Marriage Equality

[Gary Eickmeier]

The wordsmiths have put one over on us once again. In framing the gay
marriage debate as those who are for or against "marriage equality," the
libs have assumed the historical inevitability of something as preposterous
as gay marriage. So, for example, instead of saying that North Carolina
voted against the concept of gay marriage, they assume that gay marriage
exists, and the people have voted against the "equality" of it.

This is something like reframing the abortion issue as "pro life" vs "pro
abortion." Well, I am here to tell you that few people are actually anti
life, so "pro life" is not the point, and no one is in favor of abortion for
everyone. The issue is pro choice vs anti choice on the subject of abortion.

The language is in for a beating during the coming election season.

Gary Eickmeier

[Pablo]

Gary Eickmeier escribió:

> The language is in for a beating during the coming election season.

Is someone having an election? I know the frogs and the greckos have just
voted for spending more money that they haven't got.

"Austerity isn't working" - they have a choice?

Next time I'm broke, I'll have to try some non-austere means of getting
around it. Maybe I'll just borrow some of my neighbour's borrowed money.
That'll work. We'll call this deficit creation scheme "socialism".

--
Pablo

[graham]

"Pablo" <no...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:a0v704...@mid.individual.net...

USians haven't even a half-arsed clue on the definition of socialism.

[Pablo]

graham escribió:

>
> "Pablo" <no...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
> news:a0v704...@mid.individual.net...

>> Gary Eickmeier escribi�:

>>
>>> The language is in for a beating during the coming election season.
>>
>> Is someone having an election? I know the frogs and the greckos have just
>> voted for spending more money that they haven't got.
>>
>> "Austerity isn't working" - they have a choice?
>>
>> Next time I'm broke, I'll have to try some non-austere means of getting
>> around it. Maybe I'll just borrow some of my neighbour's borrowed money.
>> That'll work. We'll call this deficit creation scheme "socialism".
>>
> USians haven't even a half-arsed clue on the definition of socialism.

Neither have I, apart from the above.

--
Pablo

[David Dyer-Bennet]

"Gary Eickmeier" <geic...@tampabay.rr.com> writes:

> The wordsmiths have put one over on us once again. In framing the gay
> marriage debate as those who are for or against "marriage equality," the
> libs have assumed the historical inevitability of something as preposterous
> as gay marriage. So, for example, instead of saying that North Carolina
> voted against the concept of gay marriage, they assume that gay marriage
> exists, and the people have voted against the "equality" of it.

Yes, we got the good side in the language fight over this one.

It may not get fixed this year, but it'll get fixed still during my life
I'm nearly sure.

Wait, you're calling it "preposterous"? Humph. People loving each
other and wanting to formalize a life partnership is normal, natural,
ordinary; and nearly universal. Nothing preposterous about it. It's
preposterous for the state to make arbitrary rules about who may
participate.

> This is something like reframing the abortion issue as "pro life" vs "pro
> abortion." Well, I am here to tell you that few people are actually anti
> life, so "pro life" is not the point, and no one is in favor of abortion for
> everyone. The issue is pro choice vs anti choice on the subject of abortion.

I've tried to be "pro-death", but I find I can't manage to support the
judicial death penalty, at least in anything like our current judicial
system. (I'm pro-gun and pro-choice though, so I've got two out of
three.)
--
David Dyer-Bennet, dd...@dd-b.net; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

[hls]

"Gary Eickmeier" <geic...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Q5mqr.56756$XB7....@unlimited.newshosting.com...

> The wordsmiths have put one over on us once again. In framing the gay
> marriage debate as those who are for or against "marriage equality," the
> libs have assumed the historical inevitability of something as
> preposterous as gay marriage.

I dont think that, in the long run, civil rights will be regulated by
popular vote.

This should, and most likely will, end up in the Supreme Court, and then we
will see if
people in this country really have freedom and civil rights.

[Gary Eickmeier]

"hls" <h...@nospam.nix> wrote in message
news:2MidnbWVU61phDbS...@giganews.com...

What exactly do you mean by "freedom" and "civil rights"? Freedom to do
anything you please? Are there any limits to this? Polygamy? Incest? Rape?
Or does civilization have a duty to define acceptable behavior and
standards? Why do we define marriage in the first place? What is it for?

Gary Eickmeier

[Gary Eickmeier]

"David Dyer-Bennet" <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote in message
news:ylfksjf9...@dd-b.net...

> Wait, you're calling it "preposterous"? Humph. People loving each
> other and wanting to formalize a life partnership is normal, natural,
> ordinary; and nearly universal. Nothing preposterous about it. It's
> preposterous for the state to make arbitrary rules about who may
> participate.

David, go outside and turn around three times and come back in. We're
talking about two men or two women marrying each other. I now pronounce you
husband and husband - something like that.

There just seems to be something wrong with this matchup - can't put my
finger on it.

Gary Eickmeier

[graham]

"Gary Eickmeier" <geic...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message

news:S3Fqr.110483$uu4....@unlimited.newshosting.com...

>
Why do we define marriage in the first place? What is it for?
>

Well, without it, heterosexuals wouldn't be able to divorce, as they do in
huge numbers.

[Duggy]

On May 9, 2:10 pm, "Gary Eickmeier" <geick...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> This is something like reframing the abortion issue as "pro life" vs "pro
> abortion." Well, I am here to tell you that few people are actually anti
> life, so "pro life" is not the point, and no one is in favor of abortion for
> everyone. The issue is pro choice vs anti choice on the subject of abortion.

I thought it was "pro-life" vs "pro-choice".

The pro-lifers aren't against all choices and the pro-choicers aren't
pro-death.

===
= DUG.
===

[Duggy]

On May 9, 10:41 pm, Pablo <no...@nowhere.net> wrote:
> Next time I'm broke, I'll have to try some non-austere means of getting
> around it. Maybe I'll just borrow some of my neighbour's borrowed money.
> That'll work. We'll call this deficit creation scheme "socialism".

Sounds more like theft.

Socialism is bringing 5 loaves and 2 fish to a gathering, telling
everyone to share what they have and calling it a miracle.

===
= DUG.
===

[GordonD]

"Gary Eickmeier" <geic...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message

news:n8Fqr.16930$Yn4....@unlimited.newshosting.com...

If you don't like gay marriage, then don't have one.

And isn't this OT for alt.english.usage?
--
Gordon Davie
Edinburgh, Scotland

"Slipped the surly bonds of Earth...to touch the face of God."

[Bill McCray]

On 5/10/2012 6:59 AM, GordonD wrote:
> "Gary Eickmeier" <geic...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:n8Fqr.16930$Yn4....@unlimited.newshosting.com...
>>
>> "David Dyer-Bennet" <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote in message
>> news:ylfksjf9...@dd-b.net...
>>
>>> Wait, you're calling it "preposterous"? Humph. People loving each
>>> other and wanting to formalize a life partnership is normal, natural,
>>> ordinary; and nearly universal. Nothing preposterous about it. It's
>>> preposterous for the state to make arbitrary rules about who may
>>> participate.
>>
>> David, go outside and turn around three times and come back in. We're
>> talking about two men or two women marrying each other. I now
>> pronounce you husband and husband - something like that.
>>
>> There just seems to be something wrong with this matchup - can't put
>> my finger on it.
>
>
> If you don't like gay marriage, then don't have one.

If you don't like murder, don't commit one. If you don't like rape,
don't rape anyone. If you don't like child abuse, don't abuse a child.
If you don't like spouse abuse, don't abuse your spouse. Should we
make those legal?

> And isn't this OT for alt.english.usage?

I've been seeing a lot of things here lately that don't seem appropriate
for the group. Unless it deals with the use of English, you're right.

Bill in Kentucky

[GordonD]

"Bill McCray" <billm...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:jogcc6$j9q$1...@news.albasani.net...

> On 5/10/2012 6:59 AM, GordonD wrote:
>> "Gary Eickmeier" <geic...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
>> news:n8Fqr.16930$Yn4....@unlimited.newshosting.com...
>>>
>>> "David Dyer-Bennet" <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote in message
>>> news:ylfksjf9...@dd-b.net...
>>>
>>>> Wait, you're calling it "preposterous"? Humph. People loving each
>>>> other and wanting to formalize a life partnership is normal, natural,
>>>> ordinary; and nearly universal. Nothing preposterous about it. It's
>>>> preposterous for the state to make arbitrary rules about who may
>>>> participate.
>>>
>>> David, go outside and turn around three times and come back in. We're
>>> talking about two men or two women marrying each other. I now
>>> pronounce you husband and husband - something like that.
>>>
>>> There just seems to be something wrong with this matchup - can't put
>>> my finger on it.
>>
>>
>> If you don't like gay marriage, then don't have one.
>
> If you don't like murder, don't commit one. If you don't like rape, don't
> rape anyone. If you don't like child abuse, don't abuse a child. If you
> don't like spouse abuse, don't abuse your spouse. Should we make those
> legal?

No, because those don't involve two consenting adults and in each case one
party is harmed.

How does two men getting married harm *you* personally?

[Anton Shepelev]

Gordon Davie:

> How does two men getting married harm *you*
> personally?

I think that propagation of perversion harms the
whole Humanity which I am a part of. See also:

http://www.truth-and-justice.info/homosexuality.html

It is interesring that Chineeze traditional medicine
does consider homosecuality as an illness is cures
it, or pretends to.

--
() ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail
/\ www.asciiribbon.org - against proprietary attachments

[Bill McCray]

Me, personally, not at all. I just don't like the statement you gave.
Because of the forum, I think we should drop the subject.

Bill in Kentucky

[David Dyer-Bennet]

You apparently have a very limited imagination, and no knowledge of
human or natural history.

Those things that seem so weird to you are *not rare* among either
humans or animals. They are not rare; you are merely ignorant.

