth is not misusing them so long as
>he chews his food at mealtime. But if he also paints minature
>landscapes on his teeth, avoids eating to keep these paintings
>spotless, and recoils -- or shows no interest in -- the thought of
>chewing -- THEN he is misusing his teeth.
(peals of laughter) Non useage of teeth and going on a total liquid
diet is not misuse of his or her teeth.
>> >I also hear homo atheists whining about their desire to live in a
>> >"bigotry free" society, usually in a post that is itself bigoted
>> >towards anyone who doesn't accept their anal ways.
>>
>>
>> Fuck off.
>
>Why, so you can chase a 12-year-old around a campfire? Not likely.
Nah, he leaves that for you and the local priests.
>> Have you ever heard an atheist say xians should not be allowed to
>> marry?
>
>Marriage is a private contract and a religious ceremony.
Minor correction. Marriage is a private contract and *can* have an
additional religious ceremony as well.
> Unless the
>parties involved ask a government court for arbitration, there is
>absolutely no reason why the state should involve itself in the rite
>of marriage. This includes issuance of licenses and condemnation of
>homo marriages.
No argument.
> That xians should be denied hospital visitation and end-of-life
>> decisions for their loved ones? That they should not be allowed to
>> adopt children or even have custody of their biological children?
>
>You can adopt children when you can create them.
How pathetic. Sadly, you don't hold that same point toward a
heterosexual couple that is sterile, too old for pregnancy, or where
pregnancy is too dangerous. You would prefer a child be bounced
from foster home to foster home rather than have two parents that
would lavish them with love and support.
>> That
>> they should not be able to leave inheritance to their loved ones? Have
>> you *ever* heard any atheist (or any homosexual, for that matter)
>> argue for anything like this?
>>
>> Oh, I forgot. The bigot's view of bigotry is peculiarly distorted. Any
>> challenge to your ability to oppress others counts as opressing you.
>> Whereas to us thinking humans, oppression means messing others up with
>> our own lives, *not* others preventing us from messing up *their*
>> lives.
>>
>> Asshole.
>
>I can only interpret this as a compliment, since your favorite victims
>live in them.
How pathetically ignorant.
stoney
On Sat, 16 Nov 2002 04:46:13 -0500, "Mark Stahl"
<st...@aecom.yu.edu>, Message ID:
<HXidndqZEqN...@giganews.com> wrote in alt.atheism;
>
>"little_plantinga" <max_p...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:735d1e05.0211...@posting.google.com...
>> raven1 <psyched...@flashmail.com> wrote in message
>news:<lq2btussirrma1nsk...@4ax.com>...
>> > On 15 Nov 2002 01:42:49 -0800, max_p...@yahoo.com
>> > (little_plantinga) wrote:
>> >
>> > I'm straight.
>> >
>>
>> And your handle is "the raven"? Sure.....
>>
>>
>
>absolutely hilarious coming from the "little plantinga". how little IS your
>plantinga, anyway?
By his description it's very little and probably yearns to be
'planted.' Whether the place to plant he yearns for is same sex,
opposite sex, or both remains to be seen. However, it is
interesting he's not only been reading crossposted homosexual
threads but started one in alt.atheism.
Automort
>Date: 11/16/02 2:23 PM Central
>all you ever do is bitch about these one
>dimensional "liberals"...
I'm trying to help you.
Automort
>I'm afraid I'll have to side with the dictionary on this point. Your
>connotation is at odds with the denotation.
It is especially feminists who are strictly speaking, victorians. However,
liberals are racists and rave constantly about social class and money.
Automort
>You've been looking at fundamentalists thinking they
>were liberals.
The only difference is in the ideas they mouth.
Automort
>> >civil rights perspective than they were before?
>> >
>>
>> As far as I can tell they are.
>
>well, there you go.
>
Capitalism solved much of the problem. As the middle class black population
grew it became impractical not to let them come into your stores to shop.
The same applies to other groups, but here, at least, hispanics always went
into the same stores I did, at least in my lifetime, they owned property, and
they applied themselves and worked hard. NOBODY STOPPED THEM.
There is no large setteled Indian group here, though there are the remnants of
local inhabitants and a community of various ones. I don;t know much about them
except that in '92 they protested a statue of Columbus that was set up at the
entrance to the port.
dhrolf
Why
do you?>>
I think that when people onject to what homosexuals do with their
dicks it is because homosexuals insist that everybody else pay for all
the AIDS medicine that homosexuals need because of the AIDS disease
they constantly get with their dicks.
If you get my drift.
See....if the homosexuals wouldn't keep moaning and whining: "Walk 50
Miles For Our Dicks And Give Us Your Money!" I don't think other folks
would give their dicks much thought.
"socode" <scott@socoder_remove_the_r.com> wrote in message news:<ar2k2l$gii$1...@nntp-m01.news.aol.com>...
> "little_plantinga" <max_p...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > In the short time I've been posting at alt.atheism I've witnessed
> > the curious popularity among atheists with threads concerning
> > homosexuality.
> Then your skills of language comprehension skills are sorely
> lacking.
>
> > It seems like it just wouldn't be a day at alt.atheism unless some
> > thread pops up denouncing Christians and their evil plot to pull
> > Marvin's dick out of Steven's backside in the privacy of their own
> > home (leather dungeon).
> I don't give a flying fuck what adults do with each-others' dicks. Why
> do you?
>
> > Fess up: what's the obsession with homosexuality? Is this why you've
> > become atheists? So you can bend Marvin over in a bathhouse and not be
> > held accountable? So you can muffdive with Betty in the living room
> > with the curtains open so the kids across the street can see the
> > beauty of your "alternative lifestyle"?
> Perhaps it's because, like atheists, theists won't leave homosexuals alone.
>
> > If you, like me, believe in the theory of evolution, then it should be
> > obvious to you that the penis was selected in to (a) release waste and
> > (b) to inseminate the vagina -- NOT uniform anal intercourse, which
> > only produces bacteria.
> If you understand society, you'll understand that the tasks for which we
> are evolved do not hold sway as the arbiter of what we do. Drive a
> car, do you, fuckwit?
