Please define Homophobia
Anonymous
Mosley Jones III wrote:
> "justinz" <zeba...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3ae0e930$1...@news01.one.net.au...
> > http://psyweb.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/phobdefn.html
> >
> >
>
> the link posted above if from a man http://psyweb.ucdavis.edu/rainbow that
> was the editor of the journal of homosexualisty and the head of the APA's
> comitee on homosexuals and lesbian issues
> http://psyweb.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/bio.html, the editor and publishers
> on a falifyed study suggesting it can be positive for a child to sleep with
> a older man. The study was junk scince and was condemmed 355 to 0 in the US
> congress.
Since when is the US congress a scientific body qualified to condemn
any scientific paper? And what makes the USA any different then
a Nazi government saying Einstein's work is junk science because
it was written by a jew. You nor congress are qualified to make the
judgment it was junk science. You and congress are only qualified
to prove you are hysterical when it comes to sexuality.
http://www.humanbeing.demon.nl/ipceweb/Library/99118_rbt_defense_nov99.htm
But your cowardice is noted that you must hide behind children to use
them as weapons of mass destruction against homosexuals because
you do not have the balls or facts to take homosexuals on a one on one
basis. You throw children in front of you to do your battles for you,
to take the blows for you, because you do not have any other ammunition
other than myths, and ad hominem attack of a group of people. Just
like calling all blacks over sexed. Come on coward now throw back the
only ammunition you have and call me a pedophile because I defend
science and what ever is found in the scientific methodological process,
whether you or I like what is found in that process.
> http://westernaustralia.dynip.com/news/res107.htm
> this man is a frad, as justinz well knows.But for some reason he keeps on
> posting the work of child molesters
All I see is a Nazi government in the making, that thinks it can dictate
what science is to be excepted or not. How long is it before evolution
is condemned in congress?
Anonymous
Mosley Jones III wrote:
> "Wayne Bickley" <wayne....@spacemoose.com> wrote in message
> news:B7076CC2.182BB%wayne....@spacemoose.com...
> > in article 3AE0E10D...@home.com, Theodore A. Kaldis at
> kal...@home.com
> > wrote on 21/4/01 10:53 am:
> >
> > >> If this is so, can some one please explain the reason I hate
> pedophiles,
> > >> rapists, nazis tripe and liver.
> > >
> > > Because these things are unnatural. They are deviant aberrations. The
> term
> > > "homophobia" is a contrived term used to disparage those who are not
> timid
> > > about expressing the natural revulsion they have to the depraved
> practise of
> > > homosexuality. There's not a thing in the world wrong with you if you
> find
> > > such behaviour disgusting.
> >
> >
> > Of course, Ted, you get to be the resident authority on what is 'natural',
> > since you are American. Idiot.
> >
> > Your noxious hate-filled bible-thumping rhetoric is infinitely more
> > despicable than the harmless private acts of consenting adults.
> >
>
> In 1970 the Kinsey Institute interviewed 565 white gays in San Francisco:
> 25% of them admitted to having had sex with boys aged 16 or younger while
> they themselves were at least 21.
> In The Gay Report, 23% of the gays and 6% of the lesbians admitted to sexual
> interaction with youth less than 16 years of age.
What you have proven is you are 100% a coward who is hiding
behind children to do your battles for you because you have no
facts or balls to take on the group called homosexuals without
myths and ad hominem attack. You are using children as weapons
of mass destruction against homosexuals because you have no
other ammunition to fire at them. Now let's see how many time you
can bring up the out of business NAMBLA or that I am a
pervert because let's face it you have nothing else to throw at
homosexuals now do you?
mhlife
"Anonymous" <rema...@anon.xg.nu> wrote in message
news:3AE2B9D8...@anon.xg.nu...
> What you have proven is you are 100% a coward who is hiding
> behind children to do your battles for you because you have no
> facts or balls to take on the group called homosexuals without
> myths and ad hominem attack. You are using children as weapons
> of mass destruction against homosexuals because you have no
> other ammunition to fire at them. Now let's see how many time you
> can bring up the out of business NAMBLA or that I am a
> pervert because let's face it you have nothing else to throw at
> homosexuals now do you?
___________
Homosexuality is recognised by most major religions a grave sin.
There are some Truths, so self evident, they transcend creed. 'Thou shalt
not kill" is as applicable to Muslims, as it is to Christians, as it is to
Jews, as it is to......etc.
Similarly, homosexuality is rightly recognised as a depraved and sinful act
by these (and many other) faiths.
The Biblical viewpoint is one of complete and uncompromising condemnation.
Homosexual 'marriage' is a blasphemous travesty of the union ordained by
God, homosexual lusts defile the perpetrator - and legislation in favour of
those lusts defiles the nation that suffers such laws to be enacted.
The campaign by UK activists to lower the age of consent to such acts, thus
placing children of 14 at the mercy of predatory homosexuals, is
breathtakingly wicked, and it is a measure of the moral depths to which this
nation has sunk that some homosexuals feel able to call, publicly, for these
things.
Clear?.
Theodore A. Kaldis
> Homosexuality is recognised by most major religions a grave sin.
> There are some Truths, so self evident, they transcend creed. 'Thou shalt
> not kill" is as applicable to Muslims, as it is to Christians, as it is to
> Jews, as it is to ... etc.
> Similarly, homosexuality is rightly recognised as a depraved and sinful act
> by these (and many other) faiths.
> The Biblical viewpoint is one of complete and uncompromising condemnation.
> Homosexual 'marriage' is a blasphemous travesty of the union ordained by
> God, homosexual lusts defile the perpetrator - and legislation in favour of
> those lusts defiles the nation that suffers such laws to be enacted.
Hear, hear!
> The campaign by UK activists to lower the age of consent to such acts, thus
> placing children of 14 at the mercy of predatory homosexuals, is
> breathtakingly wicked, and it is a measure of the moral depths to which
> this nation has sunk that some homosexuals feel able to call, publicly, for
> these things.
> Clear?.
Rather clear to me, but somehow I just don't think that the poofs are going
to see things quite this way.
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
kal...@worldnet.att.net
Rob Coats
wrote:
>
>"Anonymous" <rema...@anon.xg.nu> wrote in message
>news:3AE2B9D8...@anon.xg.nu...
>
>> What you have proven is you are 100% a coward who is hiding
>> behind children to do your battles for you because you have no
>> facts or balls to take on the group called homosexuals without
>> myths and ad hominem attack. You are using children as weapons
>> of mass destruction against homosexuals because you have no
>> other ammunition to fire at them. Now let's see how many time you
>> can bring up the out of business NAMBLA or that I am a
>> pervert because let's face it you have nothing else to throw at
>> homosexuals now do you?
>
>___________
>
>Homosexuality is recognised by most major religions a grave sin.
So. The evidence for theistice belief is about as concrete as the
evidence that homosexuality is a deprived subhuman act... ie. NONE.
>There are some Truths, so self evident, they transcend creed. 'Thou shalt
>not kill" is as applicable to Muslims, as it is to Christians, as it is to
>Jews, as it is to......etc.
But "eye for an eye" is okay in your book? Hypocrite probably means
absolutely nothing to you.
>Similarly, homosexuality is rightly recognised as a depraved and sinful act
>by these (and many other) faiths.
People of faith are deprived subhuman elements. They lack the one
factulty that gives humans there one up in this world. Intelligence
and reason. Logic and rationality. Try using it, you may discover a
wonderful thing called rational morals, and a quirky little tool
called the scientific method. You know, the only way to discern the
truth about the world around us. The bible certainly never taught us
anything of value.
>The Biblical viewpoint is one of complete and uncompromising condemnation.
Do you wear cloth made with two threads? DO you work on teh sabbath?
You can tell me, and then you can tell me where you live so I can
sacrifice you to the lord as he outlines in Leviticus.
>Homosexual 'marriage' is a blasphemous travesty of the union ordained by
>God, homosexual lusts defile the perpetrator - and legislation in favour of
>those lusts defiles the nation that suffers such laws to be enacted.
Yes, and the church has been such an inspiration to the law system of
every country it is in. From genocide, to sexism, almost all kinds of
discrimination (blacks, homosexuals, atheists, people of other faiths
etc..), they are also quite good at being hypocritical and backward
assed.
>The campaign by UK activists to lower the age of consent to such acts, thus
>placing children of 14 at the mercy of predatory homosexuals, is
>breathtakingly wicked, and it is a measure of the moral depths to which this
>nation has sunk that some homosexuals feel able to call, publicly, for these
>things.
What is the age of consent from heterosexual sexual relationships in
the UK? (just wondering)
--
Cheers,
Rob #1856
I EAC, therefore I'm not
BAAWA Ace: Stoke me a clipper, I'll be back for christmas
Ken & Laura Chaddock
> mhlife wrote:
>
> > Homosexuality is recognised by most major religions a grave sin.
>
> > There are some Truths, so self evident, they transcend creed. 'Thou shalt
> > not kill" is as applicable to Muslims, as it is to Christians, as it is to
> > Jews, as it is to ... etc.
Rather a break in logic here. Since both Christanity and Islam arose from the
root of Judasim, it's not supprising that they share the same biases, biases
which are *not* present in the other great world religions. In fact only the
current mid-eastern based religions, Judaism, Christanity and Islam have
prohibitions against homosexuality and this prohibition arised from ancient
Judaism. So the concept this homophobic bias "transcends" creed is utter
nonsense.
...Ken
Dramar Ankalle
Ken & Laura Chaddock <chad...@istar.ca> wrote in message
news:3AE386C6...@istar.ca...
Only *people* have such prohibitions.No one follows everything in those
books.
HTH
Peter
folk, I believe.
Unfortunately it doesn't do that - "homo" means man in Latin and "same"
in Greek. That's why we have "homo sapiens" meaning "thinking man" and
"homophone" meaning "same sound" (to describe words sounding alike, such
as "by", "bye", "buy", and well, "bi").
"phobia" means "fear of", so homophobia can mean either "fear of men" or
"far of the same", neither of which seems to cut it.
Jos Flachs
wrote:
>Homosexuality is recognised by most major religions a grave sin.
Not at all. Only in judaism, xtianity and islam. Hinduism, Buddhism,
Shintoism, Taoism etc. have no problems with sexuality at all. Let
alone one's sexual preference.
>There are some Truths, so self evident, they transcend creed. 'Thou shalt
>not kill" is as applicable to Muslims, as it is to Christians, as it is to
>Jews, as it is to......etc.
Oh, do they? Who are or what is "..... etc."? Care to expound a bit?
>Similarly, homosexuality is rightly recognised as a depraved and sinful act
>by these (and many other) faiths.
No, only the above mentioned three religions. Why exactly 'rightly'?
>The Biblical viewpoint is one of complete and uncompromising condemnation.
So? The Tippitakka does not.
>Homosexual 'marriage' is a blasphemous travesty of the union ordained by
>God, homosexual lusts defile the perpetrator - and legislation in favour of
If there was a god, you mean.
>The campaign by UK activists to lower the age of consent to such acts, thus
>placing children of 14 at the mercy of predatory homosexuals, is
And the age of consent for heterosexuals is ..... ?
>Clear?.
Not quite, I'm afraid.
==========================================================
Jos Flachs in: Krungthep Mahanakhon Bovorn Rattanakorsin Mahinthara
Ayutthaya Mahadilokpop Noparat Ratchathani Burirom
Udom Ratchanivey Mahasatha Amornpiman A-vatarnsathit
Sakkathattiya A-visnukarmpasit
also known as: Bangkok, Thailand
==========================================================
Ned Latham
Perzackly, Peter. It's really a propaganda word, coined by some semi-
literate PC junky or poofter who wanted to denigrate objections to
the perverted nature of homosexuality.
Ned
--
To reply, cut out my nose * Democracy means "the people rule". *
and make the met a net. * Fight for the power of assent. *
James Doemer
is, "The irrational fear of..."
"Peter" <peter....@bigpond.com.au> wrote in message
news:MPG.154e5abba...@news.bigpond.com...
Theodore A. Kaldis
> Just to point out ... The definition of Phobia, in this context, is, "The
> irrational fear of ..."
Still doesn't cut it. What is called "homophobia" by the poofs and the PC
mob isn't a phobia at all, and there is nothing irrational about it. It is
merely the natural revulsion a normal person has to the demented practise of
homosexual behaviour.
David L. Moffitt
%%%% Maybe it should be faggotphobia or queerphobia------Nah, it just doesn't have that ring to it! What do I have to fear? Paisley
vinyl purses and odd colored pumps?
Mosley Jones III
"Theodore A. Kaldis" <kal...@home.com> wrote in message
news:3AE3FEF3...@home.com...
Fenris
Moffitt" <moff...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>> "phobia" means "fear of", so homophobia can mean either "fear of men" or
>> "far of the same", neither of which seems to cut it.
>
>%%%% Maybe it should be faggotphobia or queerphobia------
From the guy who denies that he hates.
>Nah, it just doesn't have that ring to it! What do I have to fear?
Your own desires. Please get help, David.
--
To send friendly e-mail, replace "nospam" with "ttowne1"
and "emptymind" with "mindspring.
Fenris
<kal...@home.com> wrote:
>James Doemer wrote:
>
>> Just to point out ... The definition of Phobia, in this context, is, "The
>> irrational fear of ..."
>
>Still doesn't cut it. What is called "homophobia" by the poofs and the PC
>mob isn't a phobia at all, and there is nothing irrational about it. It is
>merely the natural revulsion a normal person has to the demented practise of
>homosexual behaviour.
Which doesn't harm or affect you in any way. So why are you obsessed with it?
DarkAngel
> Homosexuality is recognised by most major religions a grave sin.
So? I recognize organised religion to be a grave sin.
> There are some Truths, so self evident, they transcend creed. 'Thou shalt
> not kill" is as applicable to Muslims, as it is to Christians, as it is to
> Jews, as it is to......etc.
Note that you have only enumerated Judeo-Christian creeds, which are far from
universal. Many Eastern religions don't share this creed. Many animist and
pagan religions don't abide by these creeds either.
> Similarly, homosexuality is rightly recognised as a depraved and sinful act
> by these (and many other) faiths.
>
> The Biblical viewpoint is one of complete and uncompromising condemnation.
The Biblical viewpoint towards pretty much anything that does not involve
butt-kissing the priests is complete and uncompromising condemnation.
> Homosexual 'marriage' is a blasphemous travesty of the union ordained by
> God,
Marriage is a travesty of the sexual union of beings as ordained by nature.
> homosexual lusts defile the perpetrator - and legislation in favour of
> those lusts defiles the nation that suffers such laws to be enacted.
Legislation in opposition to total freedom of choice defiles the human spirit.
> The campaign by UK activists to lower the age of consent to such acts, thus
> placing children of 14 at the mercy of predatory homosexuals, is
> breathtakingly wicked, and it is a measure of the moral depths to which this
> nation has sunk that some homosexuals feel able to call, publicly, for these
> things.
Canada's age of consent for *any* sexual acts is 14. I just wish they'd have
the right to vote. Now, go cry me a river somewhere else.
--
a.a atheist #1172 Anarchy & Peace
"If you've got a job, you can be an agent.
You can work for revolution at your place
of employment. If you work at a factory,
throw a spanner in the works. Internal
sabotage, hit 'em where it hurts. Subvert!"
- Zounds, "Subvert"
The Anarchism FAQ
http://www.infoshop.org/faq/
Patrick Gliddon
1, Religious claptrap. Keep your gods out of our politics.
2. Red herring. Age of consent is a breathtakingly minor element of
giving homosexuals the rights, freedoms, and obligations already
enjoyed by hetersexuals.
3. Defilement is a parareligious concept that means absolutely nothing
in the secular religious sphere. Yawn.
<dismissive wave of preaching>
Did you have a real point? Or did you just want us all to bow our
knees at the mention of Jesus' name?
Patrick Gliddon
GCU Unwarranted Optimist
The tides of history are unforgiving.
All sandcastles will be washed away.
mhlife
"DarkAngel" <drkan...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3AE42C22...@hotmail.com...
> Legislation in opposition to total freedom of choice defiles the human
spirit.<
Sounds good!
So, by your reasoning, a man should be free to commit sexual acts with
children of, oh - let's say Five years old - if, of course, that man feels
moved in his spirit to commit such acts?.
Hmmm - perhaps not so good, after all.
'Total Freedom' is a ridiculous concept - propounded, either by those who
have not thought through the consequences, or by rogues who long for the
'Freedom' to exercise their own depraved lusts.
It would be the charitable thing, to ascribe the former description to you.
mhlife
news:sgt6ets1rlcqid40r...@4ax.com...
> >Homosexuality is recognised by most major religions a grave sin.
>
> So. The evidence for theistice belief is about as concrete as the
> evidence that homosexuality is a deprived subhuman act... ie. NONE.<
Dunno about that. I do know that I feel Gods presence when I pray - and
that He answers prayers (if not always in the way I demand)
In the end it all come down to 'Faith' (a much maligned word) - but 'Faith'
is more than blind belief - it is living 'entity' (for want of a better
word) that changes lives and changes hearts.
That, I suppose, is why homosexuals hate it so much
____________________
> But "eye for an eye" is okay in your book? <
Strange! - you are obviously reading a different Bible than me tonight. (I
suppose you have various translations on your book-shelves).
I tend to make do with the King James version - and, in that one, the Lord
Jesus makes a point of teaching 'Render not evil for evil'
__________________
Hypocrite probably means
> absolutely nothing to you.<
Obviously not as much as it does to a noted scholar like your good self.
_______________
> >Similarly, homosexuality is rightly recognised as a depraved and sinful
act
> >by these (and many other) faiths.
>
> People of faith are deprived subhuman elements.<
Really!? - you do surprise me!. there was I thinking that Christians were
the main influence for good in this country!. Fancy!.
____________________
They lack the one
> factulty that gives humans there one up in this world. Intelligence
> and reason.<
"Come, let us reason together, saith the Lord. Though your sins be as
scarlet, yet they shall be made white as snow"
I know all about 'reason'!. More to the point, I know that God has forgiven
my sins (which are many and awful - just ask the homosexuals on ukglb!) and
that I have an enduring hope of eternal life, through the blood of the Lord
Jesus Christ.