[David Dyer-Bennet]

Bill McCray <billm...@mindspring.com> writes:

> On 5/10/2012 6:59 AM, GordonD wrote:
>> "Gary Eickmeier" <geic...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
>> news:n8Fqr.16930$Yn4....@unlimited.newshosting.com...
>>>
>>> "David Dyer-Bennet" <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote in message
>>> news:ylfksjf9...@dd-b.net...
>>>
>>>> Wait, you're calling it "preposterous"? Humph. People loving each
>>>> other and wanting to formalize a life partnership is normal, natural,
>>>> ordinary; and nearly universal. Nothing preposterous about it. It's
>>>> preposterous for the state to make arbitrary rules about who may
>>>> participate.
>>>
>>> David, go outside and turn around three times and come back in. We're
>>> talking about two men or two women marrying each other. I now
>>> pronounce you husband and husband - something like that.
>>>
>>> There just seems to be something wrong with this matchup - can't put
>>> my finger on it.
>>
>>
>> If you don't like gay marriage, then don't have one.
>
> If you don't like murder, don't commit one. If you don't like rape,
> don't rape anyone. If you don't like child abuse, don't abuse a
> child. If you don't like spouse abuse, don't abuse your spouse.
> Should we make those legal?

One of these things is not like the other. Murder, rape, child and
spouse abuse, all harm another human being.

Letting people marry does not harm anybody.

[David Dyer-Bennet]

Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> writes:

> Gordon Davie:
>
>> How does two men getting married harm *you*
>> personally?
>
> I think that propagation of perversion harms the
> whole Humanity which I am a part of.

Too general; how does it harm *you*?

*I* think allowing you to spout this kind of nonsense harms the
newsgroup of which you are a part; but, perhaps luckily, the rule
against that isn't enforced.

[GordonD]

"Bill McCray" <billm...@mindspring.com> wrote in message

news:jogne7$ack$1...@news.albasani.net...

It wasn't intended seriously.

> Because of the forum, I think we should drop the subject.

Fine by me. This is one of those subjects where it's virtually impossible to
convert someone to your own point of view.

[Patok]

Anton Shepelev wrote:
> Gordon Davie:
>
>> How does two men getting married harm *you*
>> personally?
>
> I think that propagation of perversion harms the
> whole Humanity which I am a part of. See also:
>
> http://www.truth-and-justice.info/homosexuality.html

Anton, I'm disappointed! How can you quote this nonsensical page? It assumes
God exists, for chrissake! And in any event, they're wrong. Homosexuality has
long been proven to be an congenital condition, caused by the different
development of certain brain regions. Anybody who claims it is a lifestyle or a
voluntary choice, is a blithering ignoramus.

--
You'd be crazy to e-mail me with the crazy. But leave the div alone.
*
Whoever bans a book, shall be banished. Whoever burns a book, shall burn.

[Glenn Knickerbocker]

On 5/10/2012 10:50 AM, Anton Shepelev wrote:
> Gordon Davie:
>> > How does two men getting married harm *you*
>> > personally?
> I think that propagation of perversion harms the
> whole Humanity which I am a part of.

Even if their behavior is perversion, how does their getting married
propagate it? If anything, I'd think marriage would contain it and
*prevent* its propagation.

ŹR

[Anton Shepelev]

Glenn Knickerbocker <No...@bestweb.net>:

> > > How does two men getting married harm *you*
> > > personally?
> >
> > I think that propagation of perversion harms the
> > whole Humanity which I am a part of.
>
> Even if their behavior is perversion, how does
> their getting married propagate it? If anything,
> I'd think marriage would contain it and *prevent*
> its propagation.

How homosexuality was prevented in the past, we
know. Now with it being tolerated by the law and so
widely discussed in the media, people who have a la-
tent homosexuality get more chances of developing an
open one, and taking into account that, in spite of
what the poor site I referenced says, homosexuality
can be inherited, such policy will increase the num-
ber of homosexuals.

And I think we shall agree that homosexuality ham-
pers the natural reproduction of our species.

But you are correct that married homosexuals are
harmless in the sense that they won't pass their de-
generate traits to their progeny, but in its tran-
sient stage, bisexuality, it can propagate vertical-
ly.

[Anton Shepelev]

Patok:

> > I think that propagation of perversion harms
> > the whole Humanity which I am a part of. See
> > also:
> >
> > http://www.truth-and-justice.info/homosexuality.html
>
> Anton, I'm disappointed! How can you quote this
> nonsensical page? It assumes God exists, for

> chrissake! And in any event, they're wrong. Homo-

> sexuality has long been proven to be an congenital
> condition, caused by the different development of
> certain brain regions. Anybody who claims it is a
> lifestyle or a voluntary choice, is a blithering
> ignoramus.

Sorry for that link, I agree with only a part of it:

1. Homosexuality is unnatural.

2. It can be acquired (or elevated form a latent
state): a straight man went into jail but re-
turned a gay.

3. It creates problems with the development of
(adopted) children in homosexual fami-
lies -- two fathers without a mother and vice
versa.

As for whether the "gay gene" exists, and what the
causes of homosexuality are I'll have to dig more.

[Anton Shepelev]

David Dyer-Bennet:

> > I think that propagation of perversion harms the
> > whole Humanity which I am a part of.
>
> Too general; how does it harm *you*?

It wouldn't were I an egoist.

[Peter Duncanson (BrE)]

Some homosexual couples have children. One of the couple is the parent.
The other parent is a third person.

--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.english.usage)

[Glenn Knickerbocker]

On 5/10/2012 6:51 PM, Anton Shepelev wrote:
> taking into account that, in spite of
> what the poor site I referenced says, homosexuality
> can be inherited, such policy will increase the num-
> ber of homosexuals.
>
> And I think we shall agree that homosexuality ham-
> pers the natural reproduction of our species.

Wait, which is it, are they reproducing too much or too little?

ŹR

[Anton Shepelev]

Glenn Knickerbocker:

> > taking into account that, in spite of what the
> > poor site I referenced says, homosexuality can
> > be inherited, such policy will increase the num-
> > ber of homosexuals.
> >
> > And I think we shall agree that homosexuality
> > ham- pers the natural reproduction of our
> > species.
>
> Wait, which is it, are they reproducing too much
> or too little?

I anticipated this catch and, as I have written in
an adjacent post, bisexuality is the answer becuase
it is a transient stage from hetero- to homosexuali-
ty.

[Anton Shepelev]

Peter Duncanson:

> > But you are correct that married homosexuals are
> > harmless in the sense that they won't pass their

> > degenerate traits to their progeny, but in its
> > transient stage, bisexuality, it can propagate
> > vertically.

>
> Some homosexual couples have children. One of the
> couple is the parent. The other parent is a third
> person.

It's bisexuality then.

[Glenn Knickerbocker]

On 5/10/2012 6:51 PM, Anton Shepelev wrote:

> But you are correct that married homosexuals are
> harmless in the sense that they won't pass their de-
> generate traits to their progeny,

I wasn't talking about reproduction at all. I meant that they'd be less
likely to be out "recruiting" and encouraging all that latent
homosexuality you think is out there to be expressed.

That's another point where your argument is at odds with itself. If
you're concerned about homosexuality that's both inherited and latent,
wouldn't you want to encourage its expression so that it removes itself
from the gene pool?

ŹR

[Glenn Knickerbocker]

On 5/10/2012 7:26 PM, Anton Shepelev wrote:
> Glenn Knickerbocker:

>> Wait, which is it, are they reproducing too much
>> or too little?
> I anticipated this catch and, as I have written in
> an adjacent post, bisexuality is the answer

The answer to what? It answers nothing about how you can claim
simultaneously that homosexuals reproduce both too much and too little.

ŹR

[tony cooper]

On Thu, 10 May 2012 08:30:02 -0400, Bill McCray
<billm...@mindspring.com> wrote:

>> If you don't like gay marriage, then don't have one.
>
>If you don't like murder, don't commit one. If you don't like rape,
>don't rape anyone. If you don't like child abuse, don't abuse a child.
> If you don't like spouse abuse, don't abuse your spouse. Should we
>make those legal?

Murder, rape, and child abuse all harm someone who is not a willing
participant in the happening. Murder, rape, and child abuse all
involve an unwilling party. No one is harmed or brought into it
unwillingly by gay marriage.



--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

[tony cooper]

On Thu, 10 May 2012 23:29:42 +0000 (UTC), anto...@freeshell.de (Anton
Shepelev) wrote:

>Peter Duncanson:
>
>> > But you are correct that married homosexuals are
>> > harmless in the sense that they won't pass their
>> > degenerate traits to their progeny, but in its
>> > transient stage, bisexuality, it can propagate
>> > vertically.
>>
>> Some homosexual couples have children. One of the
>> couple is the parent. The other parent is a third
>> person.
>
>It's bisexuality then.

Isn't bisexuality an interest in both sexes? There need be no
interest in the opposite sex to either become pregnant or cause
pregnancy.

[Gary Eickmeier]

I see this discussion has gotten away from me while I was at work, and away
from the English usage aspect of the OP. Permit me to summarize and to key
off Tony's remark for my reasons for bringing it up.

"tony cooper" <tony.co...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ovooq7hhcqlvh20nt...@4ax.com...

> Murder, rape, and child abuse all harm someone who is not a willing
> participant in the happening. Murder, rape, and child abuse all
> involve an unwilling party. No one is harmed or brought into it
> unwillingly by gay marriage.

To answer this I ask you to imagine yourself as a child awakening in a
household with two dads instead of what all of your friends have, a mom and
a dad - their parents. Imagine your simple question, where did I come from?
I would love to be a fly on the wall as Adam and Steve explain the birds and
the bees to the child. Or maybe you might ask, who are you people and what
have you done with my mom?