>
> > I also hear homo atheists whining about their desire to live in a
> > "bigotry free" society, usually in a post that is itself bigoted
> > towards anyone who doesn't accept their anal ways.
> You don't have to accept anything, anally. The point and your head
> are separated by more than a few miles.
>
> socode
Mark K. Bilbo
Help me what? Think you're shallow?
dhrolf
thread pops up denouncing Christians and their evil plot to pull
Marvin's dick out of Steven's backside in the privacy of their own
home>>
Hmmm.
There are two things wrong with that statement.
Wrong Thing #1) If anybody WERE able to pull all the Marvin Dicks out
of all the Steven Backsides, maybe all the Marvins and Stevens and
Bruces, and so on, would stop trying to bilk everybody else out of
their money to pay for all their disgusting Dicks-In-Backsides
Diseases.
That gets old very fast, you know. Like..it was already old in 1989!
Wrong Thing #2) I don't think anybody cares about Marvin's dick being
in Steven's backside in "the privacy of their own home" (especially if
THEY pay their own disease-bills). The trouble all started when all
this gay Dicks-In-Backsides activity was being done publicly....as in:
Public parks
Rest-rooms
Bars
"Bathhouses"
Highway rest-stops
Libraries
Movie-theaters
Bookstores
Gay "pride" fiestas
Church steps
And so forth....
It's like you wanna scream...."FOR CRISSAKES!!! WILL SOMEBODY PLEASE
GET THOSE HOMO-PERVS THEIR OWN PRIVATE HOMES!!!!"
Know what I mean?
"Marvin" <mar...@starband.net> wrote in message news:<l87B9.304$XO5.41...@twister2.starband.net>...
> "socode" <scott@socoder_remove_the_r.com> wrote in message
> news:ar2k2l$gii$1...@nntp-m01.news.aol.com...
> >
> > "little_plantinga" <max_p...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > In the short time I've been posting at alt.atheism I've witnessed
> > > the curious popularity among atheists with threads concerning
> > > homosexuality.
> > Then your skills of language comprehension skills are sorely
> > lacking.
> >
> > > It seems like it just wouldn't be a day at alt.atheism unless some
> > > thread pops up denouncing Christians and their evil plot to pull
> > > Marvin's dick out of Steven's backside in the privacy of their own
> > > home (leather dungeon).
>
> Hey! I don't even know Steven!
>
> Seriously, though, if you're honest about it and look carefully you'll
> find that most (yes, most, not all) of those threads are begun by
> theists or the rare backward atheist who claims homosexuals are in
> violation of some imaginary higher law and as a result are not worthy of
> inclusion in the human species. While the ignorance of such individuals
> is amusing on the surface because it reveals that person's intense
> insecurity, too many of them are capable of lashing out in violence to
> "prove" they're not what they fear they are. Consequently, I believe
> it's worth the risk to challenge you to consider carefully why you find
> these threads irritating.
> Marvin
Orhan Orgun
wrote:
>max_p...@yahoo.com (little_plantinga) wrote in message news:<735d1e05.02111...@posting.google.com>...
>> Orhan Orgun <orhan...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:<ih7atuk1g1hia6ugo...@4ax.com>...
>
><snip>
>> Atheistic ethical systems are
>> either based on consensus, or utility, i.e., subjective human
>> conventions.
><snip>
>
>Thank you for admitting that religious ethical systems are arguable,
>useless, and unfit for humans.
>
In addition to being either based on consensus or utility, ie,
subjective human conventions. Right? If anything, history shows that
theistic morality is far more arbitrary and subject to whim than
humanistic morality.
Zeplerfer
Yes, yes, and atheists are evil devil-worshippers who hate God. Attacks ad
hominem sure are fun, eh?
Orhan Orgun
wrote:
>
>> Secondly, we've evolved for over two hundred thousand years to be
>> reared in two-parent environments, with a strong masculine presence
>> together with a contrasting female one.
>
> That's utter fantasy. There are thousands of "natural"
>counter-examples in anthropology, where children are raised by more than
>just a two-parent system: extended families, tribal arrangements, and
>the like are just as normative.
>
Omigaw. The sheer cluelessness of the little one. Read *any*
anthropological survey and you'll see that the nuclear
father-mother-kids family is a *very* recent innovation in human
history, and one that seems to have brought a lot of problems with it.
Orhan Orgun
><<I don't give a flying fuck what adults do with each-others' dicks.
>Why
>do you?>>
>
>I think that when people onject to what homosexuals do with their
>dicks it is because homosexuals insist that everybody else pay for all
>the AIDS medicine that homosexuals need because of the AIDS disease
>they constantly get with their dicks.
So, if I'm a vegetarian, I should object to public money being used on
heart disease research? Etc?
caesar_the_white
> >
> > I also hear homo atheists whining about their desire to live in a
> > "bigotry free" society, usually in a post that is itself bigoted
> > towards anyone who doesn't accept their anal ways.
>
> in evolution then you will also value scientific method which starts
> with observation. One observation is that all manner of sexual
> behaviours occur in nature including homosexuality. Get used to it.
> Nature is one filthy fucking whore.
Nature's a Nazi, and many people can't get used to it at all - they
can barely accept it. For there's a big difference between a trait, or
behavior that is naturally evolved, and an action taken on the will of
an individual. On the one hand, the former has become inherent in the
majority populace because it has evolutionary benefit. On the other,
if one discounts free will, one can say that all human behavior
throughout all of history has been natural, but even by doing so it
doesn't equate the two. Because the difference is one between genes
and environment - internal causes versus external actions - to ignore
the difference is a fallacy of misrepresentation. To intimate that one
is always the cause of the other, and therefore naturally evolved
genetic traits determine human behavior to the instant is a fallacy of
causality. Which one are you guilty of?
I'll give an example here to clarify myself:
It is an instinct for people to try and seek a fit and healthy mate
when they want to bed down with someone - another instinct. This is
because it's an evolved trait, evolved of course to ensure quality
offspring from a quality union. It gives us today what we define as
beauty, what we see and admire - to understand it is to understand
*why*, for the most part, we admire what we do. I call this natural.