That's more than reasonable enough for me.
_______________
>Logic and rationality.<
Mmmmm! - I've heard of those concepts!
They often flow (in quite inordinate quantities!) from the mouths of those
who are seeking to perpetrate some obscenity, or other, on society!. The
homosexual AOC activists tend to have such quasi-rationalistic rhetoric
perfected.
My problem is that I keep coming up against the rather stern words of the
Apostle, Paul - who noted the following comments about homosexuals in his
letter to the Roman Christians;
"For this cause God gave them (homosexuals) up unto vile affections: for
even their women did change the natural use into that which is against
nature:
And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in
their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly,
and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was
meet..."
______________________________
>Try using it,<
Er, Pass,
"And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my
people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her
plagues"
______________
you may discover a
> wonderful thing called rational morals,<
Yes, I dare say - but will it deliver me from the Plagues visited upon the
ungodly? - that's what I want to know.
___________________
and a quirky little tool
> called the scientific method.<
Is that what you're pinning your Plague deliverance theory on?...
___________________
You know, the only way to discern the
> truth about the world around us.<
Yes, yes yes!! - but what about the Plagues????
_________________
The bible certainly never taught us
> anything of value.<
(sigh) I'll resist the temptation for yet another Plaque centred reply - and
just say that the Bible seems to have been a good basis for Judeo-Christian
culture.
A culture which, I might add, has been the recipient of great Blessing.
Now, you might say that other cultures are equally as good - better, even.
This would be patently untrue - as evidenced by the singular failure of
Shiva the multi-armed goddess, and her many contemporise, to secure similar
blessings for her adherents in other parts of the world.
Famine, Drought, Pestilence, and (yes!) our old friend Plague, appear to be
a harsh reward for those who show her such tireless devotion.
If the Gospel were not efficacious, if the Blessings of God did not flow
from keeping His commandments, then we would all be hiding in the backs of
trucks bound for the third world.
'Righteousness exalteth a nation" and, conversely, passing Godless
legislation, legalising Sin, is a sure fire recipe for national
catastrophe.
____________________
> Do you wear cloth made with two threads? DO you work on teh sabbath?
> You can tell me, and then you can tell me where you live so I can
> sacrifice you to the lord as he outlines in Leviticus.
Do stop producing these Chestnuts! - Christmas is long past!
The 'Shellfish & Fibre' (sounds like a fad diet!) argument is routinely
trotted out by those keen to negate the word of God, in relation to
homosexuality.
Yes, the Old Testament 'Law' WAS superseded by the New Covenant - no doubt
about it.
Therefore, types of food, types of cloth, ceremonies and customs - they all
became irrelevant and/or obsolete.
However, the moral elements contained within the Law were both retained and
re-enforced.
Thou shalt not: Kill, Steal, Commit Adultery, Bear False Witness (I
sincerely hope some of the ukglb 'ers are taking note of that one!) etc,
all these commandments still stand in the New Covenant. So, also, do the
strictures and condemnations of homosexuality.
Sorry, but there it is.
_________________
> Yes, and the church has been such an inspiration to the law system of
> every country it is in.<
Yes
_________________
>From genocide, to sexism,<
Well!!! - say no more!!.
'Sexism'! - that appalling Crime against both God and Man!.
Hell is, doubtless, crammed to bursting with Sexist, Racist, Homophobic
rogues - some of whom probably added to their (already considerable)
torment by not being European enough!
_____________________
almost all kinds of
> discrimination (blacks, homosexuals, atheists, people of other faiths
> etc..), they are also quite good at being hypocritical and backward
> assed.
You're very Politically Correct, aren't you?
I predict that you will go far!
______________________
> What is the age of consent from heterosexual sexual relationships in
> the UK? (just wondering)
16 - and, before you ask, it should be at least 18.
> Cheers,
Likewise
Ned Latham
> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
> > James Doemer wrote:
> > >
> > > Just to point out ... The definition of Phobia, in this context, is,
> > > "The irrational fear of ..."
> >
> > Still doesn't cut it. What is called "homophobia" by the poofs and the
> > PC mob isn't a phobia at all, and there is nothing irrational about it.
> > It is merely the natural revulsion a normal person has to the demented
> > practise of homosexual behaviour.
>
> Which doesn't harm or affect you in any way. So why are you obsessed with
> it?
Revulsion isn't obsession. When the poofters stop shoving it in everyone's
face, the hooraw will die down quick enough.
Clay Colwell
> Homosexuality is recognised by most major religions a grave sin.
That is incorrect.
> There are some Truths, so self evident, they transcend creed. 'Thou shalt
> not kill" is as applicable to Muslims, as it is to Christians, as it is to
> Jews, as it is to......etc.
> Similarly, homosexuality is rightly recognised as a depraved and sinful act
> by these (and many other) faiths.
Are you then implying that this assertion of yours is a "Truth,
so self evident, [it transcends] creed"? Given that your first
premise was false, this premise is clearly false as well.
> The Biblical viewpoint is one of complete and uncompromising condemnation.
Highly debatable, especially when looking at the original texts
and contexts.
> Homosexual 'marriage' is a blasphemous travesty of the union ordained by
> God, homosexual lusts defile the perpetrator - and legislation in favour of
> those lusts defiles the nation that suffers such laws to be enacted.
I frankly don't give a shit about religious marriage. What I want
is civil marriage. Of course, I find it interesting that Christian
churhces make the sacrament of marriage available to murderers,
thieves, and child molesters, but not to gayfolk. What a strange
distinction for them to make, eh?
> The campaign by UK activists to lower the age of consent to such acts, thus
> placing children of 14 at the mercy of predatory homosexuals, is
> breathtakingly wicked, and it is a measure of the moral depths to which this
> nation has sunk that some homosexuals feel able to call, publicly, for these
> things.
Said campaign was to make equitable the age of consent for hetero-
sexual acts and homosexual acts. If you're talking about the one
I'm talking about, (and pardon me for borrowing a cup of your
rhetoric), then little girls have always been getting legally
diddled by perverted old men legally in the UK. I don't recall
seeing you up-in-arms about that.
Patrick Gliddon
>On Mon, 23 Apr 2001 00:40:44 +0100, "mhlife" <mhl...@btinternet.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Homosexuality is recognised by most major religions a grave sin.
>Not at all. Only in judaism, xtianity and islam. Hinduism, Buddhism,
>Shintoism, Taoism etc. have no problems with sexuality at all. Let
>alone one's sexual preference.
>
>>There are some Truths, so self evident, they transcend creed. 'Thou shalt
>>not kill" is as applicable to Muslims, as it is to Christians, as it is to
>>Jews, as it is to......etc.
>Oh, do they? Who are or what is "..... etc."? Care to expound a bit?
Ehem...we Buddhists can be pretty uptight, which is weird considering
that we haven't got a rational leg to stand on with this issue. My own
perception is that such prohibitions are mostly amplifications of
local cultural elements, and the absorption of notions that the
genitals (especially the anus) are "unclean", being organs of
elimination. (Ancient Indic cultures were fanatical about keeping
varying levels of ritual purity ultraclear.) Putting one's tongue *in*
one, or the mouth *around* one simply grossed them out. The Tantric
traditions structure some rituals around impure substances and
ritualised sex...always male-female, this being linked to a
complicated internal psychic structure that involved the opposite
sexes. I am unaware of such a structure having been developed for
homosexual sex, save in the modern world, by gay Tantric
practitioners. Monasteries everywhere, on the other hand, had quite a
lively--though discreet--level of homosexual activity going on. The
Vinaya (the monastic regulations) goes into the most fascinating depth
regarding the impropriety of certain sexual acts, and the level to
which they transgress the Monastic Code of Conduct.
Non-monastics had no such qualms about sexuality. Local custom, often
disguised as doctrine, has prevailed, so you get a wide range of
attitudes to marriage, premarital sex, polygamy, polyandry,
homosexuality, etc. "Appropriateness" of partner has varied quite a
lot according to local custom. Anything that Buddhism really has to
say about secular sexuality is summed up in other areas of Buddhist
ethics. The only real concern was the monastic discipline: avoid
orgasms. Popular Buddhist literature is rife with images of ther randy
monk, probably a more realistic picture of the scene.
>
>>Similarly, homosexuality is rightly recognised as a depraved and sinful act
>>by these (and many other) faiths.
>No, only the above mentioned three religions. Why exactly 'rightly'?
>
>>The Biblical viewpoint is one of complete and uncompromising condemnation.
>So? The Tippitakka does not.
Indeed. Sexual relations outside the monastic order might be gathered
under the rubric "do no harm".
>
>>Homosexual 'marriage' is a blasphemous travesty of the union ordained by
>>God, homosexual lusts defile the perpetrator - and legislation in favour of
>If there was a god, you mean.
>
>>The campaign by UK activists to lower the age of consent to such acts, thus
>>placing children of 14 at the mercy of predatory homosexuals, is
>And the age of consent for heterosexuals is ..... ?
>
>>Clear?.
>Not quite, I'm afraid.
Clearly mistaken, about many issues, though.
Thomas P.
<kal...@home.com> wrote:
>James Doemer wrote:
>
>> Just to point out ... The definition of Phobia, in this context, is, "The
>> irrational fear of ..."
>
>Still doesn't cut it. What is called "homophobia" by the poofs and the PC
>mob isn't a phobia at all, and there is nothing irrational about it. It is
>merely the natural revulsion a normal person has to the demented practise of
>homosexual behaviour.
Since homosexuality is no danger, in and of itself, to anyone, the
fear of it is irrational. The only evidence that you offer for it
being bad is that you do not like it.
>--
>Theodore A. Kaldis
> kal...@worldnet.att.net
Thomas P.
I always never wrote that letter.
Ned Latham
> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
> >James Doemer wrote:
> > >
> > > Just to point out ... The definition of Phobia, in this context,
> > > is, "The
> > > irrational fear of ..."
> >
> > Still doesn't cut it. What is called "homophobia" by the poofs and
> > the PC mob isn't a phobia at all, and there is nothing irrational
> > about it. It is merely the natural revulsion a normal person has
> > to the demented practise of homosexual behaviour.
>
> Since homosexuality is no danger, in and of itself, to anyone, the
> fear of it is irrational.
Revulsion isn't fear.
----snip----
Fenris
>> Which doesn't harm or affect you in any way. So why are you obsessed with
>> it?
>
>Revulsion isn't obsession.
Never said it was. Kaldis is obsessed.
>When the poofters stop shoving it in everyone's face, the hooraw will die
down quick enough.
Yeh, and if the niggruhs had stayed quietly in the backs of the buses
where they belonged.....
Fenris
>> Since homosexuality is no danger, in and of itself, to anyone, the
>> fear of it is irrational.
>
>Revulsion isn't fear.
When you need to be telling other people, who are presumably not like you,
in ways which are none of your business, how revolted you are by the them
or the things they do or which you imagine they do, then you have a
problem.
Peter
doe...@earthlink.net says...
> "Peter" <peter....@bigpond.com.au> wrote in message
> news:MPG.154e5abba...@news.bigpond.com...
> > The word homophobia is intended to indicate antipathy to homosexual
> > folk, I believe.
> >
> > Unfortunately it doesn't do that - "homo" means man in Latin and "same"
> > in Greek. That's why we have "homo sapiens" meaning "thinking man" and
> > "homophone" meaning "same sound" (to describe words sounding alike, such
> > as "by", "bye", "buy", and well, "bi").
> >
> > "phobia" means "fear of", so homophobia can mean either "fear of men" or
> > "far of the same", neither of which seems to cut it.
> >
> Just to point out..... The definition of Phobia, in this context,
> is, "The irrational fear of..."
No it isn't. Arachnophobia, for example, is "fear of spiders". That's
not irrational, it's bloody good sense!
Neil Tupper
"Ned Latham" <nen...@news.apex.met.au> wrote in message
news:slrn9e8hfl....@messy.ned.net...
> Fenris wrote in
<nospam-2304...@pool-63.50.229.184.phnx.grid.net>:
> > Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
> > > James Doemer wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Just to point out ... The definition of Phobia, in this context, is,
> > > > "The irrational fear of ..."
> > >
> > > Still doesn't cut it. What is called "homophobia" by the poofs and the
> > > PC mob isn't a phobia at all, and there is nothing irrational about
it.
> > > It is merely the natural revulsion a normal person has to the demented
> > > practise of homosexual behaviour.
> >
> > Which doesn't harm or affect you in any way. So why are you obsessed
with
> > it?
>
> Revulsion isn't obsession. When the poofters stop shoving it in everyone's
> face, the hooraw will die down quick enough.
>
Study after study has shown that the most virulent anti-homosexual feelings
stem from the conflicts generated by cultural biases that people with
unresolved latent homosexual tendencies are burdened by. I, and most
straight men that I know, while not wishing to participate in homosexual
acts, neither view them with "revulsion" nor consider them "demented"
Neil
Paul Hyett
considered view. To keep the thread going, I replied -
>
>The campaign by UK activists to lower the age of consent to such acts, thus
>placing children of 14 at the mercy of predatory homosexuals, is
>nation has sunk that some homosexuals feel able to call, publicly, for these
>things.
Since you mention it, I've never even heard of such a campaign, except
as 2nd-hand allegations made against Peter Tatchell. Perhaps someone can
provide evidence that such a campaign exists at all?
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham, England
mhlife
"Rob Coats" <rcoats[@]iinet[.]net[.]au> wrote in message
news:sgt6ets1rlcqid40r...@4ax.com...
> >Homosexuality is recognised by most major religions a grave sin.
>
> So. The evidence for theistice belief is about as concrete as the
> evidence that homosexuality is a deprived subhuman act... ie. NONE.<
Dunno about that. I do know that I feel Gods presence when I pray - and
that He answers prayers (if not always in the way I demand)
In the end it all come down to 'Faith' (a much maligned word) - but 'Faith'
is more than blind belief - it is living 'entity' (for want of a better
word) that changes lives and changes hearts.
That, I suppose, is why homosexuals hate it so much
____________________
> But "eye for an eye" is okay in your book? <
Strange! - you are obviously reading a different Bible than me tonight. (I
suppose you have various translations on your book-shelves).
I tend to make do with the King James version - and, in that one, the Lord
Jesus makes a point of teaching 'Render not evil for evil'
__________________
Hypocrite probably means
> absolutely nothing to you.<
Obviously not as much as it does to a noted scholar like your good self.
_______________
> >Similarly, homosexuality is rightly recognised as a depraved and sinful
act
> >by these (and many other) faiths.
>
Termite of Temptation
"mhlife" <mhl...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:9c1f67$3kv$1...@taliesin.netcom.net.uk...
> "Rob Coats" <rcoats[@]iinet[.]net[.]au> wrote in message
> news:sgt6ets1rlcqid40r...@4ax.com...
>
> > >Homosexuality is recognised by most major religions a grave sin.
> >
> > So. The evidence for theistice belief is about as concrete as the
> > evidence that homosexuality is a deprived subhuman act... ie. NONE.<
>
> Dunno about that. I do know that I feel Gods presence when I pray - and
> that He answers prayers (if not always in the way I demand)
That isn't evidence. You could be delusional.
> In the end it all come down to 'Faith' (a much maligned word) - but
'Faith'
> is more than blind belief - it is living 'entity' (for want of a better
> word) that changes lives and changes hearts.
>
> That, I suppose, is why homosexuals hate it so much
Homosexuals are characterised by one thing - their sexuality. Any attempt to
tar them with such an offensive generalisation is clearly futile; many
homosexuals are christian.
> ____________________
>
> > But "eye for an eye" is okay in your book? <
>
> Strange! - you are obviously reading a different Bible than me tonight. (I
> suppose you have various translations on your book-shelves).
>
> I tend to make do with the King James version - and, in that one, the
Lord
> Jesus makes a point of teaching 'Render not evil for evil'
An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth is a biblical rendering of God's idea
of justice. The fact that it is contradicted later in the Bible just shows
the Bible's unreliability.
> > >Similarly, homosexuality is rightly recognised as a depraved and sinful
> act
> > >by these (and many other) faiths.
> >
> > People of faith are deprived subhuman elements.<
>
> Really!? - you do surprise me!. there was I thinking that Christians were
> the main influence for good in this country!. Fancy!.
AHAHAHAHAH!! Christians do lots of good. That's right. Preventing abortions
so women end up having babies they can't support, because they never got
proper sex education in school because of GUESS WHO. Building churches
instead of hospitals, preaching hate against anyone who does't conform to
their arbitrary standards of morality and sexuality. Ramming their death
religion down the throats of schoolkids as fact, so they they just grow up
blindly accepting whatever they are told.
Pushing creationism to be taught instead of evolution so that science is set
back 150 years. Nice one there. Um, what else? Oh yeah! Historical examples!
The crusades, the witch hunt hysteria, the atrocities in the Bible - a force
for good, and no mistake there.
Prophet : "Hey Hebrews! God told me we should attack that city, kill all the
men and rape all the virgin women! Let's go!"
Hebrews (in unison) : "Charge!"
(One bloody battle and much suffering and death later)
Hebrew : "We certainly were a force for good today!!"
Get real. Christianity is not about good. It's about keeping people mute and
on their knees so they can't see their freedom being stolen, and they can't
ask questions.
> They lack the one
> > factulty that gives humans there one up in this world. Intelligence
> > and reason.<
>
> "Come, let us reason together, saith the Lord. Though your sins be as
> scarlet, yet they shall be made white as snow"
>
> I know all about 'reason'!. More to the point, I know that God has
forgiven
> my sins (which are many and awful - just ask the homosexuals on ukglb!)
and
> that I have an enduring hope of eternal life, through the blood of the
Lord
> Jesus Christ.
>
> That's more than reasonable enough for me.
Lucky you. Maybe you'll get to heaven and everything will be all nice and
perfect and you'll never have to worry about anything ever again. Or maybe
you'll grow out of that childish fantasy.