The problem with gay "marriage" is not that they can't reproduce, it's that
they can. So to answer Tony's question, the harmed person is the child who
is brought into the world and denied one or both of his or her parents. It's
not even as civilized as polygamy, because at least with polygamy you know
that somewhere in there are your natural parents, and you can find out who
you are, your heritage and identity.

But I am ahead of myself. Why should we care how children are brought into
the world?

Imagine the beginnings of civilization. Men and women are fornicating all
over the place, having children and then the male leaving town and doing it
again. So what? Obviously, not good for the child, the mother, and
eventually society in general. We learn, we design a society in which we
require the couple to stay together for life in order to provide a stable
environment for the procreation and nurturing of the children in a FAMILY
with their PARENTS. Please pardon the shouting, just emphasizing key terms
for the cavemen who may be reading this.

So we have designed a system for all this and called it "marriage." It is
obvious what it is for and who may marry, and no one questions the intent or
reason for it for thousands of years, because there is no need to.

Suddenly, gay men and women begin coming out of the closet and identifying
themselves to society. They have "partners" and want to be seen together and
considered a part of normalcy. They look around and see the advantages of
marriage and want some of that for themselves as well.

The reason that gays cannot "marry" is that they cannot reproduce without a
third party, a party who is not a part of that "marriage." They will want
children of their own, not just adopted, and they will get them with
whatever artificial means is required, from sperm banks to egg donors to
surrogates or any combination thereof. This brings us back to the beginning,
and denies the resultant children one or both parents. I object to designing
a society like that, and so I do not want to call homosexual couples a
"marriage."

Marriage is not a loveboat or a country club for sex or devoted couples or a
benefits package. Nor does it have anything to do with religion. Marriage
is an institution of civilization for the purpose of the procreation and
nurturing of children in families with their natural parents. Human beings
are not animals who have litters. We are intelligent beings who have and
NEED an identity, a heritage, a self, a family and to know where we came
from.

Yes, shit happens to this system, but this is the DESIGN of the system and
intent of it, and a purposeful deviation from it in order to satisfy
liberals who want to be able to do anything they please is not good for our
society.

The original point was much simpler, that they were trying to slip one over
on us by assuming the existence of gay "marriage" and then trying for
"equality" of this imagined relationship to traditional marriage. North
Carolina did not decide on marriage "equality," they decided on the
definition of marriage, since that definition has been under attack by those
who have no understanding of why we have it in the first place.

Marriage is not about the adults, it is about the children that it is
designed to protect.

Gary Eickmeier

[GordonD]

"Gary Eickmeier" <geic...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message

news:ZK%qr.208457$O52.1...@unlimited.newshosting.com...

>I see this discussion has gotten away from me while I was at work, and away
>from the English usage aspect of the OP. Permit me to summarize and to key
>off Tony's remark for my reasons for bringing it up.
>
> "tony cooper" <tony.co...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:ovooq7hhcqlvh20nt...@4ax.com...
>
>> Murder, rape, and child abuse all harm someone who is not a willing
>> participant in the happening. Murder, rape, and child abuse all
>> involve an unwilling party. No one is harmed or brought into it
>> unwillingly by gay marriage.
>
> To answer this I ask you to imagine yourself as a child awakening in a
> household with two dads instead of what all of your friends have, a mom
> and a dad - their parents. Imagine your simple question, where did I come
> from? I would love to be a fly on the wall as Adam and Steve explain the
> birds and the bees to the child. Or maybe you might ask, who are you
> people and what have you done with my mom?

Which is better? A child growing up in a household with two loving parents,
both of whom happen to be male, or one in a household where the father is
abusive, comes home drunk every night and beats up the mother?

[GordonD]

"Anton Shepelev" <anto...@freeshell.de> wrote in message
news:johgqe$g9d$1...@dont-email.me...

> Glenn Knickerbocker <No...@bestweb.net>:
>
>> > > How does two men getting married harm *you*
>> > > personally?
>> >
>> > I think that propagation of perversion harms the
>> > whole Humanity which I am a part of.
>>
>> Even if their behavior is perversion, how does
>> their getting married propagate it? If anything,
>> I'd think marriage would contain it and *prevent*
>> its propagation.
>
> How homosexuality was prevented in the past, we
> know. Now with it being tolerated by the law and so
> widely discussed in the media, people who have a la-
> tent homosexuality get more chances of developing an
> open one, and taking into account that, in spite of
> what the poor site I referenced says, homosexuality
> can be inherited, such policy will increase the num-
> ber of homosexuals.
>
> And I think we shall agree that homosexuality ham-
> pers the natural reproduction of our species.

So does the priesthood.

[Peter Duncanson (BrE)]

As far as I know, artificial insemination is used. The male supplies
sperm which is then put into the intended mother.

[Anton Shepelev]

Gordon Davie:

> > And I think we shall agree that homosexuality

> > hampers the natural reproduction of our species.
>
> So does the priesthood.

Oh, no. With priesthood, there's no positive feed-
back: they're a small portion of the population who
won't have progeny, while homosexuals propagate
themselves both vertically -- by passing their bro-
ken genom -- and horisontally -- by provoking latent
homosexuals to become open ones.

Futhermore, Christianity encourages lics to create
strong traditional families and is opposing feminism
as a threat to the institute of the family.

We must face the fact that feminism is a ho-
mosexual movement in deadly competition with
heterosexuality.

(http://www.savethemales.ca/241001.html)

[Anton Shepelev]

Glenn Knickerbocker:

> > > Wait, which is it, are they reproducing too
> > > much or too little?
> >
> > I anticipated this catch and, as I have written
> > in an adjacent post, bisexuality is the answer
>
> The answer to what? It answers nothing about how

> you can claim simultaneously that homosexuals re-

> produce both too much and too little.

Yes, I have thought about it. In the beginning de-
generates produce degenerate offsping, and usually
more so than themselves, which ultimately leads to
extinction.

In this narrow context, it can be compared to the
proliferation of a disease. Say, AIDS: the more
progeny infected people produce the bigger contribu-
tion they make to the extinction of humanity. Or
see how incest first leads to abnormal offspring,
who then either give birth more abnormal offspring
or none at all, resulting in extincion, and probably
contaminating the genome of normal people on the
way.

[Anton Shepelev]

Glenn Knickerbocker:

> > But you are correct that married homosexuals are
> > harmless in the sense that they won't pass their

> > degenerate traits to their progeny,

>
> I wasn't talking about reproduction at all. I

> meant that they'd be less likely to be out "re-
> cruiting" and encouraging all that latent homosex-

> uality you think is out there to be expressed.

They would encourage their "chilren", for we know
parents are largely responsible the forming of their
children's characters, and they'd also serve an ex-
ample for others who'd indulge in sodomy without
fearing resent form the normal people, which means
that becoming an open homosexual is as simple as it
has never been. The moral norms are so slack that
some might even try it out of sheer curiosity, risk-
ing to get entrapped in perversion forever. So I
think it is the role of sexual education to turn the
sexual curiosity of the young in the right direc-
tion.

> That's another point where your argument is at

> odds with itself. If you're concerned about homo-

> sexuality that's both inherited and latent,
> wouldn't you want to encourage its expression so
> that it removes itself from the gene pool?

How would it help the removal? Bisexuals will
propagete their perversiveness via inheritance.

Futhermore, taking into account the possibility of
inheritance of acquired features:

Feig L. et al. Transgenerational rescue of
a genetic defect in long-term potentiation
and memory formation by juvenile enrichment.
The Journal of Neuroscience. # 29 (5). 4
Feb. 2009. P. 1496-1502.

-- similar to Lamark's idea, but limited to
epigenome -- it is possible that decent moral will
reduce the risk of homosexuality in children, while
indulging in perversion will increase it, and who
knows the propotion in which genome and epigenome
are responsible for homosexuality?

[Anton Shepelev]

Patok:

> Anton, I'm disappointed! How can you quote this
> nonsensical page? It assumes God exists, for
> chrissake!

That should be allright with an atheist unless the
assumption is used as main antecedent in futher con-
clusions.

[GordonD]

"Anton Shepelev" <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> wrote in message
news:20120511140723.cd9078159cd1aa52e3954b0a@g{oogle}mail.com...

> Gordon Davie:
>
>> > And I think we shall agree that homosexuality
>> > hampers the natural reproduction of our species.
>>
>> So does the priesthood.
>
> Oh, no. With priesthood, there's no positive feed-
> back: they're a small portion of the population who
> won't have progeny, while homosexuals propagate
> themselves both vertically -- by passing their bro-
> ken genom -- and horisontally -- by provoking latent
> homosexuals to become open ones.
>
> Futhermore, Christianity encourages lics to create
> strong traditional families and is opposing feminism
> as a threat to the institute of the family.
>
> We must face the fact that feminism is a ho-
> mosexual movement in deadly competition with
> heterosexuality.

So it isn't just gays you don't like, it's those uppity wimmen who don't
know their rightful place. I presume you keep a stick at home that's no
thicker than your thumb?

[Anton Shepelev]

Gordon Davie:

> So it isn't just gays you don't like, it's those
> uppity wimmen who don't know their rightful place.
> I presume you keep a stick at home that's no
> thicker than your thumb?

I hate perversion in both sexes, just as I do rude
people who swear for lack of sensible words.

[GordonD]

"Anton Shepelev" <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> wrote in message

news:20120511151403.9cba5c0466c4c07835bb3701@g{oogle}mail.com...

> Gordon Davie:
>
>> So it isn't just gays you don't like, it's those
>> uppity wimmen who don't know their rightful place.
>> I presume you keep a stick at home that's no
>> thicker than your thumb?
>
> I hate perversion in both sexes, just as I do rude
> people who swear for lack of sensible words.

I don't see any swear words in that last post.