Group genetics are the ONLY objective standard of nature.
Whereas if Johnny Crotchscratch goes out and molests a child or an
animal or a tree-stump or another man; he's doing something which is a
perversion of a natural instinct. The natural instinct is to reproduce
- to fornicate - and that is what drives him but what he is driven
*to* is not natural, it's chosen by him consciously or subconsciously.
I call this unnatural, human choices which contravene natural
instincts. The effects of environment can also be considered a choice,
just not a conscious one.
It's a natural instinct to be repulsed by homosexual behavior in the
same way it is to be repulsed by pedophilia or bestiality: they are
things that are detrimental or have been detrimental to the populace,
and would be especially so if they became popular - if people weren't
repulsed by it. Of course Jew-Tee-Vee destructivist garbage and
trendy-lemming Pee-Cee brainwashing can make people feel guilty for
being disgusted at homosexuality, just as they do for miscegenation,
however that still makes it no more natural than Pavlov's dogs'
responses.
dhrolf
and
woman if you are a woman. Why do you have to pervert the thing into
lust.
Are gay people the only one's lusting these days?>>
Well, yeah...if you call sticking your dick into a hole in a filthy
bathroom wall so another gay can suck you off! Yeah, if you're
talking about 500 anonymous...(ahem)...."partners"...every goddam
YEAR!!
And...yeah, if you're talking about soaring rates of gonorrhea,
syphilis, herpes and HPV among "gays". And about "cruising" every
park you can find at night for yet MORE "anonymous"... "partners".
AND IF you are talking about disgusting 'gay bars' where disease is as
rampant as the public sex.
Yeah.
A lotta "lust" there,, I would say.
Or....unless....
...maybe it's not "lust" at all. Maybe it's just a whole lot of Very
Serious Mental Disease?
Resulting in quite a high amount of Very Serious Physical Disease?
Could be, I suppose.
"Anything's possible"....as they say.
cw20...@172.16.1.2 wrote in message news:<K75B9.52$0K.1...@amsnews02.chello.com>...
> I am a little concerned with this message. For one, I am gay. Being gay is
> a lot more than what you are proposing with anal etc. etc.. etc.. Why are
> you so fixated on the anus?
> I know hetero couples that like to do it up the anus, and I know animals
> not personally ) that do it up the anus. But you somehow think being
> homosexual is all about putting a penis up some other guy's butthole. I'm
> sorry, but WHO is the bigot here?
> I am really dissapointed that such a statement would be made here. I
> typically think atheists are fairly smart. I've found that to be completely
> wrong sometimes. This remark you have made is offensive, rude, and not at
> all acurate. Go back to the drawing board and either come up with an
> apology or some better reasoning and arguments.
> Remember, homosexuality is the attraction to a man if you are a man, and
> woman if you are a woman. Why do you have to pervert the thing into lust.
> Are gay people the only one's lusting these days? Get real. I know its
> hard cuz you're not gay, but try to get in touch with that social empathy we
> have evolved with.
>
> I could write volumes on this. I'm just really disgusted at this post.
> PLEASE reconsider your thoughts.
>
>
> "little_plantinga" <max_p...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:735d1e05.02111...@posting.google.com...
> > In the short time I've been posting at alt.atheism I've witnessed the
> > curious popularity among atheists with threads concerning
> > homosexuality. It seems like it just wouldn't be a day at alt.atheism
> > unless some thread pops up denouncing Christians and their evil plot
> > to pull Marvin's dick out of Steven's backside in the privacy of their
> > own home (leather dungeon).
> >
> > Fess up: what's the obsession with homosexuality? Is this why you've
> > become atheists? So you can bend Marvin over in a bathhouse and not be
> > held accountable? So you can muffdive with Betty in the living room
> > with the curtains open so the kids across the street can see the
> > beauty of your "alternative lifestyle"?
> >
> > If you, like me, believe in the theory of evolution, then it should be
> > obvious to you that the penis was selected in to (a) release waste and
> > (b) to inseminate the vagina -- NOT uniform anal intercourse, which
> > only produces bacteria.
> >
caesar_the_white
> the numbers."
As my favorite likes to say "It'z coming, Hymie!"
> There are approximately 220 million people in the United
> States. Half of them are women-- 110 million women. As conservatives
> are fond of harping, only 2.5% of those people are homosexual, about
> 5.5 million people. But half of them are women. There are therefore
> only about 2.75 million homosexual men in the United States, if we
> take a conservative estimate. Now, according to almost every survey,
> including the very conservative Redbook surveys, some sixty percent of
> those women have tried anal sex, with about twelve percent engaging in
> anal sex on a recurring basis. Add to this the surveys from both Bell
> & Weinberg and from Advocate magazine, which reveal that some 53% of
> gay men report not enjoying anal sex, 40% stating that they do not
> engage in receptive anal sex at all.
>
> (This is where the piano starts playing 'Stormy Weather')
>
> 110 * .12 = 13.2 million women engage in anal sex "on a somewhat
> regular basis"
>
> 2.75 * .60 = 1.65 million homosexual men engage in anal sex "on a
> somewhat regular basis."
>
> 13.2 / 1.65 = 8.0
>
> EIGHT TIMES as many heterosexual women as gay men engage in
> receptive anal sex. And since they're heterosexual women, that
> follows that they're getting it from heterosexual men.
>
> So, if you think that what "homosexuals" are sick, do you object
> to the 13.2 million heterosexual couples who are, more or less, doing
> the same thing?
Yes. Just because they're not completely screwed up, or screwed up in
exactly the same way, doesn't mean that they're not screwed up at all.
There are a ton of screwed up people in this world, that makes the
homo minority normal, but it still doesn't make it natural.
>The human species is still
> changing; every generation, some genes will fall out of the pool, and
> every generation new ones will be generated. The success or failure of
> those genes to get propogated into the future depends entirely on their
> viability with the environment as it exists.