>
> >Logic and rationality.<
>
> Mmmmm! - I've heard of those concepts!
>
> They often flow (in quite inordinate quantities!) from the mouths of those
> who are seeking to perpetrate some obscenity, or other, on society!. The
> homosexual AOC activists tend to have such quasi-rationalistic rhetoric
> perfected.
Logic and rationality is the tool humans use to understand the universe. Get
used to using them.
> My problem is that I keep coming up against the rather stern words of the
> Apostle, Paul - who noted the following comments about homosexuals in his
> letter to the Roman Christians;
>
> "For this cause God gave them (homosexuals) up unto vile affections: for
> even their women did change the natural use into that which is against
> nature:
>
> And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in
> their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is
unseemly,
> and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was
> meet..."
Yeah, what evil people homosexuals are! Acting in a way that comes naturally
for; by your religion God *made* them that way on purpose. Did he do it so
he could send them to hell? Does he like to watch suffering?
> >Try using it,<
>
> Er, Pass,
>
> You know, the only way to discern the
> > truth about the world around us.<
>
> Yes, yes yes!! - but what about the Plagues????
>
What plagues?
> (sigh) I'll resist the temptation for yet another Plaque centred reply -
and
> just say that the Bible seems to have been a good basis for
Judeo-Christian
> culture.
>
> A culture which, I might add, has been the recipient of great Blessing.
>
> Now, you might say that other cultures are equally as good - better,
even.
> This would be patently untrue - as evidenced by the singular failure of
> Shiva the multi-armed goddess, and her many contemporise, to secure
similar
> blessings for her adherents in other parts of the world.
>
> Famine, Drought, Pestilence, and (yes!) our old friend Plague, appear to
be
> a harsh reward for those who show her such tireless devotion.
>
> If the Gospel were not efficacious, if the Blessings of God did not flow
> from keeping His commandments, then we would all be hiding in the backs of
> trucks bound for the third world.
>
> 'Righteousness exalteth a nation" and, conversely, passing Godless
> legislation, legalising Sin, is a sure fire recipe for national
> catastrophe.
Could you give examples of these blessings? Or is it a post hoc ergo propter
hoc argument?
____________________
>
> > Do you wear cloth made with two threads? DO you work on teh sabbath?
> > You can tell me, and then you can tell me where you live so I can
> > sacrifice you to the lord as he outlines in Leviticus.
>
> Do stop producing these Chestnuts! - Christmas is long past!
>
> The 'Shellfish & Fibre' (sounds like a fad diet!) argument is routinely
> trotted out by those keen to negate the word of God, in relation to
> homosexuality.
>
> Yes, the Old Testament 'Law' WAS superseded by the New Covenant - no doubt
> about it.
>
> Therefore, types of food, types of cloth, ceremonies and customs - they
all
> became irrelevant and/or obsolete.
>
> However, the moral elements contained within the Law were both retained
and
> re-enforced.
>
> Thou shalt not: Kill, Steal, Commit Adultery, Bear False Witness (I
> sincerely hope some of the ukglb 'ers are taking note of that one!) etc,
> all these commandments still stand in the New Covenant. So, also, do the
> strictures and condemnations of homosexuality.
>
> Sorry, but there it is.
And what is immoral about homosexuality? You still haven't said, other than
"God doesn't like it".
> > Yes, and the church has been such an inspiration to the law system of
> > every country it is in.<
>
> Yes
> _________________
>
>
> >From genocide, to sexism,<
>
> Well!!! - say no more!!.
>
> 'Sexism'! - that appalling Crime against both God and Man!.
It's not very nice. It is a crime. And guess what? The Bible doesn't have a
single word to say on the subject. Oh, except that women should shut up in
church.
> Hell is, doubtless, crammed to bursting with Sexist, Racist, Homophobic
> rogues - some of whom probably added to their (already considerable)
> torment by not being European enough!
> almost all kinds of
> > discrimination (blacks, homosexuals, atheists, people of other faiths
> > etc..), they are also quite good at being hypocritical and backward
> > assed.
>
> You're very Politically Correct, aren't you?
>
> I predict that you will go far!
>
That's not a response, it's a clumsy evasion. You snipped his actual
argument and then failed to respond. At least debate properly.
Duncan
Trampus
"Fenris" <nos...@emptymind.com> wrote in message
news:nospam-2304...@pool-63.50.229.184.phnx.grid.net...
> In article <3AE3FEF3...@home.com>, "Theodore A. Kaldis"
> <kal...@home.com> wrote:
>
> >James Doemer wrote:
> >
> >> Just to point out ... The definition of Phobia, in this context, is,
"The
> >> irrational fear of ..."
> >
> >Still doesn't cut it. What is called "homophobia" by the poofs and the
PC
> >mob isn't a phobia at all, and there is nothing irrational about it. It
is
> >merely the natural revulsion a normal person has to the demented practise
of
> >homosexual behaviour.
>
> Which doesn't harm or affect you in any way. So why are you obsessed with
it?
When you send your ten or eleven year old son on his own into a PUBLIC
urinal, because he is a big boy now and doesn't always need his dad around,
and he comes out in fear and disgust,crying, because he has just seen one
man with his penis in the arse of another man, then it does affect me and it
does harm my son, but not as much harm as i and the other fathers did to the
two perverts.
Public toilets are for the passing of urine and faeces into the public sewer
service, they are not for courting queers or for acts of buggery.
Trampus
>
> > Homosexuality is recognised by most major religions a grave sin.
>
> So? I recognize organised religion to be a grave sin.
Organized religion numbers its adherents in millions,indeed the Catholics
alone number in hundreds of millions, you are but one pervert!
>
> > There are some Truths, so self evident, they transcend creed. 'Thou
shalt
> > not kill" is as applicable to Muslims, as it is to Christians, as it is
to
> > Jews, as it is to......etc.
>
> Note that you have only enumerated Judeo-Christian creeds, which are far
from
> universal. Many Eastern religions don't share this creed.
Moslem, Hinduism ,Bhuddism,Sikhism,Jainism,Shintoism, Confucism all of these
religions have tracts against homosexuality.
Many animist and
> pagan religions don't abide by these creeds either.
Druidism and western paganism by their very worship of the Moon Godess and
Earth Mother eschew homosexuality.
In druidism the penalty for homosexuality is death!
>
> > Similarly, homosexuality is rightly recognised as a depraved and sinful
act
> > by these (and many other) faiths.
> >
> > The Biblical viewpoint is one of complete and uncompromising
condemnation.
>
> The Biblical viewpoint towards pretty much anything that does not involve
> butt-kissing the priests is complete and uncompromising condemnation.
You must read a different bible to the one I read.
Can you buy it only from homosexual shops?
>
> > Homosexual 'marriage' is a blasphemous travesty of the union ordained by
> > God,
>
> Marriage is a travesty of the sexual union of beings as ordained by
nature.
Marraige is a societal arrangement, it allows for the protection of the
fruits of such a union, the Children and promotes a safe nurturing
environment for both parties to it.
If however it is as you say it is, why do so many queers want to partake of
it?
>
> > homosexual lusts defile the perpetrator - and legislation in favour of
> > those lusts defiles the nation that suffers such laws to be enacted.
>
> Legislation in opposition to total freedom of choice defiles the human
spirit.
I am so glad we have arrived at a mutual conclusion, I want legislation to
be dropped, the legislation that says I cannot murder homosexuals where and
when I find them.
Ooops sorry, I forgot, it is only legislation that affects queers practicing
their perversions that must be dropped;-]
>
> > The campaign by UK activists to lower the age of consent to such acts,
thus
> > placing children of 14 at the mercy of predatory homosexuals, is
> > breathtakingly wicked, and it is a measure of the moral depths to which
this
> > nation has sunk that some homosexuals feel able to call, publicly, for
these
> > things.
>
> Canada's age of consent for *any* sexual acts is 14.
Wonder how long it will take them to equalise buggery?
I just wish they'd have
> the right to vote.
They already have the right to vote!
Clay Colwell
> "Rob Coats" <rcoats[@]iinet[.]net[.]au> wrote in message
> news:sgt6ets1rlcqid40r...@4ax.com...
>> >Homosexuality is recognised by most major religions a grave sin.
>>
>> So. The evidence for theistice belief is about as concrete as the
>> evidence that homosexuality is a deprived subhuman act... ie. NONE.<
> Dunno about that. I do know that I feel Gods presence when I pray - and
> that He answers prayers (if not always in the way I demand)
And this is a completely subjective experience on your part.
Sounds just fine, if you want to keep it all personal and stuff,
but, if you choose to demand that I and all others subscribe to
your particular subjective belief, you have to provide some
objective evidence, or else there's little difference between
your and the con man who says "Trust me".
> In the end it all come down to 'Faith' (a much maligned word) -
Given the egregious actions far too many have taken in the
name of "Faith"? I'm not much surprised.
> but 'Faith'
> is more than blind belief - it is living 'entity' (for want of a better
> word) that changes lives and changes hearts.
Then you use a different dictionary than the vast majority
of your fellow human beings.
> That, I suppose, is why homosexuals hate it so much
Ooooooo! *Nice* Christian sentiment!
Listen up, fool: plenty of gayfolk have the same sense of
spiritual comfort that you believe you receive, and your
overwillingness to pooh-pooh their experience is the same
type of attitude you claim to decry when others question
the validity and usefulness of your beliefs.
Lemme guess -- you believe in that "accept Jesus into your
life and he'll change you to a happy hetero", right?
> ____________________
>> But "eye for an eye" is okay in your book? <
> Strange! - you are obviously reading a different Bible than me tonight. (I
> suppose you have various translations on your book-shelves).
> I tend to make do with the King James version - and, in that one, the Lord
> Jesus makes a point of teaching 'Render not evil for evil'
This from the same mouth that claims that gayfolk despise "Faith".
Jesus had a few words for hypocrites, IIRC.
And why so idolatrous with the KJV? Why aren't you working
from the original Aramaic/Greek?
[...]
>> >Similarly, homosexuality is rightly recognised as a depraved and sinful
> act
>> >by these (and many other) faiths.
>>
>> People of faith are deprived subhuman elements.<
> Really!? - you do surprise me!. there was I thinking that Christians were
> the main influence for good in this country!. Fancy!.
Of course you'd think so. You can't even see the evil and hatred
in your own actions -- why should you recognize them in the brethren
you have a vested interest in supporting?
>> They lack the one
>> factulty that gives humans there one up in this world. Intelligence
>> and reason.<
> "Come, let us reason together, saith the Lord. Though your sins be as
> scarlet, yet they shall be made white as snow"
> I know all about 'reason'!. More to the point, I know that God has forgiven
> my sins (which are many and awful - just ask the homosexuals on ukglb!) and
> that I have an enduring hope of eternal life, through the blood of the Lord
> Jesus Christ.
> That's more than reasonable enough for me.
I've got my Get Out Of Hell Free card hanging up at my desk at work.
> >Logic and rationality.<
> Mmmmm! - I've heard of those concepts!
Ever use 'em?
> They often flow (in quite inordinate quantities!) from the mouths of those
> who are seeking to perpetrate some obscenity, or other, on society!.
And the same can be used for the words "faith" and "spirituality".
Did you have a point beyond the gratuitous slam/dodge?
> The
> homosexual AOC activists tend to have such quasi-rationalistic rhetoric
> perfected.
There are perfectly rational reasons not to abolish age-of-consent
laws, you pernicious twit. thanks for Yet Another Gratuitous Slam
From The Self-Professed Christian. Stop making the Baby Jesus
cry with your behavior.
> My problem is that I keep coming up against the rather stern words of the
> Apostle, Paul - who noted the following comments about homosexuals in his
> letter to the Roman Christians;
> "For this cause God gave them (homosexuals) up unto vile affections: for
> even their women did change the natural use into that which is against
> nature:
Not "homosexuals" -- those were *idolaters*.
> And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in
> their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly,
> and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was
> meet..."
"[12] I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men;
she is to keep silent.
[13] For Adam was formed first, then Eve;
[14] and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and
became a transgressor.
[15] Yet woman will be saved through bearing children, if she
continues in faith and love and holiness, with modesty."
So women are to be barefoot and pregnant and *quiet*, in Paul's
book. Yeah, that's a winning message to today's world. And
his support of Adam's ducking out of his personal responsibility
for his disobeying God -- tsk.
> ______________________________
>>Try using it,<
> Er, Pass,
> "And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my
> people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her
> plagues"
It's so sad to let a mind go to waste.
> you may discover a
>> wonderful thing called rational morals,<
> Yes, I dare say - but will it deliver me from the Plagues visited upon the
> ungodly? - that's what I want to know.
Gee, hurricanes rain on Christians and heathen alike. Both
suffer miscarriages, sores, boils, and dead cattle. <shrug>
Looks like your faith won't deliver you either.
> ___________________
> and a quirky little tool
>> called the scientific method.<
> Is that what you're pinning your Plague deliverance theory on?...
The Scientific Method will bring you building materials to
resist inclement weather and drugs to prevent illness. If
you want to rely on your faith and faith alone, be my guest.
Take Satan's challenge -- fling yourself into any active volcano
and show us how your faith has saved you from the lava.
[...]
> The bible certainly never taught us
>> anything of value.<
> (sigh) I'll resist the temptation for yet another Plaque centred reply - and
> just say that the Bible seems to have been a good basis for Judeo-Christian
> culture.
*Some* parts of the Bible, I'll easily grant that. Other parts
have been a complete joke.
> A culture which, I might add, has been the recipient of great Blessing.
> Now, you might say that other cultures are equally as good - better, even.
> This would be patently untrue - as evidenced by the singular failure of
> Shiva the multi-armed goddess, and her many contemporise, to secure similar
> blessings for her adherents in other parts of the world.
Oh my. You would start a "my god's better than your god because
mine's got more worshippers" challenge? You'll lose -- and handily --
to Eastern religions.
Clay Colwell
> In article <36SE6.855$Ee1.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
> doe...@earthlink.net says...
>> >
>> is, "The irrational fear of..."
> No it isn't. Arachnophobia, for example, is "fear of spiders". That's
> not irrational, it's bloody good sense!
Why? There are plenty of species of spiders that do no
harm to man, and, indeed, do a great deal of good for man.
Gavin Wheeler
>In alt.politics.homosexuality mhlife <mhl...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>> Homosexuality is recognised by most major religions a grave sin.
>
>That is incorrect.
Not even all christians 'recognise' it as a sin.
[...]
>> The Biblical viewpoint is one of complete and uncompromising condemnation.
>
>Highly debatable, especially when looking at the original texts
>and contexts.
Odd that there isn't one incontravertible statement on the subject in
the Bible. Is God so coy that he has to use euphemisms such as 'lie
with a man in the bed of a woman' to refer to gay sex? Especially
given the other strictures against womens' bedclothes that could lead
one to take that euphemism literally!
>> Homosexual 'marriage' is a blasphemous travesty of the union ordained by
>> God, homosexual lusts defile the perpetrator - and legislation in favour of
>> those lusts defiles the nation that suffers such laws to be enacted.
This presumably implies that you have witnessed each and every gay
couples' life together, so as to be able to condemn all gay marriages.
I know and know of gay couples who have stayed together for decades
through times when they could have been lobotomised for being
attracted to eachother, let alone living together, while most
heterosexual marriages these days seem to be lucky if they last out a
decade. It is not gay couples that make a mockery of heterosexual
marriage - the only ones who can do that are the two people involved
in the marriage itself.
>I frankly don't give a shit about religious marriage. What I want
>is civil marriage. Of course, I find it interesting that Christian
>churhces make the sacrament of marriage available to murderers,
>thieves, and child molesters, but not to gayfolk. What a strange
>distinction for them to make, eh?
Many of them are perfectly willing to celebrate gay marriages. I know
of half a dozen churches where I could marry another bloke if I so
wished. This is about government recognition of gay marriages - those
churches who don't wish to bless such marriages have every right to
refuse to do so, IMHO, and I'm surprised that any man would want the
blessing sof such a church. The government, on the other hand, has a
duty to represent all it's citizens.
Fenris
<babyd...@postmaster.co.uk> wrote:
>> Which doesn't harm or affect you in any way. So why are you obsessed with
>>it?
>
>When you send your ten or eleven year old son on his own into a PUBLIC
>urinal, because he is a big boy now and doesn't always need his dad around...
Well, that was damned foolish. I would never do such a thing.
>...and he comes out in fear and disgust,crying, because he has just seen one
>man with his penis in the arse of another man, then it does affect me and it
>does harm my son, but not as much harm as i and the other fathers did to the
>two perverts.
Great; so your son will probably grow up to be a violent, abusive bigot,
as well.
>Public toilets are for the passing of urine and faeces into the public sewer
>service, they are not for courting queers or for acts of buggery.
I'm glad to hear that you support same-sex marriage.
You make it clear with your namecalling that your bigotry has nothing to
do with the alleged incident.
Clay Colwell
> "Fenris" <nos...@emptymind.com> wrote in message
> news:nospam-2304...@pool-63.50.229.184.phnx.grid.net...
>> In article <3AE3FEF3...@home.com>, "Theodore A. Kaldis"
>> <kal...@home.com> wrote:
>>
>> >James Doemer wrote:
>> >
>> >> Just to point out ... The definition of Phobia, in this context, is,
> "The
>> >> irrational fear of ..."
>> >
>> >Still doesn't cut it. What is called "homophobia" by the poofs and the
> PC
>> >mob isn't a phobia at all, and there is nothing irrational about it. It
> is
>> >merely the natural revulsion a normal person has to the demented practise
> of
>> >homosexual behaviour.
>>
>> Which doesn't harm or affect you in any way. So why are you obsessed with
> it?
> When you send your ten or eleven year old son on his own into a PUBLIC
> urinal, because he is a big boy now and doesn't always need his dad around,
> and he comes out in fear and disgust,crying, because he has just seen one
> man with his penis in the arse of another man, then it does affect me and it
> does harm my son, but not as much harm as i and the other fathers did to the
> two perverts.
Nice bit of rhetoric. Care to testify on the frequency of
said traumatized 11-year-olds?