And presumably your definition of 'perversion' is anything you don't happen
to like. So it's a circular argument.

[Anton Shepelev]

Gordon Davie:

> > > So it isn't just gays you don't like, it's
> > > those uppity wimmen who don't know their
> > > rightful place. I presume you keep a stick at
> > > home that's no thicker than your thumb?
> >
> > I hate perversion in both sexes, just as I do
> > rude people who swear for lack of sensible
> > words.
>
> I don't see any swear words in that last post.

Your whole tone was clearly insulting and evilly
sarcastic. Whatever your last sentence means, it is
is an ad hominem.

> And presumably your definition of 'perversion' is

> anything you don't happen to like. So it's a cir-
> cular argument.

You are wrong. Perversion and unnaturalness with
its consequences -- one of which is degenera-
tion -- are quite objective things existing outside
of my mind.

It is rather you who is (or are?) subjective by
calling whatever perversions people invent normal,
as per precedent, and as long as those perverts
don't do no direct, readily evident harm to others.

[tony cooper]

On Thu, 10 May 2012 23:32:40 -0400, "Gary Eickmeier"
<geic...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:

>I see this discussion has gotten away from me while I was at work, and away
>from the English usage aspect of the OP. Permit me to summarize and to key
>off Tony's remark for my reasons for bringing it up.
>
>"tony cooper" <tony.co...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:ovooq7hhcqlvh20nt...@4ax.com...
>
>> Murder, rape, and child abuse all harm someone who is not a willing
>> participant in the happening. Murder, rape, and child abuse all
>> involve an unwilling party. No one is harmed or brought into it
>> unwillingly by gay marriage.
>
>To answer this I ask you to imagine yourself as a child awakening in a
>household with two dads instead of what all of your friends have, a mom and
>a dad - their parents. Imagine your simple question, where did I come from?
>I would love to be a fly on the wall as Adam and Steve explain the birds and
>the bees to the child. Or maybe you might ask, who are you people and what
>have you done with my mom?

Where, exactly, do you think the adopted children of gay couples come
from? Happy, well-adjusted, loving relationships of heterosexuals?

If not for being adopted by a gay couple, the child would be in foster
care or some other form of government family-making. The answer to
the question of "What have you done with my mom?" might be that she's
in jail, dead from an over-dose, or departed to unknown parts.

[GordonD]

"Anton Shepelev" <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> wrote in message

news:20120511154737.0dc334685bf5ea2ef4091907@g{oogle}mail.com...

> Gordon Davie:
>
>> > > So it isn't just gays you don't like, it's
>> > > those uppity wimmen who don't know their
>> > > rightful place. I presume you keep a stick at
>> > > home that's no thicker than your thumb?
>> >
>> > I hate perversion in both sexes, just as I do
>> > rude people who swear for lack of sensible
>> > words.
>>
>> I don't see any swear words in that last post.
>
> Your whole tone was clearly insulting and evilly
> sarcastic. Whatever your last sentence means, it is
> is an ad hominem.

Good - it was meant to be insulting to a homophobe who insists people live
according to his own narrow-minded rules. And the last sentence referred to
the urban myth that it used to be acceptable for a husband to beat his wife
provided he used a stick no thicker than his thumb. But there were still no
swear words in it.

>> And presumably your definition of 'perversion' is
>> anything you don't happen to like. So it's a cir-
>> cular argument.
>
> You are wrong. Perversion and unnaturalness with
> its consequences -- one of which is degenera-
> tion -- are quite objective things existing outside
> of my mind.

No they aren't. What is acceptable to one man is a perversion to another.
Not so long ago the idea of inter-racial marriage was seen as a perversion.

> It is rather you who is (or are?) subjective by
> calling whatever perversions people invent normal,
> as per precedent, and as long as those perverts
> don't do no direct, readily evident harm to others.

Again, who is to say what is perverse? Personally I feel that chopping bits
off new-born babies is perverse but millions of Jews will disagree with me.

[Glenn Knickerbocker]

On 5/11/2012 6:07 AM, Anton Shepelev wrote:
> How would it help the removal? Bisexuals will
> propagete their perversiveness via inheritance.

Didn't you claim earlier that bisexuality was a transient phase of
homosexuality? If that's true, wouldn't encouraging fuller expression
of homosexuality make it less persistent and thereby less likely to
result in reproduction?

ŹR

[Anton Shepelev]

Gordon Davie:

> Which is better? A child growing up in a household
> with two loving parents, both of whom happen to be
> male, or one in a household where the father is
> abusive, comes home drunk every night and beats up
> the mother?

Firstly, you mustn't assume that there always is
such an ideal alternative. Secondly, I am frankly
at a loss and cannot say which I'd prefer. I'd have
to get to know all these people to decide, but a
third option -- adoption by a normal couple, or even
by a single heterosexual person -- would be certain-
ly better than your first one.

Your second option might be less destructinve for
the child because tampering with such a basic and
instinct thing as the sexual instinct at such a
small age might have a more permanent and deadly ef-
fect on his personality than family violence would.

Children raised by homosexual parents are less like-
ly to form strong normal families, and will only
spread and aggravate the disease.

A similarly difficult question would be whether it
is better for a child to be raised by his own very
poor parents and by rich forster ones. It is too
general to be answerable, and don't forget that do-
mestic violence and child abuse (including murder)
exist in rich families too, as the recent scandals
involving Americans who adopted Russian children
have shown.

[GordonD]

"Anton Shepelev" <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> wrote in message

news:20120511180134.32de9060f558ba2c6e1f7d5b@g{oogle}mail.com...

> Gordon Davie:
>
>> Which is better? A child growing up in a household
>> with two loving parents, both of whom happen to be
>> male, or one in a household where the father is
>> abusive, comes home drunk every night and beats up
>> the mother?
>
> Firstly, you mustn't assume that there always is
> such an ideal alternative. Secondly, I am frankly
> at a loss and cannot say which I'd prefer.

So you do not disapprove of wife-beating. That says a lot about you.

> I'd have
> to get to know all these people to decide, but a
> third option -- adoption by a normal couple, or even
> by a single heterosexual person -- would be certain-
> ly better than your first one.

That wasn't one of the options I offered.

> Your second option might be less destructinve for
> the child because tampering with such a basic and
> instinct thing as the sexual instinct at such a
> small age might have a more permanent and deadly ef-
> fect on his personality than family violence would.

But it would teach him that wife-beating is acceptable.

> Children raised by homosexual parents are less like-
> ly to form strong normal families, and will only
> spread and aggravate the disease.

What disease?

> A similarly difficult question would be whether it
> is better for a child to be raised by his own very
> poor parents and by rich forster ones. It is too
> general to be answerable, and don't forget that do-
> mestic violence and child abuse (including murder)
> exist in rich families too, as the recent scandals
> involving Americans who adopted Russian children
> have shown.

Heterosexual families?

[Anton Shepelev]

Gordon Davie:

> > Firstly, you mustn't assume that there always is
> > such an ideal alternative. Secondly, I am

> > frankly at a loss and cannot say which I'd pre-

> > fer.
>
> So you do not disapprove of wife-beating. That
> says a lot about you.

I did not say that, and your conclusion is totally
wrong. Such deliberate misinterpretations tell no
good about you. It is rather a matter of choice be-
tween Scilla and Charybdis, and I think that vio-
lence is a Scylla, while sexual perversion is a
Charybdis, and have already written why.

> > I'd have to get to know all these people to de-

> > cide, but a third option -- adoption by a normal

> > couple, or even by a single heterosexual per-
> > son -- would be certainly better than your first

> > one.
>
> That wasn't one of the options I offered.

Why? I neither said nor implied it was, but you
seem to ingnore the fact that life is infinitely
more complicated than the artificial and vague
dilemma you made up.

> > Your second option might be less destructinve

> > for the child because tampering with such a ba-

> > sic and instinct thing as the sexual instinct at
> > such a small age might have a more permanent and

> > deadly effect on his personality than family vi-
> > olence would.
>
> But it would teach him that wife-beating is ac-
> ceptable.

You are talking about Scilla and carelessly (or ca-
fully?) avoiding mention of Charybdis. And why are
you so sure that the child will learn what you say
and not the opposite? In my experience, it has hap-
pened the other way round as well, athough I cannot
say whether it has been more often than the other
way round because I don't have the statistics.

> > A similarly difficult question would be whether
> > it is better for a child to be raised by his own
> > very poor parents and by rich forster ones. It

> > is too general to be answerable, and don't for-
> > get that domestic violence and child abuse (in-

> > cluding murder) exist in rich families too, as
> > the recent scandals involving Americans who
> > adopted Russian children have shown.
>
> Heterosexual families?

I suppose so, and I don't see a reason to state that
with homosexual ones this would be (or is) better.
As a side note: with such reasoning heterosexuals
will soon become a sexual minority.

My whole point was to show you that what is outward-
ly good is not always inwarly so, and to warn you
against oversimplifications like your dilemma.

[Anton Shepelev]

Peter Duncanson:

> tony cooper:

>
> > Isn't bisexuality an interest in both sexes?
> > There need be no interest in the opposite sex to
> > either become pregnant or cause pregnancy.
>
> As far as I know, artificial insemination is used.
> The male supplies sperm which is then put into the
> intended mother.

Woes on woes! You are talking about compensating
for -- not curing or undoing -- one unnaturality
with another.