What is the viability with the environment of homosexuality, and its
chances of becoming a trait. Oh, that's right - its very existance
precludes that. Time to get out of the pool, fags - you're making the
water all dirty! */me racks the action on a pump shotgun*
> And in case you've been living in a cave, the human species has
> already taken control of its evolutionary destiny. Within ten years I
> predict that genetic screening for traits both desireable and
> undesirable will become commonplace.
Ten years? I hope so. One thing's for sure, by the time we're working
on eugenics programs (installing a filter-pump, to continue my little
pool analogy) we'll have cleaned all the shit off the bottom first.
> > Secondly, we've evolved for over two hundred thousand years to be
> > reared in two-parent environments, with a strong masculine presence
> > together with a contrasting female one.
>
> That's utter fantasy. There are thousands of "natural"
> counter-examples in anthropology, where children are raised by more than
> just a two-parent system: extended families, tribal arrangements, and
> the like are just as normative.
And those systems sure became successful, didn't they. Yes, let's
adopt the 'Hottentot model' and raise our civilization up to the level
of the African tribes who sat on their black behinds for millennia
without even inventing the wheel, let alone a written language. No
thanks. Quantity is what we've got, quality is what we need, and
though the latter can easily produce the former, the reverse is not
always true.
Mark K. Bilbo
> Whoever wrote that is an idiot. The human species is still
> changing; every generation, some genes will fall out of the pool, and
> every generation new ones will be generated. The success or failure of
> those genes to get propogated into the future depends entirely on their
> viability with the environment as it exists.
Not really. He's taking it out of context. I read the article and all
it's actually about is how our *physical evolution has come pretty much
to a stand still. Which is a "yeah, you just find that out?" But it *was
one of those "explain it to the layman" kind of articles...
Meteorite Debris
caesar_the_white<caesar_t...@hotmail.com> sent a radio signal
across the vast expanse of deep space -._.--._.--._.--._.--._.--._.
> Meteorite Debris <cx1...@bcghfarg.pbz.nh.ROT13> wrote in message news:<MPG.1840507bf...@news.optusnet.com.au>...
> > >
> > > I also hear homo atheists whining about their desire to live in a
> > > "bigotry free" society, usually in a post that is itself bigoted
> > > towards anyone who doesn't accept their anal ways.
> >
> > What is your obsession with homosexuality? If, as you say, you believe
> > in evolution then you will also value scientific method which starts
> > with observation. One observation is that all manner of sexual
> > behaviours occur in nature including homosexuality. Get used to it.
> > Nature is one filthy fucking whore.
> Whereas if Johnny Crotchscratch goes out and molests a child or an
> animal or a tree-stump or another man;
Notice how easily the poster associated homosexuality with pedophilia.
A deft hand at mudding the waters of debate.
> he's doing something which is a
> perversion of a natural instinct.
Wrong. The homosexual lust is a natural instinct. It may not lead to
procreation but it is a naturally observed phenomenon. Some animals
are more sexualized than others and in these non procreative sex is
extremely common. Like humans who are more sexualized than most other
mammals. And bonobos who are even more sexualized and even more prone
to non procreative sex than are humans.
> The natural instinct is to reproduce
> - to fornicate - and that is what drives him but what he is driven
> *to* is not natural, it's chosen by him consciously or subconsciously.
> I call this unnatural, human choices which contravene natural
> instincts. The effects of environment can also be considered a choice,
> just not a conscious one.
How do you explain the occurrence of homosexuality in nature if it is
"unnatural"? From female cob who touch each other's geneticals with a
raised hoof to male monkeys who play with each others geneticals and
anally copulate, to bisexual female pairs of rosette terns who raise
young.
> It's a natural instinct to be repulsed by homosexual behavior in the
> same way it is to be repulsed by pedophilia or bestiality:
Deftly associating homosexuality with pedophilia again. But you have
not answered my question of why this is observed in nature. I have
never heard of a gay animal being attacked by others. Please produce
evidence that this happens before you assert that revulsion of non
procreative sex is natural.
While hostility is natural in humans the object of such hostility is
not naturally fixed. You who just as easily fixate hostility on
another race and that would not mean that hostility to that race is
"natural". Only the emotion of hostility is natural. The rest is
fluid.
> they are
> things that are detrimental or have been detrimental to the populace,
How? Throughout history a % of people have been gay and we are still
here.
> and would be especially so if they became popular - if people weren't
> repulsed by it. Of course Jew-Tee-Vee destructivist garbage
This gets better and better. Not only is the poster a homophobe but
also an antisemite and a racist.
> and
> trendy-lemming Pee-Cee brainwashing can make people feel guilty for
> being disgusted at homosexuality, just as they do for miscegenation,
> however that still makes it no more natural than Pavlov's dogs'
> responses.
So why is it observed so widely in nature? Why is diversity so
evident? Why do some animals change sex? Why are some polygamist and
others are polyandrous and still others are monogamous? Why are some
animals MORE monogamous than humans? If procreative sex between 2 life
time heterosexual partners in only the missionary position is the only
"natural" way to have sex why is diversity so evident? Why do the
observed subjects of your model of sex fail to follow what is
predicted by your model? If observations are inconsistent with what is
predicted should you not change your model?
--
apatriot #1, atheist #1417, rot-13 on email reply
Chief EAC prophet -
Evil Atheist Conspiracy
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~pk1956/
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever
conceived." - Isaac Asimov
Fingerprint for PGP Keys at key server or go to
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~pk1956/
RSA - 71 BA 7C 45 B5 4A 5F EA 72 DB EC 7F 7F A8 70 99
DSS - 9217 21A9 9C3F EB0B E302 AD0E 69C5 0F06 402E 0943
Meteorite Debris
across the vast expanse of deep space -._.--._.--._.--._.--._.--._.
> Yes. Just because they're not completely screwed up, or screwed up in
> exactly the same way, doesn't mean that they're not screwed up at all.
> There are a ton of screwed up people in this world, that makes the
> homo minority normal, but it still doesn't make it natural.
But it is. Look at nature. It's there. It's everywhere in nature. It's
in your face. Take a look.