> Public toilets are for the passing of urine and faeces into the public sewer
> service, they are not for courting queers or for acts of buggery.
I guess they're not for washing one's hands, either, or blowing
one's nose.
Gavin Wheeler
>In alt.politics.homosexuality Trampus <babyd...@postmaster.co.uk> wrote:
[...]
>> When you send your ten or eleven year old son on his own into a PUBLIC
>> urinal, because he is a big boy now and doesn't always need his dad around,
Well, as commented upon elsewhere, doing so is more than a little
irresponsible, and not just because of the courting queens.
>> and he comes out in fear and disgust,crying, because he has just seen one
>> man with his penis in the arse of another man, then it does affect me and it
>> does harm my son, but not as much harm as i and the other fathers did to the
>> two perverts.
>
>Nice bit of rhetoric. Care to testify on the frequency of
>said traumatized 11-year-olds?
I think everyone reading this realises that it is a fictional
case, even if his claim to have beaten up the two gays is a pretty
sickening inditement of his morals. And I note that even in his
fantasies he needs the support of a mob to help him beat up two gay
men caught with their pants down!
But fair is fair - equality means just that, and laws against
sex in public places should apply to gays and straights alike. The
time when gays were pretty well obliged to keep their sex lives
anonymous and away from their homes (or anywhere else where they might
be identified) is long past, at least in the UK. 'Public' sex in
places like saunas, clubs or isolated bits of countryside is pretty
harmless to the general public, and no concern of the state IMO, but
sex in public toilets - especially when associated with vandalism such
as boring holes in cubicle doors and partitions - is a pretty fair
target for state intervention. IMO, again. It inconveniences other
individuals for no good reason, causes damage to public property, and
adds in no small measure to the alienation of gays and straights. It
is, in short, bloody bad manners!
>> Public toilets are for the passing of urine and faeces into the public sewer
>> service, they are not for courting queers or for acts of buggery.
>
>I guess they're not for washing one's hands, either, or blowing
>one's nose.
Or changing nappies, changing clothes, sheltering from the rain...
Yes, he has a limited imagination, we could have guessed that!
mhlife
"Termite of Temptation" <n...@telling.com> wrote in message
news:45%E6.2782$Tv2.3...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
> And what is immoral about homosexuality? You still haven't said, other
than
> "God doesn't like it".<
I will concentrate upon this particular point because it is, indeed, the
essence of the argument against sodomy - and, besides, the thread is
rambling so much that we are in danger of arguing until the cows come home
for incineration!
Homosexuality is a particularly vile sin because it perverts the 'normal'
sexual act between a man and woman.
Marriage is a symbol of the mystical union that will take place between
Christ and his 'Bride' (the redeemed church) when He returns to take his
people ( both those living and those who have died 'in Christ') home for
eternity
The Scriptures enjoin us against immorality, precisely because Christ will
not have a prostitute for his Bride!.
If sexual immorality between a man and a woman are expressly warned
against - "Lest, haply, the body of Christ be joined to an harlot", how much
more should we abstain from loathsome acts of 'union' between one man and
another?.
Homosexual Christians? - God forbid!. That is a demonic lie, spewed
straight from the pit of Hell.
Some will say that, because they have no desire to be 'Christians', such
strictures do not apply to them. however, the withdrawal of God's blessing
upon a nation that permits such iniquity to flourish, is a matter for us
all.
It is also true that many homosexuals have been given up by God to their
unnatural lusts - and, frankly, short of a Holy Ghost miracle, they will
never be able to repent. That is their choice - a sad one, but theirs,
nevertheless. However, such sin is not without dire consequences for
society, in general.
Homosexuals, generally, tend to be amongst the most scathing and irreligious
of all people. they hate the Gospel, they hate being rebuked for their
iniquitous behaviour, and they hate all those who stand in the way of the
promotion of their vice.
One of the saddest things I found on the 'net was a site containing messages
from HIV infected homosexuals. So many of them are now dead - and it was
somewhat eerie to read their posts.
It is a tragedy, a REAL tragedy!, that these people have now entered
eternity without Christ - for, to do so, is to suffer the torment of eternal
damnation.
How many of these poor souls were simply deceived by evil homosexual
propagandist's - who urged them on in their abominations?. How many of them
might have been convicted of their sin, and repented, finding a deliverance
from their bondage through the blood of the Lord Jesus Christ - had not the
baying of the homosexual wolf pack systematically drowned out any voice that
tried to tell them that homosexuality means damnation?!
For 'Wolves' is an accurate description of many homosexual 'activists'!.
Snarling packs of rabid destroyers - hurling themselves in slavering fury
upon anyone who dares condemn their vice!.
Such people are controlled by the Demons who inhabit them! - motivated by
malice, fuelled with hatred of everything that is Pure, Clean, Wholesome and
Godly, they rejoice in iniquity and work tirelessly to drag as many of their
fellows to perdition as possible.
And they are enjoying great success - as the Bible predicted.
James Doemer
"Theodore A. Kaldis" <kal...@home.com> wrote in message
news:3AE3FEF3...@home.com...
> James Doemer wrote:
>
> > Just to point out ... The definition of Phobia, in this context, is,
"The
> > irrational fear of ..."
>
> Still doesn't cut it. What is called "homophobia" by the poofs and the PC
> mob isn't a phobia at all, and there is nothing irrational about it. It
is
> merely the natural revulsion a normal person has to the demented practise
of
> homosexual behaviour.
Keep repeating it over and over and over and over and maybe one day you
might actually believe it. If what you say is true, you have no fear, you
are not threatened in any way, then one wonders why you show up here so
often to decry it? Interesting.. But, I'm not sure how you escaped my
kill file, but... You are the weakest link.. Goodbye!!
James Doemer
"Trampus" <babyd...@postmaster.co.uk> wrote in message
news:9c21d0$bi94j$1...@ID-60076.news.dfncis.de...
Then I suppose that ALL heterosexuals are to blame for the time my son came
out
after seening some guy boinking his girlfriend. You're not much of a man,
are you?
James Doemer
<nospam-2304...@pool-63.50.229.184.phnx.grid.net>:
> > Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
> > > James Doemer wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Just to point out ... The definition of Phobia, in this context, is,
> > > > "The irrational fear of ..."
> > >
> > > Still doesn't cut it. What is called "homophobia" by the poofs and the
> > > PC mob isn't a phobia at all, and there is nothing irrational about
it.
> > > It is merely the natural revulsion a normal person has to the demented
> > > practise of homosexual behaviour.
> >
> > Which doesn't harm or affect you in any way. So why are you obsessed
with
> > it?
>
> Revulsion isn't obsession. When the poofters stop shoving it in everyone's
> face, the hooraw will die down quick enough.
>
When dem niggras step to da back of da bus..... Not going to happen
coward.
James Doemer
>
> "DarkAngel" <drkan...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3AE42C22...@hotmail.com...
> > mhlife wrote:
> >
> > > Homosexuality is recognised by most major religions a grave sin.
> >
> > So? I recognize organised religion to be a grave sin.
>
> Organized religion numbers its adherents in millions,indeed the Catholics
> alone number in hundreds of millions, you are but one pervert!
Jesus believed that organized religions were full of perverts. Look at the
way
he attacked the Hebrew priests and temples.
Gavin Wheeler
wrote:
>"Termite of Temptation" <n...@telling.com> wrote in message
>news:45%E6.2782$Tv2.3...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
>
>> And what is immoral about homosexuality? You still haven't said, other
>> than "God doesn't like it".<
>
>
>I will concentrate upon this particular point because it is, indeed, the
>essence of the argument against sodomy - and, besides, the thread is
>rambling so much that we are in danger of arguing until the cows come home
>for incineration!
>
>Homosexuality is a particularly vile sin because it perverts the 'normal'
>sexual act between a man and woman.
It is not the most common form of sexuality, and is (by definition) no
form whatsoever of sexual act between a man and a women. It does not
pervert 'the 'normal' sexual act between a man and woman' in the sense
in which you appear to mean that unless you assume to start with that
homosexuality is a perversion even for homosexuals. Assuming what you
intend to prove is not good logic, dear heart!
>Marriage is a symbol of the mystical union that will take place between
>Christ and his 'Bride' (the redeemed church)
Which, oddly enough, consists mainly of men in dresses with a rather
poor history of sexual morality.
> when He returns to take his
>people ( both those living and those who have died 'in Christ') home for
>eternity
You still haven't cited much in the way of evidence. Not even biblical
evidence - jsut statements of *your* religious views.
[...]
>If sexual immorality between a man and a woman are expressly warned
>against - "Lest, haply, the body of Christ be joined to an harlot", how much
>more should we abstain from loathsome acts of 'union' between one man and
>another?.
The bible doesn't really seem to address that point, so my guess is as
good as yours, isn't it?
[...]
>It is also true that many homosexuals have been given up by God to their
>unnatural lusts - and, frankly, short of a Holy Ghost miracle, they will
>never be able to repent. That is their choice - a sad one, but theirs,
>nevertheless.
Make up your mind - did God give them up to said lusts, or did they
choose such lusts themselves? This is also very relevant to a certain
biblical passage you are fond of quoting.
And, while we are on the subject, when did you make a conscious choice
to be heterosexual rather than gay? Are you admitting to having felt
the temptation to be gay at some point - in which case you might want
to look up the words 'bisexual' and 'denial' - or are you just
asserting that homosexuals choose their sexuality despite the fact
that you never chose yours?
[...]
>Homosexuals, generally, tend to be amongst the most scathing and irreligious
>of all people.
Yeah, all us irreligious homosexuals like Michaelangelo, sickening
ain't it? Thankfully, you are fully in support of religious freedom,
aren't you 'Reverend'?
[...]
>One of the saddest things I found on the 'net was a site containing messages
>from HIV infected homosexuals.
Which is why you chose to poke fun at them on uk.glb. Naturally. I'm
sure it makes sense to you.
[...]
>How many of them
>might have been convicted of their sin, and repented, finding a deliverance
>from their bondage through the blood of the Lord Jesus Christ
Judging by the massive failure of 'ex-gay' ministeries worldwide, not
many, if by that you mean 'how many would have been able to pretend
that they were heterosexual.' On the other hand, many gay christians
take a good look at the bible and realise that it is not, in fact, in
conflict with their sexuality.. and turn into far better christians
than certain self-proclaimed 'Reverends'.
James Doemer
> Thomas P. wrote in <3ae45542...@news.get2net.dk>:
> > Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
> > >James Doemer wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Just to point out ... The definition of Phobia, in this context,
> > > > is, "The
> > > > irrational fear of ..."
> > >
> > > Still doesn't cut it. What is called "homophobia" by the poofs and
> > > the PC mob isn't a phobia at all, and there is nothing irrational
> > > about it. It is merely the natural revulsion a normal person has
> > > to the demented practise of homosexual behaviour.
> >
> > Since homosexuality is no danger, in and of itself, to anyone, the
> > fear of it is irrational.
>
> Revulsion isn't fear.
>
> ----snip----
Revulsion is quite often based in fear.
James Doemer
> In alt.politics.homosexuality Peter <peter....@bigpond.com.au> wrote:
> In article <36SE6.855$Ee1.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
> doe...@earthlink.net says...
>> >
>> Just to point out..... The definition of Phobia, in this context,
>> is, "The irrational fear of..."
> No it isn't. Arachnophobia, for example, is "fear of spiders". That's
> not irrational, it's bloody good sense!
Depends on the spider... Obviously a fear of poisonous spiders would
make pretty good sense (to a point), fear of harmless spiders would not
make a whole lot of sense. Extreme arachnophobia sufferers are quite
often so irrationally afraid, that they won't even leave their homes for
fear
of encountering a spider.
SneakyPete
>
[snip]
> When you send your ten or eleven year old son on his own into a PUBLIC
> urinal, because he is a big boy now and doesn't always need his dad
around,
> and he comes out in fear and disgust,crying, because he has just seen one
> man with his penis in the arse of another man, then it does affect me and
it
> does harm my son, but not as much harm as i and the other fathers did to
the
> two perverts.
>
> Public toilets are for the passing of urine and faeces into the public
sewer
> service, they are not for courting queers or for acts of buggery.
>
Suppose it was a man and a women caught in the act in a public rest room.
Would have reacted in the same way?
Clay Colwell
> "Termite of Temptation" <n...@telling.com> wrote in message
> news:45%E6.2782$Tv2.3...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
>> And what is immoral about homosexuality? You still haven't said, other
> than
>> "God doesn't like it".<
> I will concentrate upon this particular point because it is, indeed, the
> essence of the argument against sodomy - and, besides, the thread is
> rambling so much that we are in danger of arguing until the cows come home
> for incineration!
> Homosexuality is a particularly vile sin because it perverts the 'normal'
> sexual act between a man and woman.
Like penile-vaginal sex with a condom? Like blowjobs? Like
masturbation? Like wet dreams? Oh, for the days of Onan....
> Marriage is a symbol of the mystical union that will take place between
> Christ and his 'Bride' (the redeemed church) when He returns to take his
> people ( both those living and those who have died 'in Christ') home for
> eternity
So what's sex, then?
nd what about this mass orgy that'll occur when Jesus seeks
to deflower his 'Bride'?
> The Scriptures enjoin us against immorality, precisely because Christ will
> not have a prostitute for his Bride!.
Man, can you take an analogy and stretch it to sheerest fantasy.
> If sexual immorality between a man and a woman are expressly warned
> against - "Lest, haply, the body of Christ be joined to an harlot", how much
> more should we abstain from loathsome acts of 'union' between one man and
> another?.
Let 'em get married. Then it's 'sanctified'.
> Homosexual Christians? - God forbid!. That is a demonic lie, spewed
> straight from the pit of Hell.
Not according to Beelzebub, who I was chatting up the other
day. Oh, by the way, he asked you to pass on a cheery 'hello'
to Azrael -- he says that you and Azzy have been having some
grand times together. Something about Azzy intimating that,
whatever he thinks, you say?
> Some will say that, because they have no desire to be 'Christians', such
> strictures do not apply to them. however, the withdrawal of God's blessing
> upon a nation that permits such iniquity to flourish, is a matter for us
> all.
And so is the Astral Seed stuck in the hoof of the Invisible
Pink Unicorn that created the universe from its lustrous Hair.
[...]
> Homosexuals, generally, tend to be amongst the most scathing and irreligious
> of all people.
You haven't seen the self-professed Christians rejoicing in
the hellfire all the folks dislike are supposed to be writhing
in? Their grotesque insults? Their substandard spelling and
grammar? My, you *have* been blind.
> they hate the Gospel, they hate being rebuked for their
> iniquitous behaviour, and they hate all those who stand in the way of the
> promotion of their vice.
You're so *cute* when you wax wroth. How could I hate such
a face, all screwed up with tears of anguish, the beads of
spittle providing such a delicate contrast to the fiery
red countenance of your flabby cheeks as they spew?
[...]
> How many of these poor souls were simply deceived by evil homosexual
> propagandist's - who urged them on in their abominations?. How many of them
> might have been convicted of their sin, and repented, finding a deliverance
> from their bondage through the blood of the Lord Jesus Christ - had not the
> baying of the homosexual wolf pack systematically drowned out any voice that
> tried to tell them that homosexuality means damnation?!
Oh, and another thing....Zeus says that, when you die, he's
got a special place for you beisde both Ixion and Narcissus.
Sounds painful. It'll suck to be you.
> For 'Wolves' is an accurate description of many homosexual 'activists'!.
> Snarling packs of rabid destroyers - hurling themselves in slavering fury
> upon anyone who dares condemn their vice!.
Oh, *suuuuuuuure*, I love to be sweetness and light to those
who scream ASSRAMMER and DESTROYER OF SOCIETY in my face.
Funny -- I thought that was supposed to be the *Christian*
purview; something about "turning the other cheek" and all that?
> Such people are controlled by the Demons who inhabit them! - motivated by
> malice, fuelled with hatred of everything that is Pure, Clean, Wholesome and
> Godly, they rejoice in iniquity and work tirelessly to drag as many of their
> fellows to perdition as possible.
> And they are enjoying great success - as the Bible predicted.
Projection becomes you.
mhlife
"Gavin Wheeler" <gavinw...@clara.co.uk> wrote in message
news:so79etonr49lsqn7p...@4ax.com...
> It (sodomy) is not the most common form of sexuality, and is (by
definition) no
> form whatsoever of sexual act between a man and a women. <
But it is a perversion of such a union, "Men with men working that which is
unseemly"
Hence the current furore about 'Gay Marriages'. Such people seem to feel
the need to 'legitimise' their sordid couplings - a vain hope!.
____________
It does not
> pervert 'the 'normal' sexual act between a man and woman' in the sense
> in which you appear to mean that unless you assume to start with that
> homosexuality is a perversion even for homosexuals. <
Sorry - I thought that point was taken as read!. Yes, of course,
homosexuality is an unnatural perversion. Period.
__________________-
Assuming what you
> intend to prove is not good logic, dear heart!<
But you 'assume' lots of things, Gav. You assume that I am not speaking the
truth. you assume that God will not cast you into everlasting torment for
your sins (not just the sin of homosexuality). You assume that the Bible is
not true, that the fulfilment of the end-time prophecies are not imminent,
that the earth will not be consumed by a (Israel centred) nuclear inferno,
that Christ will not return with His angels to judge the living and the
dead.
You can 'assume' whatever you wish. Your assumptions will not save you -
only repentance and forgiveness through the death of Christ can do that.
________________________
> >Marriage is a symbol of the mystical union that will take place between
> >Christ and his 'Bride' (the redeemed church)
>
> Which, oddly enough, consists mainly of men in dresses with a rather
> poor history of sexual morality.
That was the view taken by Jesus - "Scribes, Pharisee's, Hypocrites" -
"Loving to be called by men, Rabbi, Teacher".
What have mumbling, compromising, parson's and priest's got to do with the
gospel?.