[David Dyer-Bennet]

"Gary Eickmeier" <geic...@tampabay.rr.com> writes:

> I see this discussion has gotten away from me while I was at work, and away
> from the English usage aspect of the OP. Permit me to summarize and to key
> off Tony's remark for my reasons for bringing it up.
>
> "tony cooper" <tony.co...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:ovooq7hhcqlvh20nt...@4ax.com...
>
>> Murder, rape, and child abuse all harm someone who is not a willing
>> participant in the happening. Murder, rape, and child abuse all
>> involve an unwilling party. No one is harmed or brought into it
>> unwillingly by gay marriage.
>
> To answer this I ask you to imagine yourself as a child awakening in a
> household with two dads instead of what all of your friends have, a mom and
> a dad - their parents. Imagine your simple question, where did I come from?
> I would love to be a fly on the wall as Adam and Steve explain the birds and
> the bees to the child. Or maybe you might ask, who are you people and what
> have you done with my mom?

Paraphrasing something I read on Facebook a while ago, a post by a
woman who'd had to face the terribly difficult prospect of having "the
talk" with a young child about a gay Uncle: "Why do Uncle Bill and John
go around together all the time?" "Because they're in love, like mommy
and daddy." "Oh. Can I have a popsicle?"

You are creating problems where none exist (yes, this example of a real
talk is not exactly the case you brought up; big deal).

> The problem with gay "marriage" is not that they can't reproduce, it's that
> they can. So to answer Tony's question, the harmed person is the child who
> is brought into the world and denied one or both of his or her parents. It's
> not even as civilized as polygamy, because at least with polygamy you know
> that somewhere in there are your natural parents, and you can find out who
> you are, your heritage and identity.

So basically, you're saying adoption is uncivilized and harms the
children? I don't think there's much evidence for this view.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, dd...@dd-b.net; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

[GordonD]

"Anton Shepelev" <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> wrote in message

news:20120511191929.5d77df5a8cd4a92affc3ed26@g{oogle}mail.com...

> Gordon Davie:
>
>> > Firstly, you mustn't assume that there always is
>> > such an ideal alternative. Secondly, I am
>> > frankly at a loss and cannot say which I'd pre-
>> > fer.
>>
>> So you do not disapprove of wife-beating. That
>> says a lot about you.
>
> I did not say that, and your conclusion is totally
> wrong.

You didn't condemn it, but I'll give you another chance. Is wife-beating
more, or less, acceptable than homosexuality?

>> > I'd have to get to know all these people to decide,

I missed that statement first time round. However without knowing the people
involved personally, you think two men marrying are perverts?

but a third option -- adoption by a normal
>> > couple, or even by a single heterosexual per-
>> > son -- would be certainly better than your first
>> > one.
>>
>> That wasn't one of the options I offered.
>
> Why?

Because it was irrelevant to the question I asked.

>> > A similarly difficult question would be whether
>> > it is better for a child to be raised by his own
>> > very poor parents and by rich forster ones. It
>> > is too general to be answerable, and don't for-
>> > get that domestic violence and child abuse (in-
>> > cluding murder) exist in rich families too, as
>> > the recent scandals involving Americans who
>> > adopted Russian children have shown.
>>
>> Heterosexual families?
>
> I suppose so, and I don't see a reason to state that
> with homosexual ones this would be (or is) better.
> As a side note: with such reasoning heterosexuals
> will soon become a sexual minority.

What reasoning? I don't follow your point.

> My whole point was to show you that what is outward-
> ly good is not always inwarly so, and to warn you
> against oversimplifications like your dilemma.

Equally what you may see as bad is not always so.

[David Dyer-Bennet]

anto...@freeshell.de (Anton Shepelev) writes:

> Glenn Knickerbocker <No...@bestweb.net>:
>
>> > > How does two men getting married harm *you*
>> > > personally?
>> >
>> > I think that propagation of perversion harms the
>> > whole Humanity which I am a part of.
>>
>> Even if their behavior is perversion, how does
>> their getting married propagate it? If anything,
>> I'd think marriage would contain it and *prevent*
>> its propagation.
>
> How homosexuality was prevented in the past, we
> know.

And we know how well it worked, and how many people it harmed.

> Now with it being tolerated by the law and so
> widely discussed in the media, people who have a la-
> tent homosexuality get more chances of developing an
> open one, and taking into account that, in spite of
> what the poor site I referenced says, homosexuality
> can be inherited, such policy will increase the num-
> ber of homosexuals.

And decrese the number of closeted unhappy people. Win!

> And I think we shall agree that homosexuality ham-

> pers the natural reproduction of our species.

Rather too much of which is taking place already.

> But you are correct that married homosexuals are

> harmless in the sense that they won't pass their de-
> generate traits to their progeny, but in its tran-
> sient stage, bisexuality, it can propagate vertical-
> ly.

Your views here do not seem to relate to reality.

[David Dyer-Bennet]

anto...@freeshell.de (Anton Shepelev) writes:

> Glenn Knickerbocker:

>
>> > taking into account that, in spite of what the
>> > poor site I referenced says, homosexuality can
>> > be inherited, such policy will increase the num-
>> > ber of homosexuals.
>> >

>> > And I think we shall agree that homosexuality
>> > ham- pers the natural reproduction of our
>> > species.
>>

>> Wait, which is it, are they reproducing too much
>> or too little?
>
> I anticipated this catch and, as I have written in

> an adjacent post, bisexuality is the answer becuase
> it is a transient stage from hetero- to homosexuali-
> ty.

That's nonsense. And was known to be nonsense back in the 50s. Read
the Kinsey report!

[David Dyer-Bennet]

Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> writes:

> Gordon Davie:
>
>> So it isn't just gays you don't like, it's those
>> uppity wimmen who don't know their rightful place.
>> I presume you keep a stick at home that's no
>> thicker than your thumb?
>
> I hate perversion in both sexes, just as I do rude
> people who swear for lack of sensible words.

Not responsive!

[David Dyer-Bennet]

anto...@freeshell.de (Anton Shepelev) writes:

> Patok:

>
>> > I think that propagation of perversion harms

>> > the whole Humanity which I am a part of. See
>> > also:
>> >
>> > http://www.truth-and-justice.info/homosexuality.html

>>
>> Anton, I'm disappointed! How can you quote this
>> nonsensical page? It assumes God exists, for

>> chrissake! And in any event, they're wrong. Homo-
>> sexuality has long been proven to be an congenital
>> condition, caused by the different development of
>> certain brain regions. Anybody who claims it is a
>> lifestyle or a voluntary choice, is a blithering
>> ignoramus.
>
> Sorry for that link, I agree with only a part of it:
>
> 1. Homosexuality is unnatural.

False. It occurs in all societies and in many animal species (and the
ones we haven't observed it in, may well be just that we haven't been
looking carefully).

> 2. It can be acquired (or elevated form a latent
> state): a straight man went into jail but re-
> turned a gay.

Complicated, but not important. Lots of times people practice
homosexual behavior in single-sex environments but do NOT continue when
returned to a normal environment. But also, people often take a while
to figure out that they are homosexual; the amount of homophobia around
no doubt helps slow down the realization.

> 3. It creates problems with the development of
> (adopted) children in homosexual fami-
> lies -- two fathers without a mother and vice
> versa.

This does not appear to be the case; very few repuatble studies even
suggest it, let alone supporting it strongly.

> As for whether the "gay gene" exists, and what the
> causes of homosexuality are I'll have to dig more.

We kind of know that -- it relates quite a lot to hormonal conditions in
the womb.

[Anton Shepelev]

Glenn Knickerbocker:

> > How would it help the removal? Bisexuals will
> > propagete their perversiveness via inheritance.
>
> Didn't you claim earlier that bisexuality was a
> transient phase of homosexuality? If that's true,

> wouldn't encouraging fuller expression of homosex-

> uality make it less persistent and thereby less
> likely to result in reproduction?

Yes, and I still do, but even this phase is not
passed momentarily, and while passing through it
those perverts will likely seduce normal people, who
otherwise wouldn't have been seduced (into bi- or
homosexuality), and will also bear abnormal chil-
dren, or normal ones who'd become abnormal through
upbringing by homosexuals. Such policy would, and
in fact I think it is already doing, shift all demo-
graphic layers: normal people(1) to latent homosexu-
als(2), latent homosexuals to open bisexuals, and so
on; it can't be isolated to only one layer, e.g.
"bisexuals beyond return" whom it is easier to turn
into homosexuals than back into normal people.

In other words, your proposal is like fighting an
epidemy by letting it kill the local population and
persish with it, but in our case it is the whole hu-
manity that will persish.
____________________

1. By normal people here I mean those in whom the
latent homosexuality is feeble enough not to be
manifest in normal conditions, for its presence
seems to be a continuous value.

2. Those in the vulnerable group, while the degree
of vulnerability is also continuous of course,
and all I can say about it is that it increases.

[Anton Shepelev]

Gordon Davie:

> Good -- it was meant to be insulting to a homo-

> phobe who insists people live according to his own
> narrow-minded rules.

How clever! Now you are automatically assuming me
being narrow-minded and yourself not, without giving
proof of either. With equal rightfulness, I can say
that you are a homophil who inisist on people living
according to your own presumably broad-minded rules.
Point. And I won't be surprised if you say that
people with views such and such are narrow-minded by
definition, instead of discussing and questioning
the views themselves.

> > You are wrong. Perversion and unnaturalness with
> > its consequences -- one of which is degenera-

> > tion -- are quite objective things existing out-

> > side of my mind.
>
> No they aren't. What is acceptable to one man is a
> perversion to another.

No, they are. Or will you, for example, defend
Hitler wanting to exterminate all Jews, on the sole
reason that it is "acceptable" to him? There exists
an objective and observable world, and the truth is
one. If to men have different opinions about a
property of this world, at least one of them is
wrong. You are so broad-minded that you let every-
body have his own moral and ideology except me, who
questions those of yours, as if accepting another's
opinion while simultaneously having a different one
is the preferred policy, which it is not becuase
that way the truth will never be found and made com-
mon knowledge.

> Not so long ago the idea of inter-racial marriage
> was seen as a perversion.

Yes, and the Earth was erroneously thought flat,
which in no way implies that with homosexuality it
is the same.