Your prob Caesar the Arrogant Racist is that you're confusing personal
prejudice with "natural" forgetting how fluid prejudice is.
> >The human species is still
> > changing; every generation, some genes will fall out of the pool, and
> > every generation new ones will be generated. The success or failure of
> > those genes to get propogated into the future depends entirely on their
> > viability with the environment as it exists.
>
> What is the viability with the environment of homosexuality, and its
> chances of becoming a trait. Oh, that's right - its very existance
> precludes that. Time to get out of the pool, fags - you're making the
> water all dirty! */me racks the action on a pump shotgun*
Why is non procreative sex common in some species than in others? The
more sexualized a species the more you will find non procreative sex.
Looks like there is biology at work and that spells N*A*T*U*R*A*L*L*Y
occurring and N*A*T*U*R*A*L*L*Y instinctive.
You are a homophobe and a bigot.
> > And in case you've been living in a cave, the human species has
> > already taken control of its evolutionary destiny. Within ten years I
> > predict that genetic screening for traits both desireable and
> > undesirable will become commonplace.
>
> Ten years? I hope so. One thing's for sure, by the time we're working
> on eugenics programs (installing a filter-pump, to continue my little
> pool analogy) we'll have cleaned all the shit off the bottom first.
Then we we see the last of your nazi sort.
>
> > > Secondly, we've evolved for over two hundred thousand years to be
> > > reared in two-parent environments, with a strong masculine presence
> > > together with a contrasting female one.
> >
> > That's utter fantasy. There are thousands of "natural"
> > counter-examples in anthropology, where children are raised by more than
> > just a two-parent system: extended families, tribal arrangements, and
> > the like are just as normative.
>
> And those systems sure became successful, didn't they. Yes, let's
> adopt the 'Hottentot model' and raise our civilization up to the level
> of the African tribes who sat on their black behinds for millennia
> without even inventing the wheel, let alone a written language. No
> thanks. Quantity is what we've got, quality is what we need, and
> though the latter can easily produce the former, the reverse is not
> always true.
Hey stupid he was talking diversity in nature - not human cultures.
There is not only one family type template in nature. The variety of
family situations in nature covers the whole range. If you can imagine
it, you can probably find it. You have revealed yourself to be
ignorant and a really nasty little racist in the above para.
Apostate
><<I don't give a flying fuck what adults do with each-others' dicks.
>Why
>do you?>>
>
>I think that when people onject to what homosexuals do with their
>dicks it is because homosexuals insist that everybody else pay for all
>the AIDS medicine that homosexuals need because of the AIDS disease
>they constantly get with their dicks.
>
>If you get my drift.
>
>See....if the homosexuals wouldn't keep moaning and whining: "Walk 50
>Miles For Our Dicks And Give Us Your Money!" I don't think other folks
>would give their dicks much thought.
If you work really hard, they might let you on the JV team next year.
Just look at the floor when you're in the showers.
If you get my drift.
--
/Apostate
atheist #1931 I've found it!
BAAWA Knife AND SMASHer
EAC Supernumerary Deputy Director, Department of Redundancy Department
plonked by vernon; NEW! IMPROVED! plonked by Lani_girl
I doubt, therefore I might be.
Will Coon
*snip*
>
> A persons sexual orientation is their business and should be no
> different like preferring Pepsi over Coke (or vice versa).
BLASPHEMER!!!
As stated in Sodas II 14:27,
"He who drinketh the Refreshing Beverage, the Cola of the Coke, he
will surely be condemned forever to hell."
Gibberish 5:16,
"And he drank of the Carbonated Beverage, and the gathered stoned him
to death, as God commanded Moses."
Miscellaneous 7:4,
"It is an abomination for any man to drink of any manner of cola,
including the Coca, the Pepsi, the Bat, the Orangutan, the breakfast
cereals..."
Dread
news:72cdf8ea.02111...@posting.google.com...
<snipped because of top-poster>
You must lead a very boring life to know so much about the gay lifestyle and
to know where they do it. I know of one place that is a *known* hangout for
homosexuals and it's over 200 miles away at a rest area on I-70 in Ohio <I
was a truck driver, you hear things>. If there is another gay hangout in
that 200 sq. miles, they are keeping it secret enough. I think you have a
hangup with gay people. OTOH, I can't say I haven't had heterosexual loving
in public, so it's good for all I guess.
--
Vsevo khoroshogo,
Dread Atheist #1299
Head of the Division for Theist Subversion of BAAWA
"He who will not reason is a bigot, he who cannot is a fool, he who dares
not is a slave." -William Drummond
I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with
sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use. --Galileo
Galilei
Dread
news:3f9aea30.02111...@posting.google.com...
So you advocate violence against homosexuals? Telling.. very telling.
Dread
news:3f9aea30.02111...@posting.google.com...
news:<MPG.1840507bf...@news.optusnet.com.au>...
> It's a natural instinct to be repulsed by homosexual behavior in the
> same way it is to be repulsed by pedophilia or bestiality: they are
> things that are detrimental or have been detrimental to the populace,
> and would be especially so if they became popular - if people weren't
> repulsed by it. Of course Jew-Tee-Vee destructivist garbage and
> trendy-lemming Pee-Cee brainwashing can make people feel guilty for
> being disgusted at homosexuality, just as they do for miscegenation,
> however that still makes it no more natural than Pavlov's dogs'
> responses.
Prove it. It's a natural instinct because of why? *I'm* not repulsed by
the behavior of homosexuals. I just don't agree with it because that is not
my desire. So obviously your statement is not true. Without a scientific
cite, your statement is nothing more than an opinion. *I* don't like to eat
snails. Now *that* I am repulsed by. Do people who eat snails have
abnormal behavior?
Show me how it has been detrimental to the populace with cites please. I
hope you aren't talking of AIDS and HIV because that hits the heterosexual
populace too.
You are such a bigot.
Dread
news:cf7d5b0f.02111...@posting.google.com...
I was perfectly fine with your buybull....... until you brought Pepsi into
it. You belong to a cult man. You've been brainwashed. Come back to the
light that is known as Pepsi.