___________________________
> The bible doesn't really seem to address that (homosexuality) point, so
my guess is as
> good as yours, isn't it?<
"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be
not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor
effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind." 1Corinthians, Ch 6 v9
That, again, seems perfectly clear - except, of course, to someone
determined not to understand it.
_________________
> Make up your mind - did God give them up to said lusts, or did they
> choose such lusts themselves? This is also very relevant to a certain
> biblical passage you are fond of quoting.
The initial choice is made by the homosexual. I know that much use is made
of the 'I can't help it, I was born this way" lie - but, frankly, that is as
ridiculous as a habitual murderer standing up in court and telling the Jury
that he/she should be found not guilty because "I'm a born killer".
After the choice has been made, conscience will try and rectify the
situation - I suppose that's why so many homosexuals are so furtive. If,
however, one deliberately persist in any sin (not just homosexuality) the
voice of Conscience will wither and die. Hardness of heart and a grim
determination to carry on sinning (No! - not a film!) takes its place.
Then, when all hope is lost, homosexuals (having nothing further to lose)
will militantly proselytise their 'cause', many of them doing so in a spirit
of grim determination - knowing in their hearts that they are dammed - but
unable to repent.
That is a very chilling prospect - and I (sincerely) hope that you are not
sufficiently hardened in your sin to be unable to hear the voice of Jesus
calling you to repentance and salvation.
______________
> And, while we are on the subject, when did you make a conscious choice
> to be heterosexual rather than gay?
Well, I made no conscious choice not to molest children, or carry out armed
robberies, or mow down crowds of shoppers at bus stops - but, happily, I
don't feel the urge to do any of those things.
Neither do I feel the urge to have sex with a man. You appear quite unable
to grasp that not having homosexual desires is, in fact, 'normal'.
_________________
Are you admitting to having felt
> the temptation to be gay at some point<
Er, no. (though, of course, that is the Number One innuendo, spat by
homosexuals at their critics)
________
- or are you just
> asserting that homosexuals choose their sexuality despite the fact
> that you never chose yours?
(Phew!, you are hard going!) As I keep (patiently) attempting to explain,
You did not 'Choose' sexuality. You chose sin. You were not 'born' a
homosexual, you chose to have sexual relations with another man.
____________________
> Yeah, all us irreligious homosexuals like Michaelangelo, sickening
> ain't it? Thankfully, you are fully in support of religious freedom,
> aren't you 'Reverend'?
Me?!
__________________
> >One of the saddest things I found on the 'net was a site containing
messages
> >from HIV infected homosexuals.
>
> Which is why you chose to poke fun at them on uk.glb. Naturally. I'm
> sure it makes sense to you.
Ah, those alleged 'posts' again!
_____________
> Judging by the massive failure of 'ex-gay' ministeries worldwide, not
> many, if by that you mean 'how many would have been able to pretend
> that they were heterosexual.'
Yes, the bondage of homosexuality does seem to be a difficult yoke to escape
from. Perhaps, therefore, it's far better not to get involved with such
practices in the first place.
However, deliverance from homosexuality is possible - and there are some
wonderful testimonies to that fact on the Web. You might find them
inspirational.
_________________-
On the other hand, many gay christians
> take a good look at the bible and realise that it is not, in fact, in
> conflict with their sexuality.
Then, they're obviously not studying the KJV - or any of the other
'mainstream' translations.
______________
.. and turn into far better christians
> than certain self-proclaimed 'Reverends'.
I'm a very poor Christian, Gavin. No-one knows that better than I.
But God still loves me. Isn't that amazing?!.
What is more to the point, He loves you as well - and could set you free
from homosexuality and give you the peace of knowing that all your past sins
were covered by the Blood of Calvary - if you would only ask Him to.
Trampus
> In article <9c21d0$bi94j$1...@ID-60076.news.dfncis.de>, "Trampus"
> <babyd...@postmaster.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >> Which doesn't harm or affect you in any way. So why are you obsessed
with
> >>it?
> >
> >When you send your ten or eleven year old son on his own into a PUBLIC
> >urinal, because he is a big boy now and doesn't always need his dad
around...
>
> Well, that was damned foolish. I would never do such a thing.
>
> >...and he comes out in fear and disgust,crying, because he has just seen
one
> >man with his penis in the arse of another man, then it does affect me and
it
> >does harm my son, but not as much harm as i and the other fathers did to
the
> >two perverts.
>
> Great; so your son will probably grow up to be a violent, abusive bigot,
> as well.
and the other two Dads showed the two shirt tail lifters how to play
football inside a Public Urinal.
>
> >Public toilets are for the passing of urine and faeces into the public
sewer
> >service, they are not for courting queers or for acts of buggery.
>
> I'm glad to hear that you support same-sex marriage.
Marriage is purely for the raising of children in a nurturing way.
>
> You make it clear with your namecalling that your bigotry has nothing to
> do with the alleged incident.
Giving a couple of queers instruction in the finer points of football is not
bigotry!
Education yes, bigotry never!
Trampus
"Gavin Wheeler" <gavinw...@clara.co.uk> wrote in message > >> Public
toilets are for the passing of urine and faeces into the public sewer
> >> service, they are not for courting queers or for acts of buggery.
> >
> >I guess they're not for washing one's hands, either, or blowing
> >one's nose.
Handbowls are for washing the hands in, blowing ones nose can be done
anywhere!
>
> Or changing nappies,
How often do fathers need to change nappies?
changing clothes,
I always change my clothes at home or in a hotel bedroom, I have never had
occasion to change them in a Public Toilet, but if I absolutely had to do
it, then I would use a cubicle with the door shut!
sheltering from the rain...
Try a shop doorway or a bus shelter,
> Yes, he has a limited imagination, we could have guessed that!
You are the one with a limited imagination and I am not guessing!
Letao
"mhlife" <mhl...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> Such people are controlled by the Demons who inhabit them! - motivated by
> malice, fuelled with hatred of everything that is Pure, Clean, Wholesome and
> Godly, they rejoice in iniquity...
Don't beat yourself up about it...there's medication that can help you
control your delusions.
Until you start your meds, we won't be talking any further.
--
Safe journey,
Letao
djs...@yahoo.com
mhlife
____________
Come, Trampus! - show a little charity!
With just a touch of imagination, one can easily see how one's actions in a
public lavatory could be misinterpreted by an unsympathetic observer.
For example:
A man is hurrying to MFI (is advertising allowed on this group?), in order
to purchase a new flat pack kitchen in their Super, Second Sunday after
Epiphany, Sale - when, to his horror, he realises that the zip on his
trousers has broken and his penis is in imminent danger of escaping the
confines of his underwear.
Mortified, the keen DIY'er nips into some public conveniences that are
located (conveniently) close at hand, to remedy the situation. Due to the
financial constraints placed upon the local Council by central government,
the municipal authority had to choose between funding a Racism Awareness
campaign for it's employee's, or repairing the continual vandalism to the
Borough's public toilets.
Happily, common sense prevailed - and, though the lavatory cubicles had no
functioning locks (or, in some cases, doors), the Council Refuse Operatives
were able to empty their wheelie bin's in atmosphere of multi-racial
harmony.
The hapless, would be, shopper - thankful to be out of public view, selects
one of the cubicles (that just happens to be door-less) and sets to work,
examining the broken teeth of his zip fastener.
Realising that he will not be able to mend the garment in situ, and anxious
to be on his way lest the display model 'Glamme-Cuisine' (with high gloss
laminate doors) kitchen on which his wife has set her heart, be sold to
another purchaser, he decides to remove his trousers in order to effect a
repair.
As he sits there, struggling with the recalcitrant fastener, he becomes
aware of a sudden commotion in the entrance to the lavatories. He looks up
in alarm, as a man rushes in and almost tears off his own trousers.
The stranger wastes no time in filling one of the cracked hand washing
basins with cold water (more council cut backs!) and plunges his trousers
in - swishing them around in an agitated fashion.
Our hero - all thoughts of his broken zip banished, looks on in amazement -
until the man at the sink, noticing him for the first time, turns and
explains, sheepishly, that he was walking near the lavatories when a Painter
& Decorator (working on the first floor windows of a nearby property) had
inadvertently dropped a large can of Nitromors (more advertising) paint
stripper!.
Mercifully, the extremely caustic fluid had narrowly missed directly hitting
the unfortunate pedestrian - landing, instead, at his feet. however, as the
man explained, this was bad enough!. The paint stripper had extensively
splashed his trousers (which were expensive - and nearly new!).
Overcoming his initial impulse to topple the careless decorator from his
lofty perch, he ran, instead, into the nearby toilets in order to try and
salvage his trousers by immersing them in water.
"Besides", says the man, "Some of that paint stuff has soaked right through
and burned my thigh! - here, just take a look at that!"
With that, he moves across to the trouserless occupant of the cubicle, in
order to show him the extent of his burns.
The man in the cubicle takes a close look at the injured thigh - agreeing
that the inflammation looks very nasty, indeed.
"And it's not just my leg", continues the Decorator's victim, "some of the
wretched stuff seems to have splashed onto my buttocks", adding, "Here, do
me a favour, will you - just take a quick look, in case you think I'll need
medical treatment".
With that, he whips down his underpants, and bends down in front of his Good
Samaritan, presenting his badly inflamed posterior for inspection.
Luckily for him, the man with the broken zip fastener is a keen attendee at
the local St John's Ambulance Brigade - and immediately rises to his feet in
order to render what assistance he can.
Carefully, trying to be a gentle as he possibly could, he caresses the
damaged buttocks of his new acquaintance in order to ascertain the extent of
the injuries- and was just about to pronounce his opinion, when, to the
amazement of both men, several police officers enter the toilets and
promptly arrest them both for gross indecency!.
Have you ever heard of anything so ridiculous?!
This, Trampus, is how easily events can be misconstrued! - and is
symptomatic of a Police State!.
We need to apply good, old fashioned, common sense in such matters.
mhlife
"Letao" <le...@fire.and.fishing.net> wrote in message
news:letao-4C11A2....@wbnws01.core.ne.rr.com...
_____________
So, you won't be putting any spare change into your Missionary Sunday
envelope, then?.
I'll cross you off the list, shall I?.
Peter
says...
It's fear of spiders in general, not just the dangerous ones. Using your
logic, how would you describe someone who fears male homosexuals but not
females?
And may I point out that homophobia is generally NOT used to describe
fear of homosexuals, but rather dislike or hatred.
It's a doubly inappropriate word.
Gennem
>
> "Rob Coats" <rcoats[@]iinet[.]net[.]au> wrote in message
> news:sgt6ets1rlcqid40r...@4ax.com...
>
> >
> > evidence that homosexuality is a deprived subhuman act... ie. NONE.<
>
> Dunno about that. I do know that I feel Gods presence when I pray - and
> that He answers prayers (if not always in the way I demand)
>
> is more than blind belief - it is living 'entity' (for want of a better
> word) that changes lives and changes hearts.
>
All those openly gay Christians and clergy aren't "real christians"?
[snip]
> _______________
>
> > >Similarly, homosexuality is rightly recognised as a depraved and sinful
> act
> > >by these (and many other) faiths.
> >
> > People of faith are deprived subhuman elements.<
>
> Really!? - you do surprise me!. there was I thinking that Christians were
> the main influence for good in this country!. Fancy!.
Including all those christians in prison?
[snip]
> _______________
>
> >Logic and rationality.<
>
> Mmmmm! - I've heard of those concepts!
>
> They often flow (in quite inordinate quantities!) from the mouths of those
> who are seeking to perpetrate some obscenity, or other, on society!. The
> homosexual AOC activists tend to have such quasi-rationalistic rhetoric
> perfected.
>
> My problem is that I keep coming up against the rather stern words of the
> Apostle, Paul - who noted the following comments about homosexuals in his
> letter to the Roman Christians;
>
> "For this cause God gave them (homosexuals) up unto vile affections: for
> even their women did change the natural use into that which is against
> nature:
>
> And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in
> their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly,
> and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was
> meet..."
Hypothetically, if your religion did not exist what would be your excuse for
your homophobia?
>
> ______________________________
>
> >Try using it,<
>
> Er, Pass,
>
> "And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my
> people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her
> plagues"
> ______________
>
> you may discover a
> > wonderful thing called rational morals,<
>
> Yes, I dare say - but will it deliver me from the Plagues visited upon the
> ungodly? - that's what I want to know.
>
> ___________________
>
> and a quirky little tool
> > called the scientific method.<
>
> Is that what you're pinning your Plague deliverance theory on?...
>
> ___________________
>
> You know, the only way to discern the
> > truth about the world around us.<
>
> Yes, yes yes!! - but what about the Plagues????
Oh, you're one of those "AIDS is gods punishment on gays" nutters.
[snip]
--
**********************************************************************
Young Earth Idiot of the Moment
.... ice crystals only grow when an outside agent [God] is driving the
process against the natural decay process described by the second
law of thermodynamics. - Institute for Creation Research
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-162.htm
Fenris
<babyd...@postmaster.co.uk> wrote:
>> Well, that was damned foolish. I would never do such a thing.
>That is not foolish, that is what being a parent involves, making decisions.
You failed to exercise appropriate caution with your son.
>> Great; so your son will probably grow up to be a violent, abusive bigot,
>> as well.
>No way, he and the sons of the other two dads stood outside, whilst his Dad
>and the other two Dads showed the two shirt tail lifters how to play
>football inside a Public Urinal.
Totally inappropriate. You could not simply have summoned the police.
>> >Public toilets are for the passing of urine and faeces into the public
>sewer
>> >service, they are not for courting queers or for acts of buggery.
>>
>> I'm glad to hear that you support same-sex marriage.
>
>Marriage is purely for the raising of children in a nurturing way.
You have a lot to learn about ethnology.
>> You make it clear with your namecalling that your bigotry has nothing to
>> do with the alleged incident.
>
>Giving a couple of queers instruction in the finer points of football is
not bigotry!
>Education yes, bigotry never!
I feel sorry for your son.
Mosley Jones III
> In article <3AE3FEF3...@home.com>, "Theodore A. Kaldis"
"The
> >> irrational fear of ..."
> >
> >Still doesn't cut it. What is called "homophobia" by the poofs and the
PC
> >mob isn't a phobia at all, and there is nothing irrational about it. It
is
> >merely the natural revulsion a normal person has to the demented practise
of
> >homosexual behaviour.
>
it?
>
In 1970 the Kinsey Institute interviewed 565 white gays in San Francisco:
25% of them admitted to having had sex with boys aged 16 or younger while
they themselves were at least 21.
In The Gay Report, 23% of the gays and 6% of the lesbians admitted to sexual
interaction with youth less than 16 years of age.
Mosley Jones III
>
> "Fenris" <nos...@emptymind.com> wrote in message
> news:nospam-2304...@pool-63.50.229.184.phnx.grid.net...
> > In article <3AE3FEF3...@home.com>, "Theodore A. Kaldis"
> > <kal...@home.com> wrote:
> >
> > >James Doemer wrote:
> > >
> > >> Just to point out ... The definition of Phobia, in this context, is,
> "The
> > >> irrational fear of ..."
> > >
> > >Still doesn't cut it. What is called "homophobia" by the poofs and the
> PC
> > >mob isn't a phobia at all, and there is nothing irrational about it.
It
> is
> > >merely the natural revulsion a normal person has to the demented
practise
> of
> > >homosexual behaviour.
> >
> > Which doesn't harm or affect you in any way. So why are you obsessed
with
> it?
>
> urinal, because he is a big boy now and doesn't always need his dad
> and he comes out in fear and disgust,crying, because he has just seen one
> man with his penis in the arse of another man, then it does affect me and
it
> does harm my son, but not as much harm as i and the other fathers did to
the
> two perverts.
>
sewer
> service, they are not for courting queers or for acts of buggery.
>
>
Yes their are toilets near me that are advertised for homosexual sex on the
internet, while the city of swan advertise them for kids to play on. I asked
them to place signes warning people of the
dangers, they refused. A few weeks later a dead body was found at the park,
Mosley Jones III
> In article <9c21d0$bi94j$1...@ID-60076.news.dfncis.de>, "Trampus"
> <babyd...@postmaster.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >> Which doesn't harm or affect you in any way. So why are you obsessed
with
> >>it?
> >
> >When you send your ten or eleven year old son on his own into a PUBLIC
> >urinal, because he is a big boy now and doesn't always need his dad
around...
>
> Well, that was damned foolish. I would never do such a thing.
So your are blaming the parent now?
what about kids that may go to the toi;et by themselfs?
should they be raped because the parents did not acompany them, or should
homosexulas clan u[p their act
Animeg3282
>Still doesn't cut it. What is called "homophobia" by the poofs and the PC
>mob isn't a phobia at all, and there is nothing irrational about it. It is
>merely the natural revulsion a normal person has to the demented practise of
>homosexual behaviour.
>--
So you are saying that normal people obsess over what a pair of strangers do
behind closed doors and imagine it over and over with a crazed gleam in their
eyes?
Hana no Kaitou
http://members.fortunecity.com/animeg3282 <---Fancy Lala Club!
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fancy_lala <--and a mailing list too. Hey, there
are worse uses for a .sig.
James Doemer
As do I. First burdened with a father lacking common sense enough to at
least check out the bathrroom, before sending his young son in, then showing
the boy exactly what level of cowardice his father can sink to. Quite
frankly, I doubt highly that the event even took place. Just another
troll.
James Doemer
"Peter" <peter....@bigpond.com.au> wrote in message
news:MPG.154f776f2...@news.bigpond.com...
Not really. Dislike and hatred are often based in fear.
David L. Moffitt
"Theodore A. Kaldis" <kal...@home.com> wrote in message news:3AE3FEF3...@home.com...
> James Doemer wrote:
>
> > Just to point out ... The definition of Phobia, in this context, is, "The
> > irrational fear of ..."
>
> Still doesn't cut it. What is called "homophobia" by the poofs and the PC
> mob isn't a phobia at all, and there is nothing irrational about it. It is
> merely the natural revulsion a normal person has to the demented practise of
> homosexual behaviour.
> --
> kal...@worldnet.att.net
%%%% I couldn't have said it better myself!!!