As for interracial marriages, I have heard oppposite
opinions from anthropologists and haven't crystal-
lized my own yet.

[Peter Duncanson (BrE)]

On Fri, 11 May 2012 19:24:22 +0400, Anton Shepelev
<anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> wrote:

>Peter Duncanson:
>
>> tony cooper:
>>
>> > Isn't bisexuality an interest in both sexes?
>> > There need be no interest in the opposite sex to
>> > either become pregnant or cause pregnancy.
>>
>> As far as I know, artificial insemination is used.
>> The male supplies sperm which is then put into the
>> intended mother.
>
>Woes on woes! You are talking about compensating
>for -- not curing or undoing -- one unnaturality
>with another.

That is your opinion.

[Pumpov]

Anton Shepelev wrote:

> I think that propagation  of  perversion  harms  the
> whole Humanity which I am a part of.

Yeah, gays - way off! (The Neverhood)

Mr. Pumpov

[GordonD]

"Anton Shepelev" <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> wrote in message

news:20120511200542.43580e72b9c727a76306b09b@g{oogle}mail.com...

> Gordon Davie:
>
>> Good -- it was meant to be insulting to a homo-
>> phobe who insists people live according to his own
>> narrow-minded rules.
>
> How clever! Now you are automatically assuming me
> being narrow-minded and yourself not, without giving
> proof of either. With equal rightfulness, I can say
> that you are a homophil who inisist on people living
> according to your own presumably broad-minded rules.

I don't insist on it but they should be allowed to if they wish.

>> > You are wrong. Perversion and unnaturalness with
>> > its consequences -- one of which is degenera-
>> > tion -- are quite objective things existing out-
>> > side of my mind.
>>
>> No they aren't. What is acceptable to one man is a
>> perversion to another.
>
> No, they are. Or will you, for example, defend
> Hitler

GODWIN!!!!!!!!

>> Not so long ago the idea of inter-racial marriage
>> was seen as a perversion.
>
> Yes, and the Earth was erroneously thought flat,

The Bible says it's flat, you know. If it can be wrong about that, why can't
it be wrong about homosexuality?

> As for interracial marriages, I have heard oppposite
> opinions from anthropologists and haven't crystal-
> lized my own yet.

So you are a wife-beating *racist* homophobe.

[Bill McCray]

None of you are going to convince each other of anything on a subject
such as this. Please, just drop it. I apologize for my contribution to
this thread.

Bill in Kentucky

[David Dyer-Bennet]

Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> writes:

> Children raised by homosexual parents are less like-
> ly to form strong normal families, and will only
> spread and aggravate the disease.

Why do you believe this? It's contrary to the information I've found
from vaguely serious sources.

[tony cooper]

On Fri, 11 May 2012 19:56:20 +0400, Anton Shepelev
<anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> wrote:

>Glenn Knickerbocker:
>
>> > How would it help the removal? Bisexuals will
>> > propagete their perversiveness via inheritance.
>>
>> Didn't you claim earlier that bisexuality was a
>> transient phase of homosexuality? If that's true,
>> wouldn't encouraging fuller expression of homosex-
>> uality make it less persistent and thereby less
>> likely to result in reproduction?
>
>Yes, and I still do, but even this phase is not
>passed momentarily, and while passing through it
>those perverts will likely seduce normal people, who
>otherwise wouldn't have been seduced (into bi- or
>homosexuality),

Does this ever happen? Anyone "seduced" into a homosexual encounter
is either a person experimenting or a person who isn't what you call a
"normal" person. It would be just be the first time for a person who
was consciously or unconsciously waiting for an excuse for the first
time.

[Gary Eickmeier]

How is that a talk about the birds and the bees?

>> The problem with gay "marriage" is not that they can't reproduce,
>> it's that they can. So to answer Tony's question, the harmed person
>> is the child who is brought into the world and denied one or both of
>> his or her parents. It's not even as civilized as polygamy, because
>> at least with polygamy you know that somewhere in there are your
>> natural parents, and you can find out who you are, your heritage and
>> identity.
>
> So basically, you're saying adoption is uncivilized and harms the
> children? I don't think there's much evidence for this view.

David, I don't want to impugn your intelligence, but I was not talking about
adoption. Please re-read my entire post.

Thanks,
Gary Eickmeier

[Gary Eickmeier]

Tony, I.... please see my response to David Dyer-Bennett below.

Gary

[Anton Shepelev]

Gordon Davie:

> > How clever! Now you are automatically assuming
> > me being narrow-minded and yourself not, without
> > giving proof of either. With equal rightfulness,
> > I can say that you are a homophil who inisist on
> > people living according to your own presumably
> > broad-minded rules.
>
> I don't insist on it but they should be allowed to
> if they wish.

You insist not only on its being allowed, by also
being cosidered absolutely normal, instead of, say,
allowing homosexualism but cosidering it a mental
disorder and therefore doing everything to stop its
propagation.

> > As for interracial marriages, I have heard opp-

> > posite opinions from anthropologists and haven't

> > crystallized my own yet.

>
> So you are a wife-beating *racist* homophobe.

Here you are deliberately unreasonable again. I
never said I was for wife beating, and in fact I am
severely against any man beating a woman. You seem
to imply that all male opponents of feminism want,
or consider themselves, to have a right to beat
their wives, which is, evidently, nonsense.

I said I have not yet formed my opinion, yet you
call me a racist, which means you are not only in-
tolerant to people with a differing opinion, but al-
so to those who haven't come to a conclusion yet.
The view that races differ in more than skin color
is not racism. Racism is the assumption that, due
to these differences, some race(s) have inherently
more rights than others. The ideology of the facist
Germany was a racist one, for example.

Some people are so brainwashed that they are afraid
even to utter the word "race", and consider a racist
everybody who does. Instead of open discussion and
enlightment they forbid the very mention of the mat-
ters and call it political correctness.

[Anton Shepelev]

Bill McCray:

> None of you are going to convince each other of
> anything on a subject such as this. Please, just
> drop it. I apologize for my contribution to this
> thread.

Seems so. I'll have to take a break to answer more
interesting questions from David Dyer-Bennet, and
take quite a while.

[Anton Shepelev]

I wrote

> and take quite a while.

and it may take quite a while.

[Gary Eickmeier]

Anton Shepelev wrote:

> As for interracial marriages, I have heard oppposite
> opinions from anthropologists and haven't crystal-
> lized my own yet.

Another good, honest answer. And again, I would ask how it affects the
children that come from an interracial mismatch. Are they confused as to who
they are? Does it affect them?

Gary Eickmeier

[Gary Eickmeier]

Anton Shepelev wrote:

> I said I have not yet formed my opinion, yet you
> call me a racist, which means you are not only in-
> tolerant to people with a differing opinion, but al-
> so to those who haven't come to a conclusion yet.
> The view that races differ in more than skin color
> is not racism. Racism is the assumption that, due
> to these differences, some race(s) have inherently
> more rights than others. The ideology of the facist
> Germany was a racist one, for example.
>
> Some people are so brainwashed that they are afraid
> even to utter the word "race", and consider a racist
> everybody who does. Instead of open discussion and
> enlightment they forbid the very mention of the mat-
> ters and call it political correctness.

Good, honest thoughts. I especially hate the discussion focusing on "skin
color." That is not the only difference among races, by a long shot. It is
just a convenient phrase used by the PC Police to make you sound stupid and
petty if you see any differences among the races. In addition to skin color,
there are some amazing cultural and genetic differences as well.

Nor is your preference for one race or another (to intermarry with, for
example) necessarily a "prejudice," but rather a judgement - which we are
all entitled to.

Gary Eickmeier

[tony cooper]

On Sat, 12 May 2012 03:37:52 -0400, "Gary Eickmeier"

If you are referring, then, to children that are a product of donor
sperm, are you also against that same method of conception by
heterosexual couples or single women who are unable to conceive
naturally?

It's the method of conception that affronts you?

It seems to me that the methods of child raising are far more
important than the method of conception.

[Gary Eickmeier]

"tony cooper" <tony.co...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:jjmsq7tmijqt3s9et...@4ax.com...

> If you are referring, then, to children that are a product of donor
> sperm, are you also against that same method of conception by
> heterosexual couples or single women who are unable to conceive
> naturally?
>
> It's the method of conception that affronts you?
>
> It seems to me that the methods of child raising are far more
> important than the method of conception.

Sure - if you are raised by a loving mom or moms or two dads, what
difference does it make where you came from? I sure don't care any about my
family, or who my dad was, any of that. I'm sure that the brave new world
will have sperm and egg aisles in Walmart where prospective parents can
select the race and other characteristics of their "baby" and go home with a
kit!

And who is to deny them their "baby"? They get a cute little baby, no harm
done to anyone... that I can think of....

Gary Eickmeier

[Glenn Knickerbocker]

On Fri, 11 May 2012 19:56:20 +0400, Anton Shepelev wrote:
>1. By normal people here I mean those in whom the
> latent homosexuality is feeble enough not to be
> manifest in normal conditions, for its presence
> seems to be a continuous value.

OK, so now not only do homosexuals reproduce both too much and too
little, they're also simultaneously abnormal and normal.

"It's not the size of the boat, it's Matt McIrvin" -- Joe
ŹR / http://users.bestweb.net/~notr/ny2001.html / Manfre

[Bill McCray]

I can imagine genealogists going crazy over this. Note "gene" in that word.

Bill in Kentucky

[Gary Eickmeier]

"Bill McCray" <billm...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:jomf18$dpf$1...@news.albasani.net...