Dread
<PLONK> Bigotted top-poster. I can't take him anymore.
Ichimusai
[...]
> Prove it. It's a natural instinct because of why? *I'm* not repulsed
> by the behavior of homosexuals.
I don't think it is an instinct at all, it is a culturally dependant
and learned behaviour.
[...]
--
AA #769 ICQ: 1645566 Yahoo Messenger: ichimusai
Home: http://www.ichimusai.org/ IRC Ichimusai#AmigaSWE@IRCnet
Keith is made in the image of his God. Couldn't open his mind with a
load of dynamite."
-- Fred Stone, alt.atheism
Craig Pennington
> <<I don't give a flying fuck what adults do with each-others' dicks.
> Why do you?>>
> I think that when people onject to what homosexuals do with their
> dicks it is because homosexuals insist that everybody else pay for all
> the AIDS medicine that homosexuals need because of the AIDS disease
> they constantly get with their dicks.
> If you get my drift.
Except that anti-homosexual bigots were around long before AIDS. And I
think you are just using AIDS to cover your bigotry.
> See....if the homosexuals wouldn't keep moaning and whining: "Walk 50
> Miles For Our Dicks And Give Us Your Money!" I don't think other folks
> would give their dicks much thought.
Yes, they would. Bigots don't really need an excuse, but they'll use
any one they can.
Of course promoting exclusive pair-bonding among gay males would
reduce the risk of AIDS transmission at virtually no cost to you. Do
you support same-sex marriage, or are you just another hypocrit?
Cheers,
Craig
--
Corollary to Clarke's Third Law:
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently
advanced.
dhrolf
boys' club in
the country?>>
I assume you mean the Boy Scouts, but you can join the Gay-Atheist
Scouts, if that's your orientation and/or attitude towards religion.
It's called "Scouting for All" and it's a great place for boys who are
gay and/or atheists. And don't get too upset that the Regular Boy
Scouts is more "popular". That would be plain silly!
Heterosexuality is just more "popular" than homosexuality, that's all.
So NATURALLY the (Regular) Boy Scouts would have more numbers of boys
but that doesn't necessarily mean that the Gay/Atheist Scouts aren't
"as good", you understand.
"Popularity" isn't everything.
Orhan Orgun <orhan...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:<u78atu0p53ad2nlfv...@4ax.com>...
> On 15 Nov 2002 15:54:30 GMT, auto...@aol.com (Automort) wrote:
>
> >>From: max_p...@yahoo.com (little_plantinga)
>
> >>Fess up: what's the obsession with homosexuality?
> >
> >Most of them are liberals and this is a liberal obsession.
>
> No, it's a xian fundy obsession.
>
>
> >Most of them here
> >are not gay and don't know anyone well who is.
>
>
> I'd bet most of us do, in fact.
>
>
> > It's just a formulaic discussion
> >among liberals, intended to indirectly smear their opponents and anyone they
> >dislike by showing themselves (liberals) tolerant and thus their opponents
> >intolerant.
> >I doubt they realize the issue means nothing to most people, who don't want to
> >even bother with "persecuting" anyone who doesn't bother them.
>
> Is that why anti-gay propositions are being pushed and passed all over
> the country? Is that why still in many states gay people can't adopt
> children, can't count on hospital visitation or inheritance? Is that
> why a disproportionate number of SF homeless are gay people who have
> been kicked out of their home by their "loving" xian parents? Is that
> why admitting you are gay gets you kicked out of the military? Is that
> why being gay prevents you from joining the most popular boys' club in
> the country? Is that why the majority of the public say they would
> *never* vote for a homosexual candidate in a presidential election,
> regardless of the candidate's qualifications?
>
>
> >
> >Sorry ---- liberals are shallow and many atheists are liberals.
>
>
> In this case, it is extremely obvious that you have been phenomenally
> shallow in your post.
little_plantinga
> "little_plantinga" <max_p...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:735d1e05.02111...@posting.google.com...
> > > On 15 Nov 2002 01:42:49 -0800, max_p...@yahoo.com
> > > (little_plantinga) wrote:
> > >
> > > >In the short time I've been posting at alt.atheism I've witnessed the
> > > >curious popularity among atheists with threads concerning
> > > >unless some thread pops up denouncing Christians and their evil plot
> > > >to pull Marvin's dick out of Steven's backside in the privacy of their
> > > >own home (leather dungeon).
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Fucking obvious.
> >
> > I've seen about nine threads regarding homosexuality here, all of
> > which contained posts authored by atheists, or people irrationally
> > hostile to Christianity. The only thing more obvious than that is your
> > blindfold.
> >
>
> check on who the threads are started by. the atheists are generally only
> defending human rights when bigots such as yourself attack them,
Strawman #1 -- I didn't attack any type of "rights," human or
otherwise. And while some of the threads I've viewed here about
gayness may have been initiated by theists (five of the ones I viewed
weren't), the fact remains they were saturated with atheists, most of
whom authored sodomy-friendly posts therein.
usually on
> the grounds of some kind of superstitious nonsense such as that found in the
> bible.
>
> >
> > >
> > > Face it. While a fair number of theists are anti-human monsters, the
> > > vast majority of atheists (excepting those who follow some other,
> > > non-theistic dogma such as Maoism) are very ethical, and put much
> > > importance on fairness and justice.
> >
> > Why, because you say so?
>
> no, because it is true and is borne out by statistics. for example, do some
> research and see what % of prisoners in a highly religious nation like the
> US are atheists.
Irrelevant. The issue was whether atheistical ethics has a proper
foundation (it doesn't).
moreover, this is supported on philosophical grounds as it
> is self evident that people who adhere to ethical standards because they
> know they are the proper way to behave
How do they know that?
are morally superior to those who
> only restrain themselves because they cower in fear of some imaginary
> hellfire.
Strawman #2 -- Christians comply with God's divine commmandments
because they *love* him. Christians aren't concerned with getting
thrown into the lake of fire because they're not going there. If they
are, then they aren't Christians. Just attending church and calling
yourself "Christian" doesn't make you one.