David L. Moffitt
"Fenris" <nos...@emptymind.com> wrote in message news:nospam-2304...@pool-63.50.229.184.phnx.grid.net...
> In article <9c15qn$6oku$1...@newssvr05-en0.news.prodigy.com>, "David L.
> Moffitt" <moff...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>
> >> "phobia" means "fear of", so homophobia can mean either "fear of men" or
> >> "far of the same", neither of which seems to cut it.
> >
> >%%%% Maybe it should be faggotphobia or queerphobia------
>
> From the guy who denies that he hates.
>
> >Nah, it just doesn't have that ring to it! What do I have to fear?
>
> Your own desires. Please get help, David.
%%%% revulsion is not hate. You need to deal with your heterophobia.
entropy
What if he had seen a hetero couple having sex in a public park? Would you
have felt as hostile towards them?
Danny.
"Trampus" <babyd...@postmaster.co.uk> wrote in message
news:9c21d0$bi94j$1...@ID-60076.news.dfncis.de...
>
> "Fenris" <nos...@emptymind.com> wrote in message
> news:nospam-2304...@pool-63.50.229.184.phnx.grid.net...
> > In article <3AE3FEF3...@home.com>, "Theodore A. Kaldis"
> > <kal...@home.com> wrote:
> >
> > >James Doemer wrote:
> > >
> > >> Just to point out ... The definition of Phobia, in this context, is,
> "The
> > >> irrational fear of ..."
> > >
> > >Still doesn't cut it. What is called "homophobia" by the poofs and the
> PC
> > >mob isn't a phobia at all, and there is nothing irrational about it.
It
> is
> > >merely the natural revulsion a normal person has to the demented
practise
> of
> > >homosexual behaviour.
> >
> > Which doesn't harm or affect you in any way. So why are you obsessed
with
> it?
>
> When you send your ten or eleven year old son on his own into a PUBLIC
> urinal, because he is a big boy now and doesn't always need his dad
around,
> and he comes out in fear and disgust,crying, because he has just seen one
> man with his penis in the arse of another man, then it does affect me and
it
> does harm my son, but not as much harm as i and the other fathers did to
the
> two perverts.
>
stillsunny
<moff...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>
>"Fenris" <nos...@emptymind.com> wrote in message news:nospam-2304...@pool-63.50.229.184.phnx.grid.net...
>> In article <9c15qn$6oku$1...@newssvr05-en0.news.prodigy.com>, "David L.
>> Moffitt" <moff...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> "phobia" means "fear of", so homophobia can mean either "fear of men" or
>> >> "far of the same", neither of which seems to cut it.
>> >
>> >%%%% Maybe it should be faggotphobia or queerphobia------
>>
>> From the guy who denies that he hates.
>>
>> >Nah, it just doesn't have that ring to it! What do I have to fear?
>>
>> Your own desires. Please get help, David.
>
>%%%% revulsion is not hate. You need to deal with your heterophobia.
This thread is currently crossposted to:
aus.politics,alt.politics.homosexuality,uk.politics.misc,alt.atheism,can.politics
Do you mind if I ask which newsgroup you're posting from?
Sunny
David L. Moffitt
"Clay Colwell" <er...@io.com> wrote in message news:uCXE6.176330$lj4.5...@news6.giganews.com...
>
%%%% Even pagan religions have sanctions against it!
> > There are some Truths, so self evident, they transcend creed. 'Thou shalt
> > not kill" is as applicable to Muslims, as it is to Christians, as it is to
> > Jews, as it is to......etc.
>
> > Similarly, homosexuality is rightly recognised as a depraved and sinful act
> > by these (and many other) faiths.
>
> Are you then implying that this assertion of yours is a "Truth,
> so self evident, [it transcends] creed"? Given that your first
> premise was false, this premise is clearly false as well.
>
> > The Biblical viewpoint is one of complete and uncompromising condemnation.
>
> Highly debatable, especially when looking at the original texts
> and contexts.
>
> > Homosexual 'marriage' is a blasphemous travesty of the union ordained by
> > God, homosexual lusts defile the perpetrator - and legislation in favour of
> > those lusts defiles the nation that suffers such laws to be enacted.
>
> I frankly don't give a shit about religious marriage. What I want
> is civil marriage. Of course, I find it interesting that Christian
> churhces make the sacrament of marriage available to murderers,
> thieves, and child molesters, but not to gayfolk. What a strange
> distinction for them to make, eh?
%%%% If see marriage as a past murderer, thief, molester ect. you can or have asked for forgiveness and have parted ways with your
sin. If you ask to be married as a recognition of a lifestyle that is an abomination to the church is the same as asking the church
to sanction murder, theft and molestation.
> > The campaign by UK activists to lower the age of consent to such acts, thus
> > placing children of 14 at the mercy of predatory homosexuals, is
> > breathtakingly wicked, and it is a measure of the moral depths to which this
> > nation has sunk that some homosexuals feel able to call, publicly, for these
> > things.
>
> Said campaign was to make equitable the age of consent for hetero-
> sexual acts and homosexual acts. If you're talking about the one
> I'm talking about, (and pardon me for borrowing a cup of your
> rhetoric), then little girls have always been getting legally
> diddled by perverted old men legally in the UK. I don't recall
> seeing you up-in-arms about that.
Anonymous
Ned Latham wrote:
> Peter wrote in <MPG.154e5abba...@news.bigpond.com>:
> >
> > The word homophobia is intended to indicate antipathy to homosexual
> > folk, I believe.
> >
> > Unfortunately it doesn't do that - "homo" means man in Latin and "same"
> > in Greek. That's why we have "homo sapiens" meaning "thinking man" and
> > "homophone" meaning "same sound" (to describe words sounding alike, such
> > as "by", "bye", "buy", and well, "bi").
> >
> > "phobia" means "fear of", so homophobia can mean either "fear of men" or
> > "far of the same", neither of which seems to cut it.
>
> Perzackly, Peter. It's really a propaganda word, coined by some semi-
> literate PC junky or poofter who wanted to denigrate objections to
> the perverted nature of homosexuality.
Funny then why does it have quantifiable symptoms?
New Study Links Homophobia with Homosexual Arousal
http://www.apa.org/releases/homophob.html
Clayton Colwell
>
> "Theodore A. Kaldis" <kal...@home.com> wrote in message news:3AE3FEF3...@home.com...
> > James Doemer wrote:
> >
> > > Just to point out ... The definition of Phobia, in this context, is, "The
> > > irrational fear of ..."
> >
> > Still doesn't cut it. What is called "homophobia" by the poofs and the PC
> > mob isn't a phobia at all, and there is nothing irrational about it. It is
> > merely the natural revulsion a normal person has to the demented practise of
> > homosexual behaviour.
>
A poor way with words isn't really something to brag about.
Clayton Colwell
> Marriage is purely for the raising of children in a nurturing way.
If true, I suggest that you start stumping to annul the
marriages of couples who are sterile, whose wives have
undergone menopause, or who are just too darn selfish to
breed.
David L. Moffitt
"Gennem" <REMOVE_THI...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:9c2jdt$9dc$1...@gnamma.connect.com.au...
> mhlife wrote:
> >
> > "Rob Coats" <rcoats[@]iinet[.]net[.]au> wrote in message
> > news:sgt6ets1rlcqid40r...@4ax.com...
> >
> > > >Homosexuality is recognised by most major religions a grave sin.
> > >
> > > So. The evidence for theistice belief is about as concrete as the
> > > evidence that homosexuality is a deprived subhuman act... ie. NONE.<
> >
> > Dunno about that. I do know that I feel Gods presence when I pray - and
> > that He answers prayers (if not always in the way I demand)
> >
> > In the end it all come down to 'Faith' (a much maligned word) - but 'Faith'
> > is more than blind belief - it is living 'entity' (for want of a better
> > word) that changes lives and changes hearts.
> >
> > That, I suppose, is why homosexuals hate it so much
>
> All those openly gay Christians and clergy aren't "real christians"?
%%%% Correct!
> [snip]
>
>
> > _______________
> >
> > > >Similarly, homosexuality is rightly recognised as a depraved and sinful
> > act
> > > >by these (and many other) faiths.
> > >
> > > People of faith are deprived subhuman elements.<
> >
> > Really!? - you do surprise me!. there was I thinking that Christians were
> > the main influence for good in this country!. Fancy!.
>
> Including all those christians in prison?
%%%% If they were christian they would not have gotten in prison.
%%%%% If you are a christian you do not practice a risky lifestyle or knowingly associate with those who do.
Would Christ have submitted to or performed sodomy or used IV drugs or approved of those who did (do)?
Anonymous
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
> James Doemer wrote:
>
> > Just to point out ... The definition of Phobia, in this context, is, "The
> > irrational fear of ..."
>
> Still doesn't cut it. What is called "homophobia" by the poofs and the PC
> mob isn't a phobia at all, and there is nothing irrational about it. It is
> merely the natural revulsion a normal person has to the demented practise of
> homosexual behaviour.
Well you are a homophobic apologist, it is no different then any
bigot that says well the blacks were better off as slaves. You have
to make excuses for your bigotry, and need to control others if
they have no informed consent and must be protected from their
actions by the big old he man. In other words the alpha male
monkey head chimp.
Anonymous
Mosley Jones III wrote:
> Hear Hear
You two want to get a room, I don't think we want to see your
mating rituals.
David L. Moffitt
"Fenris" <nos...@emptymind.com> wrote in message news:nospam-2304...@pool-63.50.230.45.phnx.grid.net...
> In article <slrn9e8hfl....@messy.ned.net>, nen...@apex.met.au wrote:
>
> >> Which doesn't harm or affect you in any way. So why are you obsessed with
> >> it?
> >
>
> Never said it was. Kaldis is obsessed.
>
> >When the poofters stop shoving it in everyone's face, the hooraw will die
> down quick enough.
>
> Yeh, and if the niggruhs had stayed quietly in the backs of the buses
> where they belonged.....
%%%% Well-well-well----A heterophobe and a racist too!
David L. Moffitt
"Neil Tupper" <neil_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:_1_E6.30776$Zn4.3...@news1.rdc1.ab.home.com...
>
> "Ned Latham" <nen...@news.apex.met.au> wrote in message
> news:slrn9e8hfl....@messy.ned.net...
> > Fenris wrote in
> <nospam-2304...@pool-63.50.229.184.phnx.grid.net>:
> > > Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
> > > > James Doemer wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Just to point out ... The definition of Phobia, in this context, is,
> > > > > "The irrational fear of ..."
> > > >
> > > > Still doesn't cut it. What is called "homophobia" by the poofs and the
> > > > PC mob isn't a phobia at all, and there is nothing irrational about
> it.
> > > > It is merely the natural revulsion a normal person has to the demented
> > > > practise of homosexual behaviour.
> > >
> with
> > > it?
> >
> > face, the hooraw will die down quick enough.
> >
>
> stem from the conflicts generated by cultural biases that people with
> unresolved latent homosexual tendencies are burdened by. I, and most
> straight men that I know, while not wishing to participate in homosexual
> acts, neither view them with "revulsion" nor consider them "demented"
>
>
> Neil
%%%% That's you feminine side speaking---right!
>
Anonymous
Trampus wrote:
> "Fenris" <nos...@emptymind.com> wrote in message
> news:nospam-2304...@pool-63.50.229.184.phnx.grid.net...
> > In article <3AE3FEF3...@home.com>, "Theodore A. Kaldis"
> > <kal...@home.com> wrote:
> >
> > >James Doemer wrote:
> > >
> > >> Just to point out ... The definition of Phobia, in this context, is,
> "The
> > >> irrational fear of ..."
> > >
> > >Still doesn't cut it. What is called "homophobia" by the poofs and the
> PC
> > >mob isn't a phobia at all, and there is nothing irrational about it. It
> is
> > >merely the natural revulsion a normal person has to the demented practise
> of
> > >homosexual behaviour.
> >
> > Which doesn't harm or affect you in any way. So why are you obsessed with
> it?
>
> When you send your ten or eleven year old son on his own into a PUBLIC
> urinal, because he is a big boy now and doesn't always need his dad around,
> and he comes out in fear and disgust,crying, because he has just seen one
> man with his penis in the arse of another man, then it does affect me and it
> does harm my son, but not as much harm as i and the other fathers did to the
> two perverts.
>
> Public toilets are for the passing of urine and faeces into the public sewer
> service, they are not for courting queers or for acts of buggery.
Number one cowards like you have to hide behind children to do your
battles for you because you have no facts or balls to faces homosexuals
with out using your urban myths. Number two if you taught your child
explicit sexual education from a very early age there would be no surprise,
and the USA would not be the very last country in the industrialized
world to protect their children from teen pregnancy.
David L. Moffitt
"Fenris" <nos...@emptymind.com> wrote in message news:nospam-2304...@pool-63.50.212.229.phnx.grid.net...
> In article <9c21d0$bi94j$1...@ID-60076.news.dfncis.de>, "Trampus"
> <babyd...@postmaster.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >>it?
> >
> >When you send your ten or eleven year old son on his own into a PUBLIC
>
> Well, that was damned foolish. I would never do such a thing.
>
> >man with his penis in the arse of another man, then it does affect me and it
> >does harm my son, but not as much harm as i and the other fathers did to the
> >two perverts.
>
> as well.
>
> >service, they are not for courting queers or for acts of buggery.
>
>
> do with the alleged incident.
%%%% Sounded to me his "bigotry" had everything to do with the incident. His child would not be traumatized if the vile people had
gotten a motel room and not performed their perversions in front of innocent children!
Clayton Colwell
>
> "Gavin Wheeler" <gavinw...@clara.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:so79etonr49lsqn7p...@4ax.com...
> > It (sodomy) is not the most common form of sexuality, and is (by
> definition) no
> > form whatsoever of sexual act between a man and a women. <
>
> But it is a perversion of such a union, "Men with men working that which is
> unseemly"
Don't you have some woman to kick out of a position of authority
over men?
> Hence the current furore about 'Gay Marriages'. Such people seem to feel
> the need to 'legitimise' their sordid couplings - a vain hope!.
"Legitimize"? More like "protect". That's *my* motivation.
[...]
> Sorry - I thought that point was taken as read!. Yes, of course,
> homosexuality is an unnatural perversion. Period.
No. It is not. Period.
Man, ain't bald assertions wonderful?
[...]
> But you 'assume' lots of things, Gav. You assume that I am not speaking the
> truth.
If it's truth, feel free to prove it. Free hint: "it says so
in my book" is not proof.
> you assume that God will not cast you into everlasting torment for
> your sins (not just the sin of homosexuality).
Well, ya got that right.
> You assume that the Bible is not true,
And that too. Sure, there's plenty of good stuff to be gleaned
from it, but it ain't infallible, that's for sure.
> that the fulfilment of the end-time prophecies are not imminent,
They've been "imminent" for millennia. <looking around> Nope,
the universe is still intact.
> that the earth will not be consumed by a (Israel centred) nuclear inferno,
You've been sharing Hal Lindsey's acid visions, haven't you?
> that Christ will not return with His angels to judge the living and the
> dead.
Yup. I assume that's true as well, just like I assume that Cthulhu
isn't going to fly out of the nearest black hole and consume the
Earth tomorrow at 9:12am CST.
> You can 'assume' whatever you wish.
As can you. Occam's Razor would need quite a bit of sharpening
after dealing with *your* assumptions, though.
> Your assumptions will not save you -
> only repentance and forgiveness through the death of Christ can do that.
That's *your* assumption, dear one.
[...]
> > The bible doesn't really seem to address that (homosexuality) point, so
> my guess is as
> > good as yours, isn't it?<
>
> "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be
> not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor
> effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind." 1Corinthians, Ch 6 v9
>
> That, again, seems perfectly clear - except, of course, to someone
> determined not to understand it.
Tell us of your knowledge of "malakos" and "arsenokoitai".
[...]
> > Make up your mind - did God give them up to said lusts, or did they
> > choose such lusts themselves? This is also very relevant to a certain
> > biblical passage you are fond of quoting.
>
> The initial choice is made by the homosexual.
What choice? To be sexually attracted to men? Is that what
you're fussing about?
[...]
> After the choice has been made, conscience will try and rectify the
> situation - I suppose that's why so many homosexuals are so furtive.
Your assumption is noted and ridiculed.
> If,
> however, one deliberately persist in any sin (not just homosexuality)
Um, like bearing false witness about the personal experience of
homosexuals? You've been doing a bang-up job of *that* so far.
> the
> voice of Conscience will wither and die. Hardness of heart and a grim
> determination to carry on sinning (No! - not a film!) takes its place.
> Then, when all hope is lost, homosexuals (having nothing further to lose)
> will militantly proselytise their 'cause', many of them doing so in a spirit
> of grim determination - knowing in their hearts that they are dammed - but
> unable to repent.
Oh please. It's *Christians* who recruit, not gayfolk. And it's
Christians whose chosen behavior is Constitutionally protected.
Heavens, given the arguments some of them have presented against
gayfolk, it's a wonder that protection is available to Christians
as all, since they obviously didn't reap what they were sowing.
> That is a very chilling prospect - and I (sincerely) hope that you are not
> sufficiently hardened in your sin to be unable to hear the voice of Jesus
> calling you to repentance and salvation.
And I humbly pray that you turn from your sin and lies and
embrace the love and redemption available through Zeus.
> > And, while we are on the subject, when did you make a conscious choice
> > to be heterosexual rather than gay?
>
> Well, I made no conscious choice not to molest children, or carry out armed
> robberies, or mow down crowds of shoppers at bus stops - but, happily, I
> don't feel the urge to do any of those things.
And, jeepers! Neither do I, nor do the vast majority of gayfolk.
Amazing how that works.
> Neither do I feel the urge to have sex with a man. You appear quite unable
> to grasp that not having homosexual desires is, in fact, 'normal'.
Neither is typing posts to USENET, but I haven't seen you wringing
your hands over *that* one.