>> Sure - if you are raised by a loving mom or moms or two dads, what
>> difference does it make where you came from? I sure don't care any about
>> my
>> family, or who my dad was, any of that. I'm sure that the brave new world
>> will have sperm and egg aisles in Walmart where prospective parents can
>> select the race and other characteristics of their "baby" and go home
>> with a
>> kit!
>>
>> And who is to deny them their "baby"? They get a cute little baby, no
>> harm
>> done to anyone... that I can think of....
>
> I can imagine genealogists going crazy over this. Note "gene" in that
> word.
>
> Bill in Kentucky

Sure - no problem. Imagine also web sites where prospective parents can
rent-a-surrogate. For a fee, they intermediate between loving "couples" who
"want" a baby and the surrogates, donors, and methods of conception. As for
geneology, your "parents" could be a computer list or a page on Facebook.

The important thing is that homosexuals and everyone else be able to "marry"
whomever they choose and be happy and get benefits.

Gary Eickmeier

[Daniel James]

In article <jogsto$i5h$1...@dont-email.me>, Patok wrote:
> It assumes God exists, for chrissake!

I believe that the more usually accepted view is that Christ existed
for God's sake, rather than the other way around. <smile>

It is all supposed to have happened around 2000 years ago, though, and
may have been "remembered with advantage", as Shakespeare put it.

Cheers,
Daniel.

[alien8er]

That's impossible to answer until "race" is defined. Do we go with
current predominant external characteristics of breeding groups, like
skin/hair/eye color, or what? How about their ancestors who met and
interbred to produce extant groups?

For instance, I am of German peasant stock on my mother's side
(happy Mother's day, BTW) and Portuguese on my father's side.

Go back a few dozen generations and "Germans" were many
differentiable peoples, and "Portuguese" comprised similarly different
peoples.

OTOH, back when I had my own teeth, I had what are called "shovel
teeth" with extra cusps on my incisors; they're characteristic of most
Native Americans and some Asians, indicating a Redskin in the woodpile
somewhere. Also I have hazel eyes of the symmetrical heterochromic
type (both eyes the same, color varies radially in each) indicating at
least one "racial mismatch" in my ancestry.

In the movie Stripes, Bill Murray's character makes the point that
Americans are "mutts"; that is, crossbreeds if not in genetic fact, of
the mixing and blending of immigrants' parent cultures.

I have no problem being a mutt.

I strongly suspect outright racists as well as the "undecided"
really don't want to face the fact that all living humans are mutts.
Some folks just have to be "special".


Mark L. Fergerson

[alien8er]

On May 9, 6:45 pm, "Gary Eickmeier" <geick...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> "hls" <h...@nospam.nix> wrote in message
>
> news:2MidnbWVU61phDbS...@giganews.com...
>
> > "Gary Eickmeier" <geick...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
> >news:Q5mqr.56756$XB7....@unlimited.newshosting.com...
> >> The wordsmiths have put one over on us once again. In framing the gay
> >> marriage debate as those who are for or against "marriage equality," the
> >> libs have assumed the historical inevitability of something as
> >> preposterous as gay marriage.

Historically, homosexuality has existed. Why else would so many
ancient cultures regulate/forbid it in the interest of "increasing the
tribe"?

Seems to me the human "tribe" has sufficiently increased and some non-
procreative behavior should be permissible, or even encouraged.

Besides, as has been pointed out, encouraging gay marriage takes
them out of the gene pool.

> > I dont think that, in the long run, civil rights will be regulated by
> > popular vote.

Agree.

> > This should, and most likely will, end up in the Supreme Court, and then
> > we will see if
> > people in this country really have freedom and civil rights.

I doubt that will settle the matter for many people.

> What exactly do you mean by "freedom" and "civil rights"? Freedom to do
> anything you please? Are there any limits to this? Polygamy? Incest? Rape?

Yet again, homosexual behavior between consenting adults is assumed
to be criminal (you left bestiality out of the usual litany). Why is
that?

> Or does civilization have a duty to define acceptable behavior and
> standards?

That's a very dangerous question to ask. All sorts of people will
hate on you for even daring to phrase that as a question.

Of course it does, but "acceptable" to whom?

> Why do we define marriage in the first place? What is it for?

AFAICT, establishing how much to tax people. For the life of me I
can't see *why* gays would want those disadvantages of formalized
marriage. Of course there are spousal benefits like insurance and
survivorship, but the downsides...


Mark L. Fergerson

[Anton Shepelev]

Glenn Knickerbocker:

> > By normal people here I mean those in whom the
> > latent homosexuality is feeble enough not to be
> > manifest in normal conditions, for its presence
> > seems to be a continuous value.
>
> OK, so now not only do homosexuals reproduce both

> too much and too little, [...]

I have already answered to that.

Do people with AIDS reproduce? -- Yes.
Does it lead to their extinction? -- Yes.

Do people commiting incest reproduce? -- Yes.
Does it lead to extiction? -- Yes.

And the more they reproduce, the more they con-
tribute to the extiction -- this is what I meant.

> they're also simultaneously abnormal and normal.

No, not simultaneously. The question of homosexual-
ity is a difficult one. Whether latent homosexuali-
ty exists in everyone and, given certain stimli, may
manifest itsef either as open homosexuality or as
psychological disorders like the power complex, or
there are normal, staight people, who can be seduced
and made homosexual -- my point is that encouraging
homosexuality is a bad idea, anyway.

Whether homosexuality in inherited or acquired
through upbringing by homosexual parents, or both,
homosexual marriage is a bad idea, anyway.

[David Dyer-Bennet]

Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> writes:

> Gordon Davie:
>
>> > How clever! Now you are automatically assuming
>> > me being narrow-minded and yourself not, without
>> > giving proof of either. With equal rightfulness,
>> > I can say that you are a homophil who inisist on
>> > people living according to your own presumably
>> > broad-minded rules.
>>
>> I don't insist on it but they should be allowed to
>> if they wish.
>
> You insist not only on its being allowed, by also
> being cosidered absolutely normal, instead of, say,
> allowing homosexualism but cosidering it a mental
> disorder and therefore doing everything to stop its
> propagation.

Yes. There's no evidence that you *can* stop it's propagation, and
mountains of evidence that trying does severe harm to the victims.

And no reason to consider it a "mental disorder"; it doesn't interfere
with functioning in society (although societies repressive policies can
damage the victims they're aimed at).

[Gary Eickmeier]

alien8er wrote:
> On May 12, 1:28 am, "Gary Eickmeier" <geick...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>> Anton Shepelev wrote:
>>> As for interracial marriages, I have heard oppposite
>>> opinions from anthropologists and haven't crystal-
>>> lized my own yet.
>>
>> Another good, honest answer. And again, I would ask how it affects
>> the children that come from an interracial mismatch. Are they
>> confused as to who they are? Does it affect them?
>
> That's impossible to answer until "race" is defined. Do we go with
> current predominant external characteristics of breeding groups, like
> skin/hair/eye color, or what? How about their ancestors who met and
> interbred to produce extant groups?
>
> For instance, I am of German peasant stock on my mother's side
> (happy Mother's day, BTW) and Portuguese on my father's side.
>

Right - but I don't think we're talking about German vs Portuguese.

Gary Eickmeier

[Gary Eickmeier]

alien8er wrote:

> Besides, as has been pointed out, encouraging gay marriage takes
> them out of the gene pool.

Why is that?

Gary Eickmeier

[Joel Olson]

"Gary Eickmeier" <geic...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message

news:Q5mqr.56756$XB7....@unlimited.newshosting.com...
> The wordsmiths have put one over on us once again. In framing the gay marriage
> debate as those who are for or against "marriage equality," the libs have
> assumed the historical inevitability of something as preposterous as gay

> marriage. So, for example, instead of saying that North Carolina voted against
> the concept of gay marriage, they assume that gay marriage exists, and the
> people have voted against the "equality" of it.
>
> This is something like reframing the abortion issue as "pro life" vs "pro
> abortion." Well, I am here to tell you that few people are actually anti life,
> so "pro life" is not the point, and no one is in favor of abortion for
> everyone. The issue is pro choice vs anti choice on the subject of abortion.
>
> The language is in for a beating during the coming election season.
>
> Gary Eickmeier


Saw something the other day - the biblical definition of marriage
was a man and a virgin.

[Anton Shepelev]

Gary Eickmeier:

> alien8er:

>
> > Besides, as has been pointed out, encouraging
> > gay marriage takes them out of the gene pool.
>
> Why is that?

Glenn Knickerbocker thinks that:

a. It is possible to force latent homosexuality
to be expressed as open one, instead of, say,
as supressed homosexuality, which is connected
with sadism, power complex and other mental
disorders.

b. Gay marriage will stop the homosexuals from
engaging in any heterosexual relationships and
therefore will ensure they won't have childen.

[Anton Shepelev]

I wrote:

> Glenn Knickerbocker thinks that:
> [...]

> b. Gay marriage will stop the homosexuals from
> engaging in any heterosexual relationships
> and therefore will ensure they won't have
> childen.

Some statistics:

http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02

It should have a sobering effect on gay marriage
proponents. Isn't gay marriage an oxymoron?

[Glenn Knickerbocker]

On Tue, 15 May 2012 12:18:16 +0400, Anton Shepelev wrote:
>Some statistics:
> http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02

Hoo, boy, those are some statistics, all right. Even ignoring the
improper bases for comparison, good luck finding anyone who will believe
that less than 0.3% of married women suffer violent abuse.

ŹR - At Ebay you'll find a great range of Doom
<http://users.bestweb.net/~notr/bluemoon.html>

[Anton Shepelev]

Glenn Knickerbocker:

> > Some statistics:
> >
> > http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02
>
> Hoo, boy, those are some statistics, all right.
> Even ignoring the improper bases for comparison,
> good luck finding anyone who will believe that
> less than 0.3% of married women suffer violent
> abuse.

So, the Department of Justice's report is either
terribly erroneous or impudently falsified. Which
do you think it is?