> > Atheistic ethics is without foundation.
>
> just because in your profound ignorance you can't understand how people can
> be good without fear of punishment doesn't mean they have no ethical
> foundation.
What people? Atheists? And why wouldn't they be afraid of getting
punished, when you flatly contradict yourself below by saying they
will:
"good actions are usually rewarded and evil punished right here, in
the real world"
>
> it simply means you lack the intelligence to comprehend it.
>
Strawman #3 -- the issue wasn't whether atheists can be "good," but
whether their ethical system has foundation beyond human convention.
And BTW, if ethical systems are established on the basis of consensus
or utility, then it's child's play devising hypothetical societies
where anti-gay violence permissible. If you had any imagination, which
of course you don't, you'd've figured this out already
>
> > Since
> > (according to atheism) your actions are ultimately unrelated to your
> > final destination -- the grave -- good will ultimately go unrewarded
> > and evil with ultimately go unpunished.
>
> sorry, your conclusion doesn't support your premise there. good actions are
> usually rewarded and evil punished right here, in the real world.
Strawman #4 -- nowhere in my post did I deny that evil deeds in a
godless world go unpunished. What I did deny, however, is that they go
*ultimately* unpunished. For instance, Jack the Ripper escaped
punishment "right here, in the real world." According to atheism, he
got away with murder; according to theism, he didn't. So take your
flimsy strawman and stick it somewhere, preferably a bodily orifice
relevant to waste removal.
it's
> rather sad and in a way frightening that you would be so sociopathic as to
> ignore this.
Try to ignore that bottle of Elmer's Glue before posting next time,
because so far, you've introduced four glaring strawmen. Trying to
beat your old record of 30?
> > Atheistic ethical systems are
> > either based on consensus, or utility, i.e., subjective human
> > conventions.
> >
>
> clearly, as evidenced both above in your incorrect statements and below in
> your unethical ones, you have very little familiarity with any form of
> ethics whatsoever.
If you want to write something insulting, then just avoid calling me
"unethical" and "moron" in the future. All you have to do is write
another post like this one. Your strawmen, poor grammar and apparent
blindness is one of the most insulting things mine eyes have ever
gazed upon.
> >
> > This is precisely the reason we
> > > tend to take a strong position on homosexuality--just because the
> > > anti-human monsters that you call "xian" have arbitrarily chosen them
> > > as a group to vilify, torment, demonize, discriminate against, and
> > > even torture and kill. No other reason.
> > >
> >
> > I don't condone any group, Christian or otherwise, that murders or
> > tortures your favorite victims.
>
> how comforting, though somewhat surprising.
>
> > I see nothing wrong, however, with
> > Christians wanting to vilify homos, since that's their first amendment
> > right to freedom of speech.
> >
>
> yet more illogic from you, little one. no one is saying christians doesn't
> have the right to say
Nice grammar, Mark.
>
> whatever they want
I didn't claim the poster did.
>(which in fairness also applies to
> us critiquing the stupid things the christians say about the gay people.).
> the question is why the christians want to villify the "homos" in the first
> place, and why you don't see anything wrong with that.
Because to do otherwise -- that is, to turn a blind eye to sin --
would be to contradict what their scriptures command.
>
> you should, as they
> are being villified unfairly.
Why, because you say so? Either support your claims, or STFU.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > > Is this why you've
> > > >become atheists? So you can bend Marvin over in a bathhouse and not be
> > > >held accountable? So you can muffdive with Betty in the living room
> > > >with the curtains open so the kids across the street can see the
> > > >beauty of your "alternative lifestyle"?
> > > >
> > > >If you, like me, believe in the theory of evolution, then it should be
> > > >obvious to you that the penis was selected in to (a) release waste and
> > > >(b) to inseminate the vagina -- NOT uniform anal intercourse, which
> > > >only produces bacteria.
> > >
> > >
> > > Yeah right. Our hands did not evolve to hold a steering wheel or a
> > > paintbrush or type either. Is it therefore obvious that we should be
> > > against all those things too?
> >
> > Features of organisms can behave nonfunctionally without
> > malfunctioning, as when a nose supports eyeglasses or when fingers are
> > used to punch keys on a typewriter. For example, a man who plays
> > melodies on a xylophone with his teeth is not misusing them so long as
> > he chews his food at mealtime. But if he also paints minature
> > landscapes on his teeth, avoids eating to keep these paintings
> > spotless, and recoils -- or shows no interest in -- the thought of
> > chewing -- THEN he is misusing his teeth.
> >
> >
>
> this is laughable on so many levels. first of all, what the hell do you care
> how someone else uses *their* body? it's theirs, after all, and you have no
> claim on it whatsoever.
Strawman #5 -- the argument I advanced above wasn't about any "claim"
I think I have on someone else's body. It was an illustration of how
homosexuals use certain parts of theirs improperly. Was that so hard
to understand, or do I need to use sock puppets next time?
secondly, your ridiculous xylophone-landscape
> painting analogy falls on its face because it may interest you to know that
> gay men and women do in fact use their sex organs to have sex.
Would it surprise me to know you used those sex organs to type this
post with?
where the
> landscape painting or recoiling come into your "thought" process is
> something best left to your therapist, i suspect.
Uh-huh.
> > >
> > > >
> > > >I also hear homo atheists whining about their desire to live in a
> > > >"bigotry free" society, usually in a post that is itself bigoted
> > > >towards anyone who doesn't accept their anal ways.
> > >
> > >
> > > Fuck off.
> >
> > Why, so you can chase a 12-year-old around a campfire? Not likely.
> >
>
> wow, where did *that* come from?
From the keyboard of a person who could immediately tell he was
dealing with a semi-literate, baseball-cap-on-backwards half-wit.
> you're not projecting things you'd rather
> be doing than posting to usenet here, are you?
Don't worry Mark, I know you have a monopoly on that lifestyle.
> if not, what are you saying
> here? something about how most pedophiles are straight folks, maybe?
>
> >
> > > Have you ever heard an atheist say xians should not be allowed to
> > > marry?