>
> Are you admitting to having felt
> > the temptation to be gay at some point<
>
> Er, no. (though, of course, that is the Number One innuendo, spat by
> homosexuals at their critics)
Innuendo? It derives strictly from your assertion that gayfolk
deliberately choose their sexual orientation (implying that
*everyone* chooses their sexual orientation, including hetero-
sexuals such as yourself).
> - or are you just
> > asserting that homosexuals choose their sexuality despite the fact
> > that you never chose yours?
>
> (Phew!, you are hard going!) As I keep (patiently) attempting to explain,
> You did not 'Choose' sexuality. You chose sin. You were not 'born' a
> homosexual, you chose to have sexual relations with another man.
You're not very good at listening to people, are you? Your
Bible must be clogging your ears. I suggest you see a specialist.
[...]
> > Judging by the massive failure of 'ex-gay' ministeries worldwide, not
> > many, if by that you mean 'how many would have been able to pretend
> > that they were heterosexual.'
>
> Yes, the bondage of homosexuality does seem to be a difficult yoke to escape
> from. Perhaps, therefore, it's far better not to get involved with such
> practices in the first place.
The convenient logic of the con man -- "if something good happened,
I caused it. If something bad happened, *you* caused it, you person
of little faith."
> However, deliverance from homosexuality is possible - and there are some
> wonderful testimonies to that fact on the Web. You might find them
> inspirational.
The vast majority are a crock.
[...]
> I'm a very poor Christian, Gavin. No-one knows that better than I.
And you're spending an awful lot of time trying to convince the
rest of us of that fact. Thanks, but we've figured it out already.
> But God still loves me. Isn't that amazing?!.
Yeah, because everyone else thinks you're an asshole.
> What is more to the point, He loves you as well - and could set you free
> from homosexuality and give you the peace of knowing that all your past sins
> were covered by the Blood of Calvary - if you would only ask Him to.
Been there, done that, didn't get the T-shirt, realized that
I didn't *need* the T-shirt.
mhlife
"Anonymous" <rema...@anon.xg.nu> wrote in message
news:3AE5628A...@anon.xg.nu...
> New Study Links Homophobia with Homosexual Arousal
> http://www.apa.org/releases/homophob.html<
_____________
Another one?!. These 'studies' are being produced at such a frantic rate
that one wonders at the ability of their pro-homosexual instigator's to keep
up with all the other Politically Correct matters with which they need to
concern themselves.
Since they all seem to be mere variations on the familiar "All opponents of
homosexuality are secretly 'gay' (even if they don't know it)" Anthem of the
homosexual lobby, one wonders why so much time and energy is invested in
their, apparently, ceaseless publication.
There is a plethora of other Causes - all worthy of In-Depth studies!
Sexism,
Ageism,
Sizeism,
Racism (though, to be fair, this is an area that already has quite a few
Studies - though, naturally, not as many as are required)
Why should these victims of bigotry and ignorance be compelled to face their
reactionary opponents without a suitable arsenal of studies to rely on?
Enough, already!
Valuable though studies into Homophobia undoubtedly are, one can have too
much of a good thing.
Anonymous
Trampus wrote:
> That is not foolish, that is what being a parent involves, making decisions.
Anyone that can stick their dick into a women or girl can become
a parent that does not infer upon the recipient of a child some
new found magical qualities that you know more about anything
more then a dingo. If you want to protect you child teach him
explicit sexual education and these things will not shock or faze
him in the least. Children in sexually free societies do not become
emotional about sex they see as a fact of life as if seeing someone
eating. And if you allowed homosexual to have same sex relations as
do heterosexuals there would be no need for the occasional meeting
in a WC they would take it home like a horny couples do. Or might
your son pass a car with the heterosexual perverts from the local
high school bouncing in the back.
> No way, he and the sons of the other two dads stood outside, whilst his Dad
> and the other two Dads showed the two shirt tail lifters how to play
> football inside a Public Urinal.
Yeah that sure teaches your son how to be civilized.
> Marriage is purely for the raising of children in a nurturing way.
So you want to keep your special right to marry who you choose and
deny this right to intersexuals (hermaphrodites born that way) and
homosexuals.
> Giving a couple of queers instruction in the finer points of football is not
> bigotry!
> Education yes, bigotry never!
Well in the USA we have the 2nd Amendment all the homosexuals
I know carry guns now and will kill the Educators, and will have
no problem with convincing a jury that they were in threat of their
lives. So do you feel luck punk, well do ya.
Clayton Colwell
>
> "Fenris" <nos...@emptymind.com> wrote in message
> news:nospam-2304...@pool-63.50.212.229.phnx.grid.net...
> > In article <9c21d0$bi94j$1...@ID-60076.news.dfncis.de>, "Trampus"
> > <babyd...@postmaster.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > >> Which doesn't harm or affect you in any way. So why are you obsessed
> with
> > >>it?
> > >
> > >When you send your ten or eleven year old son on his own into a PUBLIC
> > >urinal, because he is a big boy now and doesn't always need his dad
> around...
> >
> > Well, that was damned foolish. I would never do such a thing.
>
> So your are blaming the parent now?
>
> what about kids that may go to the toi;et by themselfs?
>
> should they be raped because the parents did not acompany them, or should
> homosexulas clan u[p their act
WHo said that children should be raped? *I* certainly didn't,
nor has anyone else in this thread. However, you and your
idiotic cronies are the ones claiming that 10 and 11 year olds
*will* be raped by homosexuals if they go to a toilet by themselves.
It's a laughable premise; it equates to the blood libel against
Jewish folk.
David L. Moffitt
"mhlife" <mhl...@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:9c2hbm$l44$1...@taliesin.netcom.net.uk...> news:9c2dei$bnvnd$4...@ID-60076.news.dfncis.de...
> >
> > "Gavin Wheeler" <gavinw...@clara.co.uk> wrote in message > >> Public
> > toilets are for the passing of urine and faeces into the public sewer
> > > >> service, they are not for courting queers or for acts of buggery.
> > > >
> > > >one's nose.
> >
> > Handbowls are for washing the hands in, blowing ones nose can be done
> > anywhere!
> > >
> > > Or changing nappies,
> > How often do fathers need to change nappies?
> >
> > changing clothes,
> >
> > I always change my clothes at home or in a hotel bedroom, I have never had
> > occasion to change them in a Public Toilet, but if I absolutely had to do
> > it, then I would use a cubicle with the door shut!
> >
> > sheltering from the rain...
> > Try a shop doorway or a bus shelter,
> > > Yes, he has a limited imagination, we could have guessed that!
> >
> > You are the one with a limited imagination and I am not guessing!
>
>
> ____________
>
> Come, Trampus! - show a little charity!
>
> With just a touch of imagination, one can easily see how one's actions in a
> public lavatory could be misinterpreted by an unsympathetic observer.
>
> For example:
>
> A man is hurrying to MFI (is advertising allowed on this group?), in order
> to purchase a new flat pack kitchen in their Super, Second Sunday after
> Epiphany, Sale - when, to his horror, he realises that the zip on his
> trousers has broken and his penis is in imminent danger of escaping the
> confines of his underwear.
>
> Mortified, the keen DIY'er nips into some public conveniences that are
> located (conveniently) close at hand, to remedy the situation. Due to the
> financial constraints placed upon the local Council by central government,
> the municipal authority had to choose between funding a Racism Awareness
> campaign for it's employee's, or repairing the continual vandalism to the
> Borough's public toilets.
>
> Happily, common sense prevailed - and, though the lavatory cubicles had no
> functioning locks (or, in some cases, doors), the Council Refuse Operatives
> were able to empty their wheelie bin's in atmosphere of multi-racial
> harmony.
>
> The hapless, would be, shopper - thankful to be out of public view, selects
> one of the cubicles (that just happens to be door-less) and sets to work,
> examining the broken teeth of his zip fastener.
>
> Realising that he will not be able to mend the garment in situ, and anxious
> to be on his way lest the display model 'Glamme-Cuisine' (with high gloss
> laminate doors) kitchen on which his wife has set her heart, be sold to
> another purchaser, he decides to remove his trousers in order to effect a
> repair.
>
> As he sits there, struggling with the recalcitrant fastener, he becomes
> aware of a sudden commotion in the entrance to the lavatories. He looks up
> in alarm, as a man rushes in and almost tears off his own trousers.
>
> The stranger wastes no time in filling one of the cracked hand washing
> basins with cold water (more council cut backs!) and plunges his trousers
> in - swishing them around in an agitated fashion.
>
> Our hero - all thoughts of his broken zip banished, looks on in amazement -
> until the man at the sink, noticing him for the first time, turns and
> explains, sheepishly, that he was walking near the lavatories when a Painter
> & Decorator (working on the first floor windows of a nearby property) had
> inadvertently dropped a large can of Nitromors (more advertising) paint
> stripper!.
>
> Mercifully, the extremely caustic fluid had narrowly missed directly hitting
> the unfortunate pedestrian - landing, instead, at his feet. however, as the
> man explained, this was bad enough!. The paint stripper had extensively
> splashed his trousers (which were expensive - and nearly new!).
>
> Overcoming his initial impulse to topple the careless decorator from his
> lofty perch, he ran, instead, into the nearby toilets in order to try and
> salvage his trousers by immersing them in water.
>
> "Besides", says the man, "Some of that paint stuff has soaked right through
> and burned my thigh! - here, just take a look at that!"
>
> With that, he moves across to the trouserless occupant of the cubicle, in
> order to show him the extent of his burns.
>
> The man in the cubicle takes a close look at the injured thigh - agreeing
> that the inflammation looks very nasty, indeed.
>
> "And it's not just my leg", continues the Decorator's victim, "some of the
> wretched stuff seems to have splashed onto my buttocks", adding, "Here, do
> me a favour, will you - just take a quick look, in case you think I'll need
> medical treatment".
>
> With that, he whips down his underpants, and bends down in front of his Good
> Samaritan, presenting his badly inflamed posterior for inspection.
>
> Luckily for him, the man with the broken zip fastener is a keen attendee at
> the local St John's Ambulance Brigade - and immediately rises to his feet in
> order to render what assistance he can.
>
> Carefully, trying to be a gentle as he possibly could, he caresses the
> damaged buttocks of his new acquaintance in order to ascertain the extent of
> the injuries- and was just about to pronounce his opinion, when, to the
> amazement of both men, several police officers enter the toilets and
> promptly arrest them both for gross indecency!.
>
> Have you ever heard of anything so ridiculous?!
>
> This, Trampus, is how easily events can be misconstrued! - and is
> symptomatic of a Police State!.
>
> We need to apply good, old fashioned, common sense in such matters.
%%%% The police officer didn't buy your story did he? I don't either! The next time get a room or at least take him home to mummies
with you.
Mosley Jones III
> In article <9c2deh$bnvnd$3...@ID-60076.news.dfncis.de>, "Trampus"
> <babyd...@postmaster.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
decisions.
>
Bulshit.
The hiomosexuals are at fault.
You should not have to check out toilets for homosexuals, they shouild not
be perverting themselfs in toilets.
>
> >> Great; so your son will probably grow up to be a violent, abusive
bigot,
> >> as well.
>
> >No way, he and the sons of the other two dads stood outside, whilst his
Dad
> >and the other two Dads showed the two shirt tail lifters how to play
> >football inside a Public Urinal.
>
> Totally inappropriate. You could not simply have summoned the police.
I thought it was his fault for not going in with him, now you say that the
police should be involved. Are you now saying that homosexuals do harm us,
and that we need the police to protect us from their filthy acts.
>
> >> >Public toilets are for the passing of urine and faeces into the public
> >sewer
> >> >service, they are not for courting queers or for acts of buggery.
> >>
> >> I'm glad to hear that you support same-sex marriage.
> >
> >Marriage is purely for the raising of children in a nurturing way.
>
> You have a lot to learn about ethnology.
Crap, marraige is a hetrosexual thing, if you want to hook up with someone
of the same sex in a toilet dont call it marrage, it is not.
>
> >> You make it clear with your namecalling that your bigotry has nothing
to
> >> do with the alleged incident.
> >
> >Giving a couple of queers instruction in the finer points of football is
> not bigotry!
> >Education yes, bigotry never!
>
> I feel sorry for your son.
aso do i, the sight of two homosexuals paying with shit must of been a
shock.
I feel sorry for any kids that live near you poof. Seeing that homosexual
are at leat 15.9 times as likely to molest than a normal person
David L. Moffitt
"James Doemer" <doe...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:o65F6.4166$5t3.3...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
%%%% I wouldn't equate beating the shit out of 2 pervert fudge packers to being a coward.
David L. Moffitt
"entropy" <entr...@dingoblue.net.au> wrote in message news:3ae4e456$0$25510$7f31...@news01.syd.optusnet.com.au...
>
> What if he had seen a hetero couple having sex in a public park? Would you
> have felt as hostile towards them?
>
> Danny.
%%%% Yes!
David L. Moffitt
"stillsunny" <sun...@sccoast.net> wrote in message news:iip9etc9h525kf7sq...@4ax.com...
%%%% No, I don't mind go ahead and ask.
Mosley Jones III
> In alt.politics.homosexuality Trampus <babyd...@postmaster.co.uk>
wrote:
>
> > "Fenris" <nos...@emptymind.com> wrote in message
> > news:nospam-2304...@pool-63.50.229.184.phnx.grid.net...
> said traumatized 11-year-olds?
I will,
Going by Australian figuers homosexuals are 15.9 times at least as likely to
molest a child.
here is what homosexuals have to say about it
In 1970 the Kinsey Institute interviewed 565 white gays in San Francisco:
25% of them admitted to having had sex with boys aged 16 or younger while
they themselves were at least 21.
In The Gay Report, 23% of the gays and 6% of the lesbians admitted to sexual
interaction with youth less than 16 years of age.
Here is what the NCA reported back to the Australian senate
Of far greater current concern [than allegations of organised paedophile
groups] is the numerous incidents of multiple victim/single offender
paedophiles. In many cases the offender is a homosexual paedophile
(pederast) who surrounds himself with pubescent/adolescent boys. Pederasts
have a greater number of victims than heterosexual paedophiles. As the boys
grow older they are used to recruit other children for the paedophile. What
results is an organised victim group rather than an organised paedophile
group.
>
> > Public toilets are for the passing of urine and faeces into the public
sewer
> > service, they are not for courting queers or for acts of buggery.
>
Mosley Jones III
> On Mon, 23 Apr 2001 20:31:16 GMT, Clay Colwell <er...@io.com> wrote:
>
> >In alt.politics.homosexuality Trampus <babyd...@postmaster.co.uk>
wrote:
> >> When you send your ten or eleven year old son on his own into a PUBLIC
> >> urinal, because he is a big boy now and doesn't always need his dad
around,
>
> irresponsible, and not just because of the courting queens.
>
> >> and he comes out in fear and disgust,crying, because he has just seen
one
> >> man with his penis in the arse of another man, then it does affect me
and it
> >> does harm my son, but not as much harm as i and the other fathers did
to the
> >> two perverts.
> >
> >Nice bit of rhetoric. Care to testify on the frequency of
> >said traumatized 11-year-olds?
>
> case, even if his claim to have beaten up the two gays is a pretty
> sickening inditement of his morals. And I note that even in his
> fantasies he needs the support of a mob to help him beat up two gay
> men caught with their pants down!
> But fair is fair - equality means just that, and laws against
> sex in public places should apply to gays and straights alike. The
> time when gays were pretty well obliged to keep their sex lives
> anonymous and away from their homes (or anywhere else where they might
> be identified) is long past, at least in the UK. 'Public' sex in
> places like saunas, clubs or isolated bits of countryside is pretty
> harmless to the general public, and no concern of the state IMO, but
> sex in public toilets - especially when associated with vandalism such
> as boring holes in cubicle doors and partitions - is a pretty fair
> target for state intervention. IMO, again. It inconveniences other
> individuals for no good reason, causes damage to public property, and
> adds in no small measure to the alienation of gays and straights. It
> is, in short, bloody bad manners!
>
> >> Public toilets are for the passing of urine and faeces into the public
sewer
> >> service, they are not for courting queers or for acts of buggery.
> >
> >I guess they're not for washing one's hands, either, or blowing
> >one's nose.
>
> Yes, he has a limited imagination, we could have guessed that!
this is typical of homosexual logic
its ok to blow your nose in a public place so it must be ok to pervert
yourself as well get real
Of far greater current concern [than allegations of organised paedophile
groups] is the numerous incidents of multiple victim/single offender
paedophiles. In many cases the offender is a homosexual paedophile
(pederast) who surrounds himself with pubescent/adolescent boys. Pederasts
have a greater number of victims than heterosexual paedophiles. As the boys
grow older they are used to recruit other children for the paedophile. What
results is an organised victim group rather than an organised paedophile
group.
The NCA Report to the Australian senate
Anonymous
Gavin Wheeler wrote:
I think they all too often forget how many time they were in the
back seat of their cars rocking away, and if they could have
taken them into a toilet they would have,
Mosley Jones III
>
> "Trampus" <babyd...@postmaster.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:9c21d0$bi94j$1...@ID-60076.news.dfncis.de...
> >
> > news:nospam-2304...@pool-63.50.229.184.phnx.grid.net...
> > > In article <3AE3FEF3...@home.com>, "Theodore A. Kaldis"
> > > <kal...@home.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >James Doemer wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Just to point out ... The definition of Phobia, in this context,
is,
> > "The
> > > >> irrational fear of ..."
> > > >
> > > >Still doesn't cut it. What is called "homophobia" by the poofs and
the
> > PC
> > > >mob isn't a phobia at all, and there is nothing irrational about it.
> It
> > is
> > > >merely the natural revulsion a normal person has to the demented
> practise
> > of
> > > >homosexual behaviour.
> > >
> > > Which doesn't harm or affect you in any way. So why are you obsessed
> with
> > it?
> >
> > urinal, because he is a big boy now and doesn't always need his dad
> around,
one
> > man with his penis in the arse of another man, then it does affect me
and
> it
> > does harm my son, but not as much harm as i and the other fathers did to
> the
> > two perverts.
>
came
> out
> after seening some guy boinking his girlfriend. You're not much of a
man,
> are you?