If neither, than the error can't be significant
enough to reverse the ratios, and those numbers
still quite eloquently speak for themselves. See
the full report here:

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/ipv.pdf

You said they were comparing the incomparable, where
exactly?

Other numbers, for different values though, are also
given:

The National Violence against Women Survey,
sponsored by the National Institute of Jus-
tice, found that "same-sex cohabitants re-
ported significantly more intimate partner
violence than did opposite-sex cohabitants.
Thirty-nine percent of the same-sex cohabi-
tants reported being raped, physically as-
saulted, and/or stalked by a marital/cohabi-
tating partner at some time in their life-
times, compared to 21.7 percent of the oppo-
site-sex cohabitants. Among men, the compa-
rable figures are 23.1 percent and 7.4 per-
cent.

Again, not in favour of homosexuals.

Plus the other factors analysed:

-- relationship duration
-- monogamy vs. promiscuity
-- relationship commitment
-- health risks

are all for the normal, heterosexual family.

[Glenn Knickerbocker]

On 5/15/2012 10:41 AM, Anton Shepelev wrote:
> So, the Department of Justice's report is either
> terribly erroneous or impudently falsified.

According to the Centers for Disease Control, yes, it is, drawing its
estimates from the small proportion of intimate partner violent crimes
reported. Even so, it still reports about three times the rate that the
FRC's so-called analysis cites.

> You said they were comparing the incomparable, where
> exactly?

Almost every comparison they draw is between just heterosexual marriages
and all homosexual relationships. How many other relationships has each
of those married heterosexuals had before marriage or after divorce?

ŹR

[Jerry Avins]

On 5/9/2012 9:49 PM, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
> "David Dyer-Bennet"<dd...@dd-b.net> wrote in message
> news:ylfksjf9...@dd-b.net...
>
>> Wait, you're calling it "preposterous"? Humph. People loving each
>> other and wanting to formalize a life partnership is normal, natural,
>> ordinary; and nearly universal. Nothing preposterous about it. It's
>> preposterous for the state to make arbitrary rules about who may
>> participate.
>
> David, go outside and turn around three times and come back in. We're
> talking about two men or two women marrying each other. I now pronounce you
> husband and husband - something like that.
>
> There just seems to be something wrong with this matchup - can't put my
> finger on it.

If it's same-sex marriage or nothing, then I prefer same-sex marriage. I
think that the government shouldn't perform marriages of any kind.

A government's interest lies in defining, enforcing, and perhaps
dissolving a binding contract, and in defining which privileges
accompany the obligations it imposes. Governments should issue civil
union certificates to any couple that wants one, and those who want
marriage should find a church willing to oblige.

Just as Vietnam War protesters made a tactical mistake in reviling the
American flag, gay-rights activists are making one now in rejecting
civil unions that convey all the rights of marriages.

Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

[Jerry Avins]

On 5/10/2012 10:50 AM, Anton Shepelev wrote:
> Gordon Davie:
>
>> How does two men getting married harm *you*
>> personally?
>
> I think that propagation of perversion harms the
> whole Humanity which I am a part of. See also:
>
> http://www.truth-and-justice.info/homosexuality.html

I'd be ashamed to cite that page with a recommendation. The Old
Testament calls homosexuality an abomination, right up there with the
eating of pork and shellfish. How much weight should that carry?

[Jerry Avins]

On 5/13/2012 12:53 PM, Daniel James wrote:
> In article<jogsto$i5h$1...@dont-email.me>, Patok wrote:
>> It assumes God exists, for chrissake!
>
> I believe that the more usually accepted view is that Christ existed
> for God's sake, rather than the other way around.<smile>

I believe that Man created God in his own image.

[Jerry Avins]

On 5/10/2012 6:51 PM, Anton Shepelev wrote:
> Glenn Knickerbocker<No...@bestweb.net>:

>
>>>> How does two men getting married harm *you*
>>>> personally?
>>>
>>> I think that propagation of perversion harms the
>>> whole Humanity which I am a part of.
>>

>> Even if their behavior is perversion, how does
>> their getting married propagate it? If anything,
>> I'd think marriage would contain it and *prevent*
>> its propagation.
>
> How homosexuality was prevented in the past, we
> know. Now with it being tolerated by the law and so
> widely discussed in the media, people who have a la-
> tent homosexuality get more chances of developing an
> open one, and taking into account that, in spite of
> what the poor site I referenced says, homosexuality
> can be inherited, such policy will increase the num-
> ber of homosexuals.
>
> And I think we shall agree that homosexuality ham-
> pers the natural reproduction of our species.
>
> But you are correct that married homosexuals are
> harmless in the sense that they won't pass their de-
> generate traits to their progeny, but in its tran-
> sient stage, bisexuality, it can propagate vertical-
> ly.

In other societies, both exotic and ancient, homosexuality was the norm.
Ganymede was Zeus's boy toy (and cup bearer). Adolescent Greeks had male
"mentors" until married, when they in turn has catamites

[Jerry Avins]

On 5/11/2012 6:07 AM, Anton Shepelev wrote:
> Glenn Knickerbocker:
>
>>>> Wait, which is it, are they reproducing too
>>>> much or too little?
>>>
>>> I anticipated this catch and, as I have written
>>> in an adjacent post, bisexuality is the answer
>>
>> The answer to what? It answers nothing about how
>> you can claim simultaneously that homosexuals re-
>> produce both too much and too little.
>
> Yes, I have thought about it. In the beginning de-
> generates produce degenerate offsping, and usually
> more so than themselves, which ultimately leads to
> extinction.
>
> In this narrow context, it can be compared to the
> proliferation of a disease. Say, AIDS: the more
> progeny infected people produce the bigger contribu-
> tion they make to the extinction of humanity. Or
> see how incest first leads to abnormal offspring,
> who then either give birth more abnormal offspring
> or none at all, resulting in extincion, and probably
> contaminating the genome of normal people on the
> way.

I had a vasectomy years ago and therefor fatherhood is out of the
question for me. What objection could someone find to my having sex with
a sister?

[Jerry Avins]

In some Polynesian societies, homosexuality is a respected form of
population control. The world would be a better place with half the
population it now has, and even that would be more people than there
were when I was born. If homosexuality can achieve that, great!

[Jerry Avins]

My great great grandmother was raped during a pogrom by a Cossack, and
bore my great grandfather as a result. When "Race" was asked on a form
(it doesn't seem to be any more) I would put down "Mongrel". Sadly,
nobody ever seemed to notice.

[Jerry Avins]

On 5/10/2012 11:32 PM, Gary Eickmeier wrote:

...

> Imagine the beginnings of civilization. Men and women are fornicating all
> over the place, having children and then the male leaving town and doing it
> again. So what? Obviously, not good for the child, the mother, and
> eventually society in general. We learn, we design a society in which we
> require the couple to stay together for life in order to provide a stable
> environment for the procreation and nurturing of the children in a FAMILY
> with their PARENTS. Please pardon the shouting, just emphasizing key terms
> for the cavemen who may be reading this.
>
> So we have designed a system for all this and called it "marriage." It is
> obvious what it is for and who may marry, and no one questions the intent or
> reason for it for thousands of years, because there is no need to.

Most anthropologists agree that your scenario isn't the way it happened,
and human biology supports their view. You can look this up on your own,
or I can try to help via email.

...

[alien8er]

On May 15, 2:45 pm, Jerry Avins <j...@ieee.org> wrote:
> On 5/15/2012 12:38 AM, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
>
> > alien8er wrote:
> >> On May 12, 1:28 am, "Gary Eickmeier"<geick...@tampabay.rr.com>  wrote:
> >>> Anton Shepelev wrote:
> >>>> As for interracial marriages, I have heard oppposite
> >>>> opinions from anthropologists and haven't crystal-
> >>>> lized my own yet.
>
> >>> Another good, honest answer. And again, I would ask how it affects
> >>> the children that come from an interracial mismatch. Are they
> >>> confused as to who they are? Does it affect them?
>
> >>    That's impossible to answer until "race" is defined. Do we go with
> >> current predominant external characteristics of breeding groups, like
> >> skin/hair/eye color, or what? How about their ancestors who met and
> >> interbred to produce extant groups?
>
> >>    For instance, I am of German peasant stock on my mother's side
> >> (happy Mother's day, BTW) and Portuguese on my father's side.
>
> > Right - but I don't think we're talking about German vs Portuguese.
>
> My great great grandmother was raped during a pogrom by a Cossack, and
> bore my great grandfather as a result. When "Race" was asked on a form
> (it doesn't seem to be any more) I would put down "Mongrel". Sadly,
> nobody ever seemed to notice.

"Fair warning" is cool. ;>)

When I was a kid (mid 1960's), my grade school sent me home with a
form to fill out for enrollment in Jr High. My mother sat me at the
kitchen table and had me read off the questions. When I said "Race"?
she answered "Put down 'human'". I did and got a ration of shit at
school. My mother called the school and gave them one right back. They
desisted but I suspect somebody quietly "whited us out" so to speak.

Oh, when the Census came around last year I discovered that I now
qualify as "Hispanic" due to my father's ancestry.

Stoopid government. "Mutt" was not an Allowed Choice.

I mentioned my ancestry in re: the "Godwin" call elsethread. Someone
with the name "Eickmeier" ought to be aware that "race" is defined
differently in different places at different times. Sure, the current
"race" flap in U. S. politics is polarized according to one's
epidermal melanin density, but I refuse to play a card game with only
two cards in its deck. If we're going to play that game let's get
*everybody* to understand that we're *all* mutts before the "return to
your homeland" nonsense gets started. Reductio absurdum-wise, would
all seven billion of us fit into Olduvai Gorge?

Of course, I'd rather not play at all. I am NOT defined by my
"race".

(no apology for shouting)


Mark L. Fergerson