> >
> > Marriage is a private contract and a religious ceremony.
>
> bzzzzzt, wrong. there's no reason whatsoever for religious intrusion into
> marriage.
It's not an "intrusion" at all. A marriage is traditionally a
religious ceremony.
> > Unless the
> > parties involved ask a government court for arbitration, there is
> > absolutely no reason why the state should involve itself in the rite
> > of marriage. This includes issuance of licenses and condemnation of
> > homo marriages.
> >
>
> so i suppose you've never heard of things like tax returns, power of
> attorney, and child custody, just for starters?
Of course I have, but it should have been obvious to you from my
comments that I'm against them. I oppose the state interfering in
marriage.
> are you really this
> incredibly moronic or were you just not thinking when you wrote that little
> gem?
Don't let one of your buddies step in and answer this post for you, so
you have an excuse to duck it, scrotum-kisser. I challenge you to
respond and then we'll see who the real idiot is.
> > .
> >
> >
> >
> > That xians should be denied hospital visitation and end-of-life
> > > decisions for their loved ones? That they should not be allowed to
> > > adopt children or even have custody of their biological children?
> >
> > You can adopt children when you can create them.
> >
>
> oh, ok- you're trying to clear up the stupidity thing for us here, thanks.
Too late. You've already smeared your feces throughout this post
sufficiently.
> you drooling idiot- most people who adopt do so because they *can't* create
> children for whatever reason.
Adoption is for heterosexual couples who can _normally_ create
children, but can't. Not for homosexual couples who can't never create
them.
why would you ever write something so
> incredibly, incomprehensibly stupid like suggesting that a criterion for
> being able to adopt be fertility?!
At this point, I'm tempted to write something stupid just so you'll be
able to interpret it correctly.
this is light-bending density on display
> here, folks. do you ever forget to breathe?
> >
> > > That
> > > they should not be able to leave inheritance to their loved ones? Have
> > > you *ever* heard any atheist (or any homosexual, for that matter)
> > > argue for anything like this?
> > >
> > > Oh, I forgot. The bigot's view of bigotry is peculiarly distorted. Any
> > > challenge to your ability to oppress others counts as opressing you.
> > > Whereas to us thinking humans, oppression means messing others up with
> > > our own lives, *not* others preventing us from messing up *their*
> > > lives.
> > >
> > > Asshole.
> >
> > I can only interpret this as a compliment, since your favorite victims
> > live in them.
>
> no, no.. it seems like calling you an "asshole" is a perfectly objective way
> of describing your attitude and what we've seen of both your intellect and
> personality so far in this thread.
Right now, you've got your butt in the sand (for a change) and your
fists swinging for the stars. Like I said: respond to this post, and
we'll see who the real idiot is.
little_plantinga
caesar_the_white
> But it is. Look at nature. It's there. It's everywhere in nature. It's
> in your face. Take a look.
>
> Your prob Caesar the Arrogant Racist is that you're confusing personal
> prejudice with "natural" forgetting how fluid prejudice is.
I'm looking. Nope, nothing there :P
Am I confusing things in that way, Meteorite? I gave an objective
standard (the evolved trait) and showed how homosexual behavior was
not congruent with this standard. You are telling me "Look at nature,
it's there". Where? I'm confusing things - where is the fundamental
premise to your argument, it's nothing more than abstracts built
around you seeing a randy stallion trying to mount another of the same
sex and you try to use that - an animal so randy it would fuck a
fencepost - as a tacit justification for your behavior. "Well it's
natural" you say. Also define what you mean by "nature" when you reply
to this, Meteorite. What is natural and what is not, and why?
> Why is non procreative sex common in some species than in others? The
> more sexualized a species the more you will find non procreative sex.
> Looks like there is biology at work and that spells N*A*T*U*R*A*L*L*Y
> occurring and N*A*T*U*R*A*L*L*Y instinctive.
>
> You are a homophobe and a bigot.
I'm also a N*A*T*U*R*A*L man, Meteorite. And you're a man who gets off
by putting his pecker in another man's ass - does that insult you, or
is it the truth - you tell me. Are you also telling me that
"non-procreative sex", and here I assume you're referring to anal sex,
as that's about as far from procreative as you can get - is an
*instinct*. Please go on, I'd love to hear how this evolved to become
an instinct.
> > Ten years? I hope so. One thing's for sure, by the time we're working
> > on eugenics programs (installing a filter-pump, to continue my little
> > pool analogy) we'll have cleaned all the shit off the bottom first.
>
> Then we we see the last of your nazi sort.
You bet you would :)
> > And those systems sure became successful, didn't they. Yes, let's
> > adopt the 'Hottentot model' and raise our civilization up to the level
> > of the African tribes who sat on their black behinds for millennia
> > without even inventing the wheel, let alone a written language. No
> > thanks. Quantity is what we've got, quality is what we need, and
> > though the latter can easily produce the former, the reverse is not
> > always true.
>
> Hey stupid he was talking diversity in nature - not human cultures.
> There is not only one family type template in nature. The variety of
> family situations in nature covers the whole range. If you can imagine
> it, you can probably find it. You have revealed yourself to be
> ignorant and a really nasty little racist in the above para.
Erm, he didn't state that. You people have an unbelievable tendency to
classify everything outside the human species, to lump it all together
as "nature". Do you do that to stretch the definitions of that word to
try and normalize, if not include, your own behavior within it. I
think you do.
Just as us hooman beans can do things which are not in our natural
instincts to, so can animals. Animals can do things that are as
opposite to their instincts and their naturally evolved traits as
people.
Yes, for the most part I am a racist, whether I'm ignorant or not
though I think would have to be judged by someone measuring from
above, rather than below, Meteor. As far as the socio-reproductive
behaviors of other species go, they have instincts - and these
instincts evolved over time when they were shown to be the most
productive, the most conducive to the survival of that particular
species. By stretching the definition of nature, as I mentioned that
you and others like you are doing this and opined on why, you are
trying to justify "one parent families" as being "natural" also. Read
the first paragraph of this response again if you have trouble
understanding this.