>
Heterosexuals rarely use toilets fro sex.
but as we can see from this homosexual web site it is a way of life for
homosexuals.
http://www.cruisingforsex.com
Mosley Jones III
"SneakyPete" <grendle...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Hw1F6.2$k3....@news7.onvoy.net...
>
> "Trampus" <babyd...@postmaster.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:9c21d0$bi94j$1...@ID-60076.news.dfncis.de...
> >
> > When you send your ten or eleven year old son on his own into a PUBLIC
> > urinal, because he is a big boy now and doesn't always need his dad
> around,
> > and he comes out in fear and disgust,crying, because he has just seen
one
> > man with his penis in the arse of another man, then it does affect me
and
> it
> > does harm my son, but not as much harm as i and the other fathers did to
> the
> > two perverts.
> >
> sewer
> > service, they are not for courting queers or for acts of buggery.
> >
>
> Would have reacted in the same way?
>
>
yes but that is rare.
homosexuals admit it is a homosexual way of life to have sex in toilets
here is a homosexual web site listing all the toilets in the world for
homosexuals sex, and they are so numerous that there are 2 with in a short
walk from where I am, in Perth Western Australia ina semi rural area. I
complained to the City of Swan about them, they said their was no danger.
One week later their was a dead body found their, the police said the motive
was homosexual.
http://www.cruisingforsex.com
mhlife
"David L. Moffitt" <moff...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:9c2rua$6l86$1...@newssvr06-en0.news.prodigy.com...
____________-
(Sighhhhhhhhhhhh) - I can see that my attempt at satire was completely lost
on you.
Never mind, it's probably my fault.
Is it worth pointing out that you and I are, apparently, in agreement on the
matter of homosexuality?.......
Rob Coats
wrote:
>"Rob Coats" <rcoats[@]iinet[.]net[.]au> wrote in message
>news:sgt6ets1rlcqid40r...@4ax.com...
>
>> >Homosexuality is recognised by most major religions a grave sin.
>>
>> So. The evidence for theistice belief is about as concrete as the
>> evidence that homosexuality is a deprived subhuman act... ie. NONE.<
>
>Dunno about that. I do know that I feel Gods presence when I pray - and
>that He answers prayers (if not always in the way I demand)
This is called emotional call to subjective anecdotal evidence. I.e.
no one considers it evidence to god. Thusly, the evidence (i.e.
objective, verifiable, testable, observable evidence for god is none.
A complete LACK of evidence.)
>In the end it all come down to 'Faith' (a much maligned word) - but 'Faith'
>is more than blind belief - it is living 'entity' (for want of a better
>word) that changes lives and changes hearts.
No. Faith, it just a specialised word for belief. Belief is accepting
as true that which has no evidence. Faith is accepting god as true
which has no evidence. Not a large distinction in my view.
>That, I suppose, is why homosexuals hate it so much
Homosexuals hate it so much is because the adherants to "faith" hurl
nasty insults, and hatred towards them. I am sure I would have no love
for anything that promoted hatred towards me.
>____________________
>
>> But "eye for an eye" is okay in your book? <
>
>Strange! - you are obviously reading a different Bible than me tonight. (I
>suppose you have various translations on your book-shelves).
The "original" word of god isn't enough for you? You need further
subjective interpretaitons of fictional parables to sate you hunger
for the word of god?
>I tend to make do with the King James version - and, in that one, the Lord
>Jesus makes a point of teaching 'Render not evil for evil'
Tell me, how is the KJV book any MORE the word of god than any other
version?
>__________________
>
>Hypocrite probably means
>> absolutely nothing to you.<
>
>Obviously not as much as it does to a noted scholar like your good self.
I never said I was a noted scholar. A point to where I indeed revealed
that facet of my academic achievement would be appreciated. That still
doesn't change the fact that your faith and your words reveal you to
be a hypocrite.
>_______________
>
>> >Similarly, homosexuality is rightly recognised as a depraved and sinful
>act
>> >by these (and many other) faiths.
>>
>> People of faith are deprived subhuman elements.<
>
>Really!? - you do surprise me!. there was I thinking that Christians were
>the main influence for good in this country!. Fancy!.
What good? They lead the charge for censorship (which is a violation
of my rights and others). They lead the charge to continuing
discrimination against homosexuals. During the US civil war they
supported slavery in the south. During the medieval times they
supported witch hunts. And now, all they have left is the suppression
of the enquiring minds of the young.
So caught up in your own faith you don't even know the extent of the
damage it causes.
>____________________
>
>
> They lack the one
>> factulty that gives humans there one up in this world. Intelligence
>> and reason.<
>
>"Come, let us reason together, saith the Lord. Though your sins be as
>scarlet, yet they shall be made white as snow"
That proves absolutely nothing. Show me the logic and reason that led
you to belief in god.
>I know all about 'reason'!. More to the point, I know that God has forgiven
>my sins (which are many and awful - just ask the homosexuals on ukglb!) and
>that I have an enduring hope of eternal life, through the blood of the Lord
>Jesus Christ.
You apparently don't know a thing about reason. How is it reasonable
that an omnipotent, omniscient creator with infinite knowledge of the
past and future would care about what goes on in the bedrooms of humn
beings? While we're at reason and logic, can you support your claim
that eternal life even exists? (jesus/god/my priest said so is not a
valid argument)
>That's more than reasonable enough for me.
Then you don't know reason. YOu only know belief. And belief is NOT
reason.
>_______________
>
>
> >Logic and rationality.<
>
>Mmmmm! - I've heard of those concepts!
Ever tried employing them?
>They often flow (in quite inordinate quantities!) from the mouths of those
>who are seeking to perpetrate some obscenity, or other, on society!. The
>homosexual AOC activists tend to have such quasi-rationalistic rhetoric
>perfected.
Faith and spirituality flow from the mouths of those that have
perpetrated much greater evils against human civilisation that those
that flow from the mouths of those employing logic and rationality.
You see, from your admittance above logic and rationality have flowed
from the mouths of those seeking human rights. Faith and spirituality
flow from those who seek to take their basic human rights from them.
>My problem is that I keep coming up against the rather stern words of the
>Apostle, Paul - who noted the following comments about homosexuals in his
>letter to the Roman Christians;
>
>"For this cause God gave them (homosexuals) up unto vile affections: for
>even their women did change the natural use into that which is against
>nature:
>
How can homosexuals have "women"? I imaging the patriachal society
that gave us the bible and the men who actually wrote it weren't
talking about lesbian sex. Are you sure that passage relates to
homosexuality? I doubt it.
>And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in
>their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly,
>and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was
>meet..."
what continues after the ...?
Is this, a letter by a single man, justification for your
discriminating against all homosexuals? You have no proven without
doubt that you indeed do not employ any of logic, rationality, or
reason in your life.
>______________________________
>
>>Try using it,<
>
>Er, Pass,
*lol*
> "And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my
>people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her
>plagues"
Plagues are visited upon heathen and believer alike.
>______________
>
> you may discover a
>> wonderful thing called rational morals,<
>
>Yes, I dare say - but will it deliver me from the Plagues visited upon the
>ungodly? - that's what I want to know.
Okay, the last storm that came by.... did it miss your house?
Phone up a few british beef farmers. Find out if all those with
infected cattle are heathens, and find, if any, believers whose cattle
fell victim to the foot and mouth disease. It would indeed, be
interesing to see the results, be they in support of my suspicions or
not.
>___________________
>
>and a quirky little tool
>> called the scientific method.<
>
>Is that what you're pinning your Plague deliverance theory on?...
It has delievered far more from "plague" than belief in god ever has.
>___________________
>
> You know, the only way to discern the
>> truth about the world around us.<
>
>Yes, yes yes!! - but what about the Plagues????
What plagues? When is the last time one of these ' plagues' occured on
earth? When you find that, find out who got affected by it. Believers,
non-believers, false-believers, or all three, or a combination of the
three.
>_________________
>
>The bible certainly never taught us
>> anything of value.<
>
>(sigh) I'll resist the temptation for yet another Plaque centred reply - and
>just say that the Bible seems to have been a good basis for Judeo-Christian
>culture.
Yes, it may be a basis for judeo-christian culture, but it certainly
isn't a good grounding for any culture that wishes to be free of
intolerance, and evil.
>A culture which, I might add, has been the recipient of great Blessing.
From whom? YOu still haven't established the evidence that supports
this god of yours even exists.
>Now, you might say that other cultures are equally as good - better, even.
>This would be patently untrue - as evidenced by the singular failure of
>Shiva the multi-armed goddess, and her many contemporise, to secure similar
>blessings for her adherents in other parts of the world.
Okay. Provide statistical evidence that more miracles "things outside
the realm of natural physical possiblity" occur in christian culture
(to christian believers) than occur to adherents of Hinduism. Then
check and see the stats on wiccan. Then check to see the facts on
judaism. Then check for the stats on Islam. Then check the stats on
B'hai. Then check the stats on atheism. Then check the stats on diesm.
After you have done all that, and any other religions I failed to
mention tell me your results. And we will indeed see who has the most
rewarding faith.
>Famine, Drought, Pestilence, and (yes!) our old friend Plague, appear to be
>a harsh reward for those who show her such tireless devotion.
Could it be that they live in a country that is not exactly the top of
the world when it comes to cleanliness? But that is beside the point.
Christianity (in europe and america) has lived beside the scientific
achievement and economic achievement of great athiests and agnostics
and deists, without which the christian people would be just as worse
of as those living in the slums of india.
You don't know where to apply your praise. It is not to god, but the
diligent work of human beings to come up with medicine, better
building materials, cleaner water supplies, food storage facilities,
etc... it is not the work of god, but the work of man that has kept
such vile atrocities from visiting current civilisation in any great
number.
You are mistaking mysticism for technological advance. For instance,
the western european countries with the highest rates of atheism in
the world are just as well off than christians living in those same
countries.
>If the Gospel were not efficacious, if the Blessings of God did not flow
>from keeping His commandments, then we would all be hiding in the backs of
>trucks bound for the third world.
That is a little emotive don't you think. Could you provide the
logical steps and reasons that bought you to that conclusion?
>____________________
>
>> Do you wear cloth made with two threads? DO you work on teh sabbath?
>> You can tell me, and then you can tell me where you live so I can
>> sacrifice you to the lord as he outlines in Leviticus.
>
>Do stop producing these Chestnuts! - Christmas is long past!
They are the words of you "god". At least that is the claim.
>The 'Shellfish & Fibre' (sounds like a fad diet!) argument is routinely
>trotted out by those keen to negate the word of God, in relation to
>homosexuality.
Yes, but the claim that homosexuality was made in the same passage
(leviticus) that made the claim against shelfish & fibre. Why should
one discount those passages but not the one condemning homosexuality?
>Yes, the Old Testament 'Law' WAS superseded by the New Covenant - no doubt
>about it.
>
>Therefore, types of food, types of cloth, ceremonies and customs - they all
>became irrelevant and/or obsolete.
>
>However, the moral elements contained within the Law were both retained and
>re-enforced.
>
>Thou shalt not: Kill, Steal, Commit Adultery, Bear False Witness (I
>sincerely hope some of the ukglb 'ers are taking note of that one!) etc,
>all these commandments still stand in the New Covenant. So, also, do the
>strictures and condemnations of homosexuality.
Can you provide reference to the "stirctures" condemning homsexuality?
>_________________
>
>> Yes, and the church has been such an inspiration to the law system of
>> every country it is in.<
>
>Yes
Sarcasm is not always the best tool to employ :)
>_________________
>
>
> >From genocide, to sexism,<
>
>Well!!! - say no more!!.
>
>'Sexism'! - that appalling Crime against both God and Man!.
No, more specifically, it is usually the target of women.
> Hell is, doubtless, crammed to bursting with Sexist, Racist, Homophobic
>rogues - some of whom probably added to their (already considerable)
>torment by not being European enough!
Exactly. All of those states of moral degredation can find support in
your beloved bible. KKK is a christian organisation. I wonder why that
is?
>_____________________
>
>
> almost all kinds of
>> discrimination (blacks, homosexuals, atheists, people of other faiths
>> etc..), they are also quite good at being hypocritical and backward
>> assed.
>
>You're very Politically Correct, aren't you?
No. Politically correct is for wankers that don't know a moral system
if it jumped up and bit them in the ass. I am an individualist, and
each person is judged on their own merits.
>I predict that you will go far!
You really think so? The fate of my destiny and my self-esteem are so
heavily reliant on the praise of ignorant theists. (I jest)
>______________________
>
>
>> What is the age of consent from heterosexual sexual relationships in
>> the UK? (just wondering)
>
>16 - and, before you ask, it should be at least 18.
Okay. You think the age of consent for heterosexuals should be 18.
What do you think the age of consent for homosexuals should be?
*crossed fingers and hopes for "18"*
Cheers.
Mosley Jones III
> In article <slrn9e8hfl....@messy.ned.net>, nen...@apex.met.au
wrote:
>
with
> >> it?
> >
>
> Never said it was. Kaldis is obsessed.
>
> down quick enough.
>
> where they belonged.....
I was born black, you chose to play with other mens shit.
In 1970 the Kinsey Institute interviewed 565 white gays in San Francisco:
25% of them admitted to having had sex with boys aged 16 or younger while
they themselves were at least 21. (19)
In The Gay Report, 23% of the gays and 6% of the lesbians admitted to sexual
interaction with youth less than 16 years of age.
>
Anonymous
mhlife wrote:
> "Trampus" <babyd...@postmaster.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:9c2dei$bnvnd$4...@ID-60076.news.dfncis.de...
> >
> > "Gavin Wheeler" <gavinw...@clara.co.uk> wrote in message > >> Public
> > toilets are for the passing of urine and faeces into the public sewer
> > > >> service, they are not for courting queers or for acts of buggery.
> > > >
> > > >I guess they're not for washing one's hands, either, or blowing
> > > >one's nose.
> >
> > Handbowls are for washing the hands in, blowing ones nose can be done
> > anywhere!
> > >
> > > Or changing nappies,
> > How often do fathers need to change nappies?
> >
> > changing clothes,
> >
> > I always change my clothes at home or in a hotel bedroom, I have never had
> > occasion to change them in a Public Toilet, but if I absolutely had to do
> > it, then I would use a cubicle with the door shut!
> >
> > sheltering from the rain...
> > Try a shop doorway or a bus shelter,
> > > Yes, he has a limited imagination, we could have guessed that!
> >
> > You are the one with a limited imagination and I am not guessing!
>
> ____________
>
> Come, Trampus! - show a little charity!
>
> With just a touch of imagination, one can easily see how one's actions in a
> public lavatory could be misinterpreted by an unsympathetic observer.
You know that has happened to me, the first time I went to Thailand
I was in Planet Hollywood's rest room which was three deep to
a urinal waiting to go. Some guy comes up to me and starts swishing
my buttock, my head shaking a bit in disbelief I turn around abruptly
to see a guy with a little broom swishing away at my buttock. I yell
hey, if I want this kind of action I could go to a gay go go bar! Of
course he did not speak a word of english, and just held out his hand,
and I was not about to stick my dick in his palm, after all you never
know where its been if he swishes ass for a living. So I motioned in the
universal get the hell out of here, and damn near pissed down my leg.
Mosley Jones III
"Fenris" <nos...@emptymind.com> wrote in message
news:nospam-2304...@pool-63.50.230.45.phnx.grid.net...
wrote:
>
> >> Since homosexuality is no danger, in and of itself, to anyone, the
> >> fear of it is irrational.
> >
> >Revulsion isn't fear.
>
> When you need to be telling other people, who are presumably not like you,
> in ways which are none of your business, how revolted you are by the them
> or the things they do or which you imagine they do, then you have a
> problem.
>
In 1970 the Kinsey Institute interviewed 565 white gays in San Francisco:
25% of them admitted to having had sex with boys aged 16 or younger while
they themselves were at least 21.
In The Gay Report, 23% of the gays and 6% of the lesbians admitted to sexual
interaction with youth less than 16 years of age.
NCA report to the Australian senate on organized paedophilia
Of far greater current concern [than allegations of organised paedophile
groups] is the numerous incidents of multiple victim/single offender
paedophiles. In many cases the offender is a homosexual paedophile
(pederast) who surrounds himself with pubescent/adolescent boys. Pederasts
have a greater number of victims than heterosexual paedophiles. As the boys
grow older they are used to recruit other children for the paedophile. What
results is an organised victim group rather than an organised paedophile
group.
> --
Mosley Jones III
"Thomas P." <ton...@get2net.dk> wrote in message
news:3ae45542...@news.get2net.dk...
> On Mon, 23 Apr 2001 10:07:19 GMT, "Theodore A. Kaldis"
> <kal...@home.com> wrote:
>
> >James Doemer wrote:
> >
> >> Just to point out ... The definition of Phobia, in this context, is,
"The
> >> irrational fear of ..."
> >
>
> >Still doesn't cut it. What is called "homophobia" by the poofs and the
PC
> >mob isn't a phobia at all, and there is nothing irrational about it. It
is
> >merely the natural revulsion a normal person has to the demented practise
of
> >homosexual behaviour.
>
> being bad is that you do not like it.
>
>
In 1970 the Kinsey Institute interviewed 565 white gays in San Francisco:
25% of them admitted to having had sex with boys aged 16 or younger while
they themselves were at least 21.
In The Gay Report, 23% of the gays and 6% of the lesbians admitted to sexual
interaction with youth less than 16 years of age.
NCA report to the Australian senate on organized paedophilia
Of far greater current concern [than allegations of organised paedophile
groups] is the numerous incidents of multiple victim/single offender
paedophiles. In many cases the offender is a homosexual paedophile
(pederast) who surrounds himself with pubescent/adolescent boys. Pederasts
have a greater number of victims than heterosexual paedophiles. As the boys
grow older they are used to recruit other children for the paedophile. What
results is an organised victim group rather than an organised paedophile
group.
>
>
>
> >--
> >Theodore A. Kaldis
> > kal...@worldnet.att.net
>
> Thomas P.
>
> I always never wrote that letter.
>